@@HighSkiez and it does deliver the goods. Do you really care how you get your cheeseburger and fries, whether in a bag or on a plate, so long as you get them?
I remember seeing this movie when I was 3, my next door neighbor who was about a year older tricked me into watching it....and yeah, that toy factory scene did scare me for a very long time.
Child's Play and Child's Play 2 are horror classics and Siskel comes across as a wimp here. The films are chilling and very effective at what they are meant to convey. Small children should not be watching these movies in the first place (although I did see these films when I was under 10 years old, maybe that's why I'm a sicko).
I wouldn't call this film a classic. It was surprisingly well made for a horror sequel, but by no means a classic. Though I've found usually it's Ebert who goes for the knee Jerk reaction, and while I think Siskel is being a bit too hard on it, he's at least always consistent, where Ebert would give some movies a pass for things he'd criticize about other with no explanation. Though, then again, a critic's job is not just to say whether or not they think it is good or bad, but to in a way that is entertaining explain why and give the reader/viewer an understanding of the content to determine if they like it. And that's why Siskel and Ebert were great- at the end of the day it didn't matter if you agreed with them; you were given either on their show or articles a basic understand of what was in theaters, and what to look for.
sha11235 The point of seeing Children in danger would be based on the movie itself. I feel like some movies have kids as a target or a victim for cheap shock, but others really do make the film about "The Children". I mean, take a look at "Night of the Hunter" a brilliant, horrific rural American Fairy Tail about a Maniacal Preacher trying to murder two small children to collect a small fortune.
mrExcellent101, Now you tell me, because I remember when I was younger, although I don't remember how old I was, I remember my parents renting this on VHS, and I watched only a few parts of it, but when it got to the "beep" parts, my mother told me to cover my eyes, I even seen it on EBAY and it's worth more then it is on DVD, also I would be rolling over laughing my A** off if they ever Re-Release the 25th Anniversary of it on BLU-RAY.
Certainly more mean spirited, but by design a horror sequel is going to amp up what was set up in the previous installment. Not sure what Ebert's expectations were for a Child's Play sequel. By today's horror standards, Child's Play 2 is high art.
That's exactly how I see Childs Play 2, as "high art". Because it's so bizarrely made and entertaining that it isn't just a horror film. It's actually much more than that all around.
yeah - it's been proven in labs by Scientific Proof magazine that a movie's being rated R means it's impossible for young people to view it. something about the MPAA rating causing under-18 eyes to reject the information. it's all very scientific.
Uh.....how is his argument bs? He realizes that small children will find a way to see the movie anyway, as a good number of the commenters on here stated themselves. His statement was meant for the parents of small children who might ask to see it. Thus.
@@maskedmarvyl4774 I completely understand and agree, but he doesn't do that for every R Rated movie he sees. I understand that a movie about a doll might attract kids, but when said doll murders people, kids should be aware of that. I'm kind of contradicting my previous statement, but in short, it should be clear to anyone that it's not intended for small kids. I mean, have you SEEN the cover of CP2? It has Chucky grinning villainously while almost cutting off another toy's head!
I’ll admit the reviews were mixed on this one when it came out But it knocked Jacobs Ladder off the #1 spot at the box office It’s still one of my favorite horror sequels
The stacking of the boxes provides a maze of twist and turns that presents difficulty for the protagonists to escape and effectively builds suspense. By "well made", he is referring to the fact that the factory in the climax of the film is well designed and equally well shot.
how vilolently abusive the doll was?! what the hell did siskel expect? did he want to see chucky as a warm heated chap picking flowers to pass the time!
@cspara, I have to agree with you, because when this was in theaters, I was driving my car with my friend, we was going to the local movie theater to see this movie, when we got there, I chickened out and told my friend to go see this movie, and tell me all about it, my friend got out of my car, and went inside the theater, about an hour and a half later, my friend came back in the car, and on our way back, my friend told me that he didn't like it, he had his eyes closed at some of the parts.
My 2 fav scenes is at the factory when chuckys spell fails and he says " you little shit do u know what you've done? It's to late I've spent to much time in this body, I'm f**kin trapped in here!" ( boxes fall) chucky: what the hell!? Kyle: ANDY RUN! ( chucky ) GGGGGAAAAAHHHHH! My second is when Kyle discovers Joann dead and sitting on the bed and chucky tries to kill her! When she escapes and tries to walk out the door and chucky trips her and he says b**ch you hurt me!!! :) :) :)
Lol What a Punk he felt disturbed seriously grow a pair I was like five years old watching this and not even in the slightest bit scared. Also I turned out really good I can’t believe people used to take opinions from pansies like this.
My favorites in order are. "Child's Play" "Child's Play 2" "Bride of Chucky" "Seed of Chucky" "Child's Play 3" "Seed" was alright, but the problem was it took it to a more comical level, same with "Bride."
I think Siskel and Ebert both forgot what it's like to be a kid when they reviewed this movie. It's a scary world, especially when no one believes you because you're a kid, and I think Child's Play 2 did a great job of crafting a horror movie around that conceit.
Siskel & Ebert were godawful at their job & woefully unqualified to be film critics. They were a pair of dudes who had a very shallow, simplistic view on everything they watched, wrote movies off for trivial reasons & went out of their way to be contrary with eachother. It bugs me that they were ever a thing.
@benwasden28 I think that after Child's Play 3 the creators knew that they really couldn't expect audiences to take this premise seriously for too much longer so they decided to just let loose and make them into horror comedies that I thought were hilarious, especially Seed Of Chucky.
I'm just saying, if Ebert liked the first Child's Play, his supposed "1950's" values would have prevented him from enjoying it. He also gave Motel Hell a positive review. He gave Dawn of the Dead (78 version) four stars. Halloween was on his top ten list. The Exorcist was on his top ten list. You get my point.
Childs play 2 had some of the most memorable and lovable characters I have ever seen in a horror movie and all the characters die doing something good and personally I was led to believe that when Kyle was first revealed I thought she would die and I thought she was a bitchy teen who was very cliched but she ended up being a very lovable character and has great chemistry with Andy this is a horror movie unlike Friday the 13th,Halloween(yes Halloween I said it), and even the nightmare on elm street movies, I never once wanted any of the characters to die on child's play in the other horror movies I always was rooting for the killer so I could see a good death scene but not child's play while child's play has some of the greatest death scenes of all horror movies ever I still loved the characters too much to see them go
Augs For President don't give me it's just a movie cliche. If a person writes fiction it needs to be logical with its logic not insulting to the audience intelligence and not illogical
+Jason Case name one horror movie that's 100% logical and if you can come up with one ask yourself if it's actually good not all movies are going to have amazing logic it's a movie about a killer putting his soul into a doll and you know what it's fun and funny and scary how cares if it's not logical learn to enjoy a movie
I Remember when this movie was in theaters, my friend of mine and I was driving my car, but when we arrived at the movie theater, I chickened out, and I told my friend to see this movie, My Friend got out of my car, and went into the movie theater, about an hour and a half later, My friend came out of the movie theater, and got back in my car, and while I was driving home, my friend told me that he didn't like that movie much, he had his eyes closed on a couple of parts.
@Keeponrockin404 What do you mean "If Ebert doesn't like horror movies"? He does. Yes, horror films are supposed to be disturbing and scary, but they are also supposed to be entertaining and both and them just didn't have a lot of fun watching it.
Naw, not at all. Childs Play 2 was far more violent than 1. 1 is more original, it is after all the first of the series, and one had a more serious, calm attitude with better direction while this one was the start of the comical version of Chucky. Still, I like both of them, but they are completely different films.
"The closing sequence of Childs Play 2 inside a Toy Factory is truly horrifying, it's good film making but it made me feel unclean and disturbed as I was watching it, and I can only imagine what effect it might have on small children" Well what the fuck has that got to do with anything? This film is designed for adults. It's a horror film. It's meant to scare, shock and unsettle so then this film succeeds. The rating system/ parents are there to stop a child seeing it.
At least it's better than Bride and Seed of Chucky, which had the absence of a certain character, oh what's his name? Oh yeah...Andy Barkly! Bride and Seed weren't even close to good cause they were just the two rushed out comebacks of Chucky. And the idea of there being a remake is getting me pissed. If Hollywood is this bored of creativity that they need to bring greats like Freddy and Jason back, why don't they just make a sequel (Or in Child's Play's case, a REAL fourth movie).
I totally agreed with Siskel and Ebert. I hated "Child's Play 2". This is the one where I was barely terrorized by Chucky as a kid while watching it. I was having a horrible nightmare. I really felt sad when Andy's mother never see him again. Chucky is so a baddest villain. The story is so depressing. What a low-budget sequel. Thumbs way down for me to "Child's Play 2" . Child's Play 2 (1990) 1/4 👎👎👎👎
But if the film is disturbing, isn't that a good thing? After all, it has succeeded in what it set out to do. *Sigh* Roger sometimes I don't understand you.
It's entirely possible that a person can enjoy a first film, but finds that the sequel sucks. In fact, that seems to be the rule, rather than the exception.
If Gene Siskel was still alive, I wonder what He thinks about The Harry Potter Movies, All Three Dark Knight Movies, The Secret World Of Arrietty, Ponyo, Mars Needs Moms, All Three Alvin and The Chipmunks Movies, The Muppets, The Smurfs, The Adventures of TinTin, ect, ect, ect.
Ebert has a point, if it was a silly film, then Gene wouldn't have found it so horrible or malicious. Therefore, if this film made him feel like it was sickening and the character was abusive, etc that means it's effective and it has done its job. Therefore making this film, a well crafted film, that delivers on making you feel the way it wanted you to.
Certainly "Child's Play 2" seems tame now compared to torture porn we get now. Yes, its just a tricky thing. 1981's "Halloween 2" added a large body count and way more blood, and it was ok I thought, but nowhere as effective as JC's original. I think Romero made "Dawn of the Dead" work with its huge gore content, a big increase on "Night of..." So giving the audience more isn't always a great idea.
At the time of this film's release, they showed this to a junior high school. I remember it being in the paper and they ended up kicking it out of the school due to complaints. Can you believe a jhs showing this shit? Also, it wasn't at the time of it being in theaters, let me clear that up, it was after it had been released in theaters and it was several months later.
I can understand where Roger Ebert is coming from, and yes, there are horror films out there that are more sickening than actually being scary to be considered entertainment, but Child’s Play 2, whatever you think of it, is just a regular slasher film depicting murder, but slashers can be more than murders. It was hard for these critics to respect the film itself because of how insane and bloody it was, but you can also consider going back to the 1950s, generation of horror films. Regardless of how conservative they were, you'll be surprised that some people at the time would consider the films to be complete garbage.
A lot of sequels are retreads, but there can be a difference in how it affects you. Roger Ebert was saying this sequel was technically well-made, but was not entertaining. The first one used its premise more creatively and was entertaining. I agree. I also think the 3rd one was a bit better than the 2nd.
Ok, I just want to make one thing clear, I'm not a big fan of horror movies, but i remember i had to drive a friend of mine named Sarah, to a local movie theater to see this when it was in theaters, I had to wait in the car, while my friend, Sarah went into the theater, about an hour later, she came back, and was feeling a lil scared, and she told me that she doesn't like the movie. and i told her not to go see it.
I do sometimes have issues with Roger over remakes: I love the original "Straw Dogs" and he didn't, but he did the remake. He basically said, I've seen much more brutal and violent films since 1971 so the remake is more bearable to me now. I wish he'd go back and see the original again in that case, and give it another look to give it its due. I haven't seen the remake so I might think it better than Peckinpah's myself but I seriously doubt it.
"As a film critic, I have to say that it's good filmmaking, but as a human being, I wish I hadn't seen it. What good can come of having such foulness and ugliness pumped into your mind?" Sounds a lot like how I felt after watching the Safdie brothers' movie "Uncut Gems".
Years ago, I remember thinking these guys were too uptight about Chucky. Now, I get it. When you take away the nostalgia, you’re left with a well-made child torture film. Nothing feels good as an adult watching Andy get tortured for a second time. He’s still a baby. Far too young to deserve or even understand what’s happening to him. There’s no reward. You almost want him to die just so you don’t have to watch the abuse. It’s like watching a lamb be slaughtered, or seeing a cub be eaten by a predator just because it’s an east kill. Meh.
I can empathize with Roger a bit, because I've felt that way about other horror movies (Pet Sematary Two for one--tho I don't consider it well made, but I definitely find it sickening). But Child's Play 2? It's practically a cartoon, and really can't be taken seriously. Granted, I may be going easy on it because I'm a fan of the first three movies, but c'mon ... there are much worse movies to be getting all up in arms about, IMO.
@PowerGlove79 the first one wasn't as "needlessly violent" which is what seemed to bug Ebert about the 2nd one. In the original only 4 people die, and one one death of the four wasn't really relevant.
I wonder what they thought about Curse Of Chucky, Cult Of Chucky, Inside Out, The Good Dinosaur, Jurassic World, Tomorrowland, San Andres, Cinderella, The Peanuts Movie, Zootopia, Moana, Finding Dory, The Jungle Book, Ghostbusters (2016), Batman VS Superman Dawn Of Justice, Fantastic Beasts and where to find them, Kubo and the two strings, Suicide Squad, Star Trek Beyond, Independence Day Resurgence, Sing, The Secret Life Of Pets, Sausage Party, The Trolls Movie (2016), Kung Fu Panda 3, Wonder Woman, Logan, War For The Planet Of The Apes, etc. etc.
Uh... Yes, Ebert... this is a "HORROR" movie, if it disturbed you with it's atmosphere, effects and music it succeeded... Did you know that, mister "Best critic of all time"? Also, this is a movie for adults, it's not supposed to be for kids. If kids are retarded enough to watch a horror movie to then get scarred forever it's THEIR fault. Why the hell did Ebert even brought kids up in the first place?!? He might as well have brought them up in any other review of a horror movie!
I Remember driving to a local movie theater when this movie was in theaters with my friend, when we got to the movie theater, i chickened-out on going to see it, so my friend went into the movie theater to see it, about an hour or so later, my friend got out of the movie theater, got into my car, and i drove on home, and my friend told me that it was scarey, he had his eyes closed and ears covered all the way through the movie.
