Unfortunately, her knack for sarcasm does not benefit her when playing Karen. Plaza is known for playing sarcastic and irresponsible characters that are still extremely likeable, for they make the audience laugh. As the entire plot revolves around the Buddi doll, the movie falls rather flat.Īnother fault of the movie was the casting of Plaza. There is a bit of creative licence between turning off safety mode and murdering people, but the magic just isn’t there. This new origin story of the Buddi doll also prevents it from being as terrifying as Chucky as its agency is the direct product of his programming. Although it would move its mouth mechanically, it could never achieve a look as sinister as Chucky’s, a fact mentioned in the movie when Andy wants to use Buddi to scare his mom’s boyfriend. Due to its robotic form, the Buddi doll could not make the same facial expressions as the original possessed doll. For starters, the design of the Buddi doll, when compared to the Chucky doll from the original series, was not that creepy. However, Andy soon witnesses the power of the toy’s artificial intelligences and the murderous length it will take to protect his “best buddi”. Although Andy rejects the gift at first, claiming it to be a toy for little kids, he soon forms a bond with the robot doll. Tired single mom and supermarket attendant Karen (Aubrey Plaza) decides to take the defected toy home and give it to her teenage son Andy (Gabriel Bateman) as an early birthday gift. We then cut to Chicago, where a customer at the local supermarket is returning a Buddi doll, claiming that it isn’t functioning the way it is supposed to. A disgruntled employee manipulates the doll he had been working on, disabling its safety functions before placing it in line with the rest of the dolls to be packaged and shipped. Klevberg’s film begins in a modern-day Vietnam factory where workers are tirelessly building the hottest new toy, the Buddi doll, under poor work conditions. The turn to digital, while providing some important commentary on our increasingly digital worlds, removed the camp-factor and took itself too seriously. Lev Klevberg’s 2019 reboot of the Child’s Play franchise is an example of such a failure. Some films are just so bad or campy that they capture the hearts of audiences. To be clear, I am not referring to the elements of movies that made them great cinematic pieces of art, for a film does not have to be, for lack of a better phrase, “made well”, in order for it to be successful. Many filmmakers are not able to capture the essence and magic of an original, the thing that made the movie successful in the first place. Living in the current age of sequels, reboots and remakes, it has become evident that new is not always better.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |