IMDb user comments for
Child's Play 2 (1990) More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 13:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Index

130 comments in total

---

17 out of 19 people found the following comment useful :-
Not much more than a continuation, but still a worthy sequel., 2 December 2004

Author: Michael DeZubiria (miked32@hotmail.com) from Luoyang, China

I think I liked Child's Play 2 more than most people, given the reviews that I've read and the movie's low voter rating on the IMDb. A cute kid's doll is once again the unlikely home of Charles Lee Ray, notorious serial killer, again feeding off of the surrealism created by seeing a kid's doll screw it's face into expressions of the purest rage and spouting all manner of profanities. By now, Ray is becoming more and more desperate to get out of the body of the doll, because as we were informed in the first film, if he spends too much time in that body he'll gradually become more and more human until one day he'll be stuck in it forever. Needless to say, Ray's a lot more interested in starting life over as a 6-year-old (and who wouldn't?) rather than spending the rest of his life as a plastic doll.

Although, given that he becomes more human the longer he is in that body, how human will he eventually become? Will he ever reach full human-hood? My guess is that he'll gradually approach being a real human being in a sort of half life, where he gets closer and closer and closer but never actually gets there, kind of like computer generated actors. There is currently much talk about how close computers can ever get to animating convincingly real people into the movies, and the leading theory seems to be something akin to my theory of Chucky turning human. He'll always get closer but he'll never get all the way there.

At any rate, Andy's mother has landed in a mental institution and Andy has been taken in by a foster family with appropriate mental vacuity to be a horror movie surrogate family. When Andy becomes frightened and runs through the house, his foster father grabs him and says, 'Rule #1, no running in the house!' OK, 'dad,' but not even when I open a closet and find myself confronted by the doll that landed my mom in the nuthouse and almost cost me my life and my very soul? My God, man, what the hell is this guy doing with a Good Guys doll in the house in the first place? It's difficult enough trying to figure out why it's even there WITHOUT having to watch this mental giant grab Andy by the arm and ask him what on earth is the matter.

There are some funny moments in the film, such as when Chucky smashes the head of the innocent Good Guys doll, buries it, and takes its place in the house, and my favorite, when Chucky is later addressed by a doting adult, Chucky responds by saying in his cute doll voice, 'Hi! I'm….Tommy!'

The stockholders in the Play Pal corporation are distressed over the suffering that the company has endured due to the negative publicity of the events of the first movie provide the premise for the movie's rather impressive finale. In order to generate a more positive image for the company and the doll, they have decided to reintroduce it into the market. The original Chucky doll was collected by the company and examined by toy-makers, who decided that there really was nothing truly wrong with it, it was not really a demon-possessed toy, so they decided to melt it down and remake it. Why they didn't just throw it away I'm not really sure, but who cares. Waste not, want not, I guess.

At any rate, Chucky comes back in a fresh plastic body (too bad he can't be transferred to a human as easily as he can be transferred from one doll body to another), and once again resumes his quest for Andy's soul. I've heard complaints about why Chucky had to go after Andy and couldn't just find a bum on the street or something, but you'll remember in the first movie, the conditions of his plastic entrapment stated that he could only transfer into the body of the first person that he revealed his identity to once he was inside the Chucky doll.

Jarrett Friend, writing for HorrorWatch, made the above suggestion having forgotten that little stipulation, but also smartly suggested that the plot should have involved a huge number of Chucky dolls, since the original doll was melted down and whose plastic conceivably should have infected much more dolls than just the one that we saw in this movie. This would have made the movie much more interesting and added another level of originality; my guess is they just didn't have the budget for something that big.

Nevertheless, even though the first sequel in the Child's play series comes dangerously close to falling into that sophomore sequel chasm of falling flat because of obviously feeding off the success of its predecessor without having much of anything to add to the story, Child's Play 2 escapes into the world of moderately acceptable horror sequels, kind of like Psycho II, which had no hope of matching its predecessor but at least was able to justify its own existence.