I Think That Siskel Made A Good Point, I For One Am Not A Fan Of Scarey Movies, I Remember One Time, My Friend Of Mine Named Sara, Called Me On The Phone, And Told Me That She Had Just Rented This Movie, And Would I Mind Coming Over There To Watch It, So I Went Over To Her House, And At That Time, I Didn't Like It, So I Went Into The Kitchen And Watched Some Regualer TV. But Now I Know That Scarey Movies, Are Just Pretend Movies.
I know innocent people always die in horror movies, but in this movie, it made me sad every single person who died had to die from chucky for being a good person. Everyone dies for doing a good thing.
Ebert can be stifflingly moralistic sometimes, but if you have seen the majority of his other reviews, he has revealed that he has some brilliant observations and insight into the world of cinema. I don't agree with him all the time, but I recognize that he has the innate ability to put things into perspective better than almost any other critic out there. (I used to hate him, too.) RIP Siskel.
@tommynicks, well i have to say that I don't blame siskel, because i too didn't like this movie very well, i remember a friend of mine rented this movie at a local movie rental place, and my friend invited me to watch this, and during the last two seconds of the movie, i told my friend that i was going to the other room to watch tv, and i got up and left, while my friend was still watching the movie. so i have to say i don't blame him.
If it is a frightening thriller and a well made film that means thumbs up.. Horror movies are meant to scare.. Thumbs down if it didn't scare you. Thumbs down if it's poorly made. Thumbs can't go down because it disturbed you..
If I were Ebert, I would argue with Siskel that the children in jeopardy angle is justified in this picture, Chycky wanted to possess Andy so he could live longer, before being doomed to lie in a dolls body for the rest of his short life Andy wins every time though, so I honestly can't see where the unjust nature lies here
@Cyborcat yeah I agree what illustrated it for me was that part where Chucky "Kills" the other good guy ( I think his name was Tommy) and buries him in the yard and when he does it it is taken just as If Chucky killed a live person (Music & Camera shots) Or the scene where Chucky threatens the toy company hot shot with a water pistol that to me really shows me that it's a dark comedy
I agree with Roger Ebert. I watched the movie, and I though it was very scary, but depressing. I did, however like it. The climax was very scary, but it was fun.
I think this movie affected Ebert because he liked the characters from the first movie and hated to see Andy’s situation worsen. Siskel probably forgot the first film before he reviewed it.
From the perspective of a horror film maker, Elbert's review is exactly what you'd want to hear.
You can tell he’s a really good reviewer when he says that despite his personal opinion on it he still believes it was a well-made film.
@@HighSkiez and it does deliver the goods. Do you really care how you get your cheeseburger and fries, whether in a bag or on a plate, so long as you get them?
They should've used that as a pull quote: "Sick and unwholesome - a completely malignant exercise!" - Roger Ebert
Almost like it's about a killer or something!
What Ebert describes here, whether he knows it or not, is a four star horror movie.
That depends on how sick you are to enjoy such things.
@@sm5574it’s a story. It’s either enjoyable or not.
@@renelopez4903, there are levels of enjoyment. And I can appreciate something without enjoying it.
He's complaining that a serial killing character in a slasher movie is "violently abusive", ha ha.
Yeah though they were good reviewers this is their one weakness. Its a shit film, but not for those reasons.
I actually think Child's Play 2 is a solid horror movie. Chucky is hysterical and the kills are fun.
They're an older generation, can you blame them?
@Black Narcissus You just compared Schindler's List to a porn movie and Childs' Play...
Bored Now no
"Sick and unwholesome" - I'd call that a glowing review for a horror movie!
I remember seeing this movie when I was 3, my next door neighbor who was about a year older tricked me into watching it....and yeah, that toy factory scene did scare me for a very long time.
Watch the "Siskel and Ebert" review of "Child's Play" then this one. Sounds like two different Eberts reviewed each film.
Child's Play and Child's Play 2 are horror classics and Siskel comes across as a wimp here. The films are chilling and very effective at what they are meant to convey. Small children should not be watching these movies in the first place (although I did see these films when I was under 10 years old, maybe that's why I'm a sicko).
Well, the thing is that children shouldn't see this crap to begin with. However, what is the point of anybody seeing a child in danger?
I wouldn't call this film a classic. It was surprisingly well made for a horror sequel, but by no means a classic. Though I've found usually it's Ebert who goes for the knee Jerk reaction, and while I think Siskel is being a bit too hard on it, he's at least always consistent, where Ebert would give some movies a pass for things he'd criticize about other with no explanation.
Though, then again, a critic's job is not just to say whether or not they think it is good or bad, but to in a way that is entertaining explain why and give the reader/viewer an understanding of the content to determine if they like it. And that's why Siskel and Ebert were great- at the end of the day it didn't matter if you agreed with them; you were given either on their show or articles a basic understand of what was in theaters, and what to look for.
sha11235 The point of seeing Children in danger would be based on the movie itself. I feel like some movies have kids as a target or a victim for cheap shock, but others really do make the film about "The Children".
I mean, take a look at "Night of the Hunter" a brilliant, horrific rural American Fairy Tail about a Maniacal Preacher trying to murder two small children to collect a small fortune.
mrExcellent101, Now you tell me, because I remember when I was younger, although I don't remember how old I was, I remember my parents renting this on VHS, and I watched only a few parts of it, but when it got to the "beep" parts, my mother told me to cover my eyes, I even seen it on EBAY and it's worth more then it is on DVD, also I would be rolling over laughing my A** off if they ever Re-Release the 25th Anniversary of it on BLU-RAY.
Classics for sure
It's not about how graphic the violence is. It's about the tone in which it's portrayed.
Certainly more mean spirited, but by design a horror sequel is going to amp up what was set up in the previous installment. Not sure what Ebert's expectations were for a Child's Play sequel. By today's horror standards, Child's Play 2 is high art.
That's exactly how I see Childs Play 2, as "high art". Because it's so bizarrely made and entertaining that it isn't just a horror film. It's actually much more than that all around.
The Mike and Jay of their day.
Mike may be fat, but Jay isn’t bald. How dare you
i felt "unclean and disturbed" by watching this
I don't think Roger Ebert realizes this film is rated R thus small children shouldn't be watching it thus his argument is BS.
He warns kids for seeing Jurassic Park, a PG-13 movie.
yeah - it's been proven in labs by Scientific Proof magazine that a movie's being rated R means it's impossible for young people to view it.
something about the MPAA rating causing under-18 eyes to reject the information. it's all very scientific.
Uh.....how is his argument bs? He realizes that small children will find a way to see the movie anyway, as a good number of the commenters on here stated themselves. His statement was meant for the parents of small children who might ask to see it.
Thus.
@@maskedmarvyl4774 I completely understand and agree, but he doesn't do that for every R Rated movie he sees.
I understand that a movie about a doll might attract kids, but when said doll murders people, kids should be aware of that.
I'm kind of contradicting my previous statement, but in short, it should be clear to anyone that it's not intended for small kids.
I mean, have you SEEN the cover of CP2? It has Chucky grinning villainously while almost cutting off another toy's head!
@President James L Fatty is missed by millions. You won't be.
You can kinda tell that Ebert had a soft spot for Chucky...I mean, he reviewed every single one of the Child's Play movies.
How can they expect to create a threat in a horror movie if the threat is sanitised?
I’ll admit the reviews were mixed on this one when it came out
But it knocked Jacobs Ladder off the #1 spot at the box office
It’s still one of my favorite horror sequels
I miss Gene Siskel. He was funny & brilliant.
It's funny how like 27 years ago this film was criticized but now it's a classic, LOL!
@Black Narcissus well, as long as you enjoyed it. As you stated. This was the best of the sequels along with Bride of Chucky. The rest were just ok.
The stacking of the boxes provides a maze of twist and turns that presents difficulty for the protagonists to escape and effectively builds suspense. By "well made", he is referring to the fact that the factory in the climax of the film is well designed and equally well shot.
I love how they talked to each other.
When I heard Ebert's review, I ran to the theatre.
i like all the chucky movie cus they make me laugh now but when i seen the original child's play i couldnt go to sleep that night lol
i agree it's just a dumb b-movie, but the original Child's Play definitely had a subtext worth analysing. Damn clever film.
Why is there no article-style review of this movie on his site?
All Chuckie movies make me laugh. It's just fun entertainment
1:11 well... that's why it's rated r then😂
Is there a written review from Roger Ebert of Child's Play 2? I would like to know how many stars he gave it.
how vilolently abusive the doll was?! what the hell did siskel expect? did he want to see chucky as a warm heated chap picking flowers to pass the time!
Small children? Aren't these R rated? Thats kibd of like the BBC warning parents about Doki Doki Literature Club
k cheers for replying i didnt know appart from that it was old wat did they say about friday 13
Childs play 2 is legendary
I think the best part of the movie was the final fight in that Factory.
adults philosophizing about child's play 2...
@cspara, I have to agree with you, because when this was in theaters, I was driving my car with my friend, we was going to the local movie theater to see this movie, when we got there, I chickened out and told my friend to go see this movie, and tell me all about it, my friend got out of my car, and went inside the theater, about an hour and a half later, my friend came back in the car, and on our way back, my friend told me that he didn't like it, he had his eyes closed at some of the parts.
My 2 fav scenes is at the factory when chuckys spell fails and he says " you little shit do u know what you've done? It's to late I've spent to much time in this body, I'm f**kin trapped in here!" ( boxes fall) chucky: what the hell!? Kyle: ANDY RUN! ( chucky ) GGGGGAAAAAHHHHH!
My second is when Kyle discovers Joann dead and sitting on the bed and chucky tries to kill her! When she escapes and tries to walk out the door and chucky trips her and he says b**ch you hurt me!!! :) :) :)
Lol What a Punk he felt disturbed seriously grow a pair I was like five years old watching this and not even in the slightest bit scared. Also I turned out really good I can’t believe people used to take opinions from pansies like this.