I think it's easy to be put off by the conclusion of Child's Play 2, but I was pretty impressed with the toy factory setting, if only because it created such a great atmosphere for Chucky to make his hunt and Andy and his foster sister Kyle to try vainly to escape. There was some pretty clever stuff in the final act of the film, not including, however, the scene where Kyle and Andy run around completely lost, making the factory seem like a maze by editing together a lot of clips of them clearly running around the same corner half a dozen times or so. A bit trite, but nothing compared to my biggest gripe of the film, which is the final scene, one of the goofier things that I've seen on an otherwise at least moderately competent horror movie.

Odd for a movie to try so hard to live up to its expectations and then belittle itself with something like what I'll just call the air hose scene. I do, however, think that the movie was successful and good enough to deserve a better DVD than it got. I can't stand it when the only extra features on the DVD for a successful film are nothing but some foreign audio tracks and cast and crew history that is nothing more than a brief biography and a list of film credits. What do you think the IMDb is for?

---

17 out of 20 people found the following comment useful :-
Sorry Jack, Chucky's back!, 2 April 1999

Author: Shawn Watson (gator_macready@yahoo.com) from The Underverse

Universal must have realized the potential this franchise had and quickly snapped up the rights from MGM after the first movie came out. Writer Don Mancini also must have figured out that his creation of a foul-mouthed killer doll was too good for just one film. The Chucky series would seriously evolve and change over the years but even in this first sequel things are already looking quite different.

Now that the cat is out of the bag and we know that Chucky really is alive and it isn't just Andy's imagination, our killer doll gets much more screen time and his wicked personality has more time to develop. The animatronics have improved and a lot of Chucky's character comes through in his wild facial expressions.

Director John Lafia shoots the film with a bright, playroom color pallet with a higher quality film stock, giving it a more sophisticated sparkle. He's also fully aware of how silly the killer doll concept is and seizes the opportunity for a little bit of that self-aware, sometimes sarcastic humor seen in the later films.

Graeme Revell usually does the most generic horror scores, especially in recent years, but surprisingly he gives Child's Play 2 the best score of the series. With a full orchestra at his disposal, he doesn't hold back on the action cues and even delivers a couple of pretty good themes. So much better than the rotten score to the first film and probably one of the best horror scores of the early 90s.

There isn't much of a story to Child's Play 2 however. It's just the same as the first, with Chucky going after Andy, who is now staying with a foster family, once more. The body count is higher and there are some good kills. I've heard people complain about the 'silly' spanking death of the schoolteacher. Well, this ain't true. Chucky is actually hacking at her. If you look closely you'll see the blood all over the yardstick.

The slick quality and silly nature of CH2 is probably what prompted Universal to stick with the franchise for good and 15 years later the Chucky films are still coming out. To think that if MGM held on to the rights, we may never have had them.

---

11 out of 13 people found the following comment useful :-
Chucky continues his psychotic carnage!, 21 February 2004

Author: Scott LeBrun from Winnipeg, Canada

Andy Barclay (Alex Vincent) the young would-be victim of the first "Child's Play", is now boarding with foster parents. Unfortunately, the Chucky doll from the first movie is resurrected (because the company that makes the Good Guys dolls wants to dispel the negative publicity) but we all already know what a stupid decision that will be. Chucky tracks poor Andy down and proceeds to slaughter everybody in his way as he attempts once again to transfer his soul to the boy's body.

Chucky is truly one of the nastiest, most foul and evil, snarling little psychopathic villains of slasher cinema. While it is unpleasant in one sense to spend (movie) time with such a demonic little creep, I can't help but be amused. The movie itself is mean-spirited, and the script is often improbable and full of holes, but overall it is also slick, reasonably well acted, and entertaining in the usual visceral manner.

Once again, kudos to the creators / designers of all Chucky effects, and to Brad Dourif for giving such a fine vocal performance. Few actors are as good as he is at playing such rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth psychopaths (of course, this has also hurt his career, since he has often been the victim of typecasting).