My favorites in order are.
"Child's Play"
"Child's Play 2"
"Bride of Chucky"
"Seed of Chucky"
"Child's Play 3"
"Seed" was alright, but the problem was it took it to a more comical level, same with "Bride."
Solid list
I’m confused. Did Roger like it or hated it
I think Siskel and Ebert both forgot what it's like to be a kid when they reviewed this movie. It's a scary world, especially when no one believes you because you're a kid, and I think Child's Play 2 did a great job of crafting a horror movie around that conceit.
Siskel & Ebert were godawful at their job & woefully unqualified to be film critics. They were a pair of dudes who had a very shallow, simplistic view on everything they watched, wrote movies off for trivial reasons & went out of their way to be contrary with eachother. It bugs me that they were ever a thing.
You're the one with the shallow, simplistic views
How Do They Feel about Child's Play 3 and Bride?
@darkmindedsith what makes their opinion better than mines?
@MrTimbalis Any proof?
after the first child's play the movies have gotten funny
@benwasden28 I think that after Child's Play 3 the creators knew that they really couldn't expect audiences to take this premise seriously for too much longer so they decided to just let loose and make them into horror comedies that I thought were hilarious, especially Seed Of Chucky.
I'm just saying, if Ebert liked the first Child's Play, his supposed "1950's" values would have prevented him from enjoying it. He also gave Motel Hell a positive review. He gave Dawn of the Dead (78 version) four stars. Halloween was on his top ten list. The Exorcist was on his top ten list. You get my point.
Childs play 2 had some of the most memorable and lovable characters I have ever seen in a horror movie and all the characters die doing something good and personally I was led to believe that when Kyle was first revealed I thought she would die and I thought she was a bitchy teen who was very cliched but she ended up being a very lovable character and has great chemistry with Andy this is a horror movie unlike Friday the 13th,Halloween(yes Halloween I said it), and even the nightmare on elm street movies, I never once wanted any of the characters to die on child's play in the other horror movies I always was rooting for the killer so I could see a good death scene but not child's play while child's play has some of the greatest death scenes of all horror movies ever I still loved the characters too much to see them go
Its so damn assinine that a doll that becomes more human but can return to life. That is utterly illogical
+Jason Case it's just a movie and these specific ones are made for fun and scares to me that's not a problem at all
Augs For President don't give me it's just a movie cliche.
If a person writes fiction it needs to be logical with its logic not insulting to the audience intelligence and not illogical
+Augs For President dude you copied my comment...
+Jason Case name one horror movie that's 100% logical and if you can come up with one ask yourself if it's actually good not all movies are going to have amazing logic it's a movie about a killer putting his soul into a doll and you know what it's fun and funny and scary how cares if it's not logical learn to enjoy a movie
CLASSIC part 2. Nice sequel, Karen and Mike Should have been included though!
My question is why need the ritual when in Bride of Chucky they needed that emulate?
I loved the first one but laughed at the second one.
The end was AWESOME!!
I Remember when this movie was in theaters, my friend of mine and I was driving my car, but when we arrived at the movie theater, I chickened out, and I told my friend to see this movie, My Friend got out of my car, and went into the movie theater, about an hour and a half later, My friend came out of the movie theater, and got back in my car, and while I was driving home, my friend told me that he didn't like that movie much, he had his eyes closed on a couple of parts.
@HardikG121 I think he meant the Andy character.
@Keeponrockin404
What do you mean "If Ebert doesn't like horror movies"? He does.
Yes, horror films are supposed to be disturbing and scary, but they are also supposed to be entertaining and both and them just didn't have a lot of fun watching it.
Naw, not at all. Childs Play 2 was far more violent than 1. 1 is more original, it is after all the first of the series, and one had a more serious, calm attitude with better direction while this one was the start of the comical version of Chucky.
Still, I like both of them, but they are completely different films.
"The closing sequence of Childs Play 2 inside a Toy Factory is truly horrifying, it's good film making but it made me feel unclean and disturbed as I was watching it, and I can only imagine what effect it might have on small children"
Well what the fuck has that got to do with anything? This film is designed for adults. It's a horror film. It's meant to scare, shock and unsettle so then this film succeeds. The rating system/ parents are there to stop a child seeing it.
What? Make up your mind Roger Ebert!!! "It's wholesome and sick", thats the whole point of horror films.
At least it's better than Bride and Seed of Chucky, which had the absence of a certain character, oh what's his name? Oh yeah...Andy Barkly! Bride and Seed weren't even close to good cause they were just the two rushed out comebacks of Chucky. And the idea of there being a remake is getting me pissed. If Hollywood is this bored of creativity that they need to bring greats like Freddy and Jason back, why don't they just make a sequel (Or in Child's Play's case, a REAL fourth movie).
I totally agreed with Siskel and Ebert. I hated "Child's Play 2". This is the one where I was barely terrorized by Chucky as a kid while watching it. I was having a horrible nightmare. I really felt sad when Andy's mother never see him again. Chucky is so a baddest villain. The story is so depressing. What a low-budget sequel. Thumbs way down for me to "Child's Play 2" .
Child's Play 2 (1990) 1/4 👎👎👎👎
But if the film is disturbing, isn't that a good thing? After all, it has succeeded in what it set out to do. *Sigh* Roger sometimes I don't understand you.
Ebert liked the first Child's Play. Kind of cancels out your analysis.
It's entirely possible that a person can enjoy a first film, but finds that the sequel sucks. In fact, that seems to be the rule, rather than the exception.
If Gene Siskel was still alive, I wonder what He thinks about The Harry Potter Movies, All Three Dark Knight Movies, The Secret World Of Arrietty, Ponyo, Mars Needs Moms, All Three Alvin and The Chipmunks Movies, The Muppets, The Smurfs, The Adventures of TinTin, ect, ect, ect.
Ebert has a point, if it was a silly film, then Gene wouldn't have found it so horrible or malicious. Therefore, if this film made him feel like it was sickening and the character was abusive, etc that means it's effective and it has done its job. Therefore making this film, a well crafted film, that delivers on making you feel the way it wanted you to.
What parents are taking kids younger than 13 to a Child's Play movie?
Clay3613 YOUR MUM!
just joking. Thats probably the most unimaginative joke someone could up with in response lol
True. Most parents allowed their 12 year olds to see IT (2017)
Certainly "Child's Play 2" seems tame now compared to torture porn we get now.
Yes, its just a tricky thing. 1981's "Halloween 2" added a large body count and way more blood, and it was ok I thought, but nowhere as effective as JC's original. I think Romero made "Dawn of the Dead" work with its huge gore content, a big increase on "Night of..." So giving the audience more isn't always a great idea.
I wonder what is thoughts on The Bride of Chucky.
At the time of this film's release, they showed this to a junior high school. I remember it being in the paper and they ended up kicking it out of the school due to complaints. Can you believe a jhs showing this shit? Also, it wasn't at the time of it being in theaters, let me clear that up, it was after it had been released in theaters and it was several months later.
i dont see what the big deal is. it's a good horror film.
^ Because these films were never made for kids (even though it might look like that at times).
I can understand where Roger Ebert is coming from, and yes, there are horror films out there that are more sickening than actually being scary to be considered entertainment, but Child’s Play 2, whatever you think of it, is just a regular slasher film depicting murder, but slashers can be more than murders. It was hard for these critics to respect the film itself because of how insane and bloody it was, but you can also consider going back to the 1950s, generation of horror films. Regardless of how conservative they were, you'll be surprised that some people at the time would consider the films to be complete garbage.
A lot of sequels are retreads, but there can be a difference in how it affects you. Roger Ebert was saying this sequel was technically well-made, but was not entertaining. The first one used its premise more creatively and was entertaining. I agree. I also think the 3rd one was a bit better than the 2nd.
Ok, I just want to make one thing clear, I'm not a big fan of horror movies, but i remember i had to drive a friend of mine named Sarah, to a local movie theater to see this when it was in theaters, I had to wait in the car, while my friend, Sarah went into the theater, about an hour later, she came back, and was feeling a lil scared, and she told me that she doesn't like the movie. and i told her not to go see it.
If Chucky spoke French and he was stalking poor children in the filthy slums of Malaysia (with subtitles, natch) then Siskel would have LOVED it.
I do sometimes have issues with Roger over remakes: I love the original "Straw Dogs" and he didn't, but he did the remake. He basically said, I've seen much more brutal and violent films since 1971 so the remake is more bearable to me now. I wish he'd go back and see the original again in that case, and give it another look to give it its due. I haven't seen the remake so I might think it better than Peckinpah's myself but I seriously doubt it.
"As a film critic, I have to say that it's good filmmaking, but as a human being, I wish I hadn't seen it. What good can come of having such foulness and ugliness pumped into your mind?"
Sounds a lot like how I felt after watching the Safdie brothers' movie "Uncut Gems".
Just watched it again. This movie is hilarious. Aside from part 3, they just get funnier.
Years ago, I remember thinking these guys were too uptight about Chucky. Now, I get it. When you take away the nostalgia, you’re left with a well-made child torture film. Nothing feels good as an adult watching Andy get tortured for a second time. He’s still a baby. Far too young to deserve or even understand what’s happening to him. There’s no reward. You almost want him to die just so you don’t have to watch the abuse. It’s like watching a lamb be slaughtered, or seeing a cub be eaten by a predator just because it’s an east kill. Meh.
this is my favorive chuky movie
Are these guys for real
I can empathize with Roger a bit, because I've felt that way about other horror movies (Pet Sematary Two for one--tho I don't consider it well made, but I definitely find it sickening).
But Child's Play 2? It's practically a cartoon, and really can't be taken seriously. Granted, I may be going easy on it because I'm a fan of the first three movies, but c'mon ... there are much worse movies to be getting all up in arms about, IMO.
@PowerGlove79 the first one wasn't as "needlessly violent" which is what seemed to bug Ebert about the 2nd one. In the original only 4 people die, and one one death of the four wasn't really relevant.
I wonder what they thought about Curse Of Chucky, Cult Of Chucky, Inside Out, The Good Dinosaur, Jurassic World, Tomorrowland, San Andres, Cinderella, The Peanuts Movie, Zootopia, Moana, Finding Dory, The Jungle Book, Ghostbusters (2016), Batman VS Superman Dawn Of Justice, Fantastic Beasts and where to find them, Kubo and the two strings, Suicide Squad, Star Trek Beyond, Independence Day Resurgence, Sing, The Secret Life Of Pets, Sausage Party, The Trolls Movie (2016), Kung Fu Panda 3, Wonder Woman, Logan, War For The Planet Of The Apes, etc. etc.
Uh... Yes, Ebert... this is a "HORROR" movie, if it disturbed you with it's atmosphere, effects and music it succeeded... Did you know that, mister "Best critic of all time"?
Also, this is a movie for adults, it's not supposed to be for kids. If kids are retarded enough to watch a horror movie to then get scarred forever it's THEIR fault. Why the hell did Ebert even brought kids up in the first place?!? He might as well have brought them up in any other review of a horror movie!
Siskel would say Seed Of Chucky was the best Chucky film JUST because it was self aware of it's silliness even though it's beyond ridiculous.
I Remember driving to a local movie theater when this movie was in theaters with my friend, when we got to the movie theater, i chickened-out on going to see it, so my friend went into the movie theater to see it, about an hour or so later, my friend got out of the movie theater, got into my car, and i drove on home, and my friend told me that it was scarey, he had his eyes closed and ears covered all the way through the movie.
I loved this piece of trash. Ebert needs to lighten up.
Both are a little soap boxy in this review. Ebert liked the first one. Why the change of opinion this time? Kind of contradicts himself.
How could the authorities 'not' see Chucky's bloodstains on the wall in the Barcley home?
I Think That Siskel Made A Good Point, I For One Am Not A Fan Of Scarey Movies, I Remember One Time, My Friend Of Mine Named Sara, Called Me On The Phone, And Told Me That She Had Just Rented This Movie, And Would I Mind Coming Over There To Watch It, So I Went Over To Her House, And At That Time, I Didn't Like It, So I Went Into The Kitchen And Watched Some Regualer TV. But Now I Know That Scarey Movies, Are Just Pretend Movies.
I know innocent people always die in horror movies, but in this movie, it made me sad every single person who died had to die from chucky for being a good person. Everyone dies for doing a good thing.
@PowerGlove79 Agree. I own and LOVE all 5 films.
Ebert can be stifflingly moralistic sometimes, but if you have seen the majority of his other reviews, he has revealed that he has some brilliant observations and insight into the world of cinema. I don't agree with him all the time, but I recognize that he has the innate ability to put things into perspective better than almost any other critic out there. (I used to hate him, too.) RIP Siskel.
@tommynicks, well i have to say that I don't blame siskel, because i too didn't like this movie very well, i remember a friend of mine rented this movie at a local movie rental place, and my friend invited me to watch this, and during the last two seconds of the movie, i told my friend that i was going to the other room to watch tv, and i got up and left, while my friend was still watching the movie. so i have to say i don't blame him.
If it is a frightening thriller and a well made film that means thumbs up.. Horror movies are meant to scare.. Thumbs down if it didn't scare you. Thumbs down if it's poorly made. Thumbs can't go down because it disturbed you..
@MrWackypackages, I guess that Gene Siskel said a pretty good point.
I think Gene Siskel Made a pretty good point, because I think that he doesn't like movies that put children in peril.
@cspara Roger said He could only 'imagine' the effect.
If I were Ebert, I would argue with Siskel that the children in jeopardy angle is justified in this picture, Chycky wanted to possess Andy so he could live longer, before being doomed to lie in a dolls body for the rest of his short life
Andy wins every time though, so I honestly can't see where the unjust nature lies here
@Cyborcat yeah I agree what illustrated it for me was that part where Chucky "Kills" the other good guy ( I think his name was Tommy) and buries him in the yard and when he does it it is taken just as If Chucky killed a live person (Music & Camera shots) Or the scene where Chucky threatens the toy company hot shot with a water pistol
that to me really shows me that it's a dark comedy
I agree with Roger Ebert. I watched the movie, and I though it was very scary, but depressing. I did, however like it. The climax was very scary, but it was fun.
I think this movie affected Ebert because he liked the characters from the first movie and hated to see Andy’s situation worsen. Siskel probably forgot the first film before he reviewed it.
1:22 ebert talking about disturbing imagery while his face morphs into a demon.