Definitely far more amusing than scary - like I said, it's not really that GOOD, but it IS entertaining.

8/10

---

7 out of 9 people found the following comment useful :-
Creepy follow-up, 20 July 2001

Author: jhaggardjr from Chicago, Illinois

"Child's Play 2" is the first sequel to the popular 1988 original. The first film was a very entertaining horror film. The second movie in the series isn't as good, but it's not real bad either. However, the filmmakers took the gory route for this one. All the graphic violence makes it less effective. The first movie worked so well because it kept the violence down to a minimal. Oh the first film was violent, but not as violent as this one. But it's stylish look somehow makes it watchable. And, like the original, it's entertaining to watch. Young Alex Vincent reprises his role from the original as Andy Barclay, the boy who in this movie goes to live with foster parents while his mother seeks psychiatric help (from the events in "Child's Play"). Andy himself still isn't all together, and when Chucky the killer doll re-enters his life again, watch out! "Child's Play 2" may not be as good as "Child's Play", but it sure is better than the next movie in the series, "Child's Play 3" (which I thought was awful). I haven't seen the fourth movie yet ("Bride of Chucky"), so I can't voice my opinion on that one at the moment.

**1/2 (out of four)

---

3 out of 3 people found the following comment useful :-
Execellent conclusion to entertaining sequel, 26 May 2005
Author: slayrrr666 (slayrrr666@yahoo.com) from Los Angeles, Ca

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

"Child's Play 2" isn't a terribly bad sequel, and is actually pretty good.

**SPOILERS**

A new Chucky doll is created, using the mold from the previous doll as a base to create it. Its new creators are insistent that Chucky be covered up to protect their image. Andy Barclay, (Alex Vincent) is now is foster care with the Simpsons, Joanne, (Jenny Agutter) husband Phil, (Geritt Graham) and foster child Kyle. (Christine Elise) As Chucky finds Andy with his new family, Andy begins to form a brother/sister relationship with Kyle while Phil begins to wonder about Andy's sanity. As Chucky follows Andy to school, he kills his teacher and sets up Andy as the culprit. Worried that it is indeed Chucky doing the killing, Andy tries to convince Phil and Joanne that it's not him, but only Kyle believes him. Once they both know for sure, they try to tell their parents, but Chucky has killed them both. As Joanne tries to get Andy away from Chucky, he trails them to the warehouse where he was created for the final showdown.

The Good News: The good thing about this movie is that it did the great plot point of keeping everyone in the loop about Chucky until the final revelation. It is essentially the same thing as before, which adds a lot to the "is Chucky really alive" subplot of the film. This also drives a few key subplots, which add to the suspense of the film. Everyone knows of the fact that Chucky's alive, but since no one in the film knows it's him, his appearances everywhere give a real shock. There are a few good jumps in the film and some real genuine suspense scenes. Chucky stalking the members of the family in the home, and especially the scenes in the basement, are classic stalking scenes in a dark area with lots of spots for the killer to hide in. I love these kinds of scenes, and this one has plenty of them. For all that, the real highlight is the concluding half-hour, which takes place in the warehouse where Chucky was first created. With an action-packed conclusion, more great stalking scenes, a great gory death, tons of jumps, and even a few really great false killer deaths, this is a real highlight and is one of the greatest sequences in horror history. It's a great, long sequence that will clearly entertain any horror fan, as they will be exposed to an extended sequence that contains everything great about the genre. With lots of intriguing ideas and flawless execution, the conclusion of the movie is probably one of the greatest sequences in the series.

The Bad News: Because of the opening of the movie is pretty much a repeat of the opening of the first one, it can be a little repetitive to some. The logic of once again being forced to believe that no one other than Andy knows that Chucky's alive and killing can be a bit much for some people. Other than one really great kill near the end of the movie, there are really no good kill scenes. This series is known for a lot of good kills, and this one only has the one, which is a great kill and looks good, but it is let down because of no other good kill.

The Final Verdict: With a few minor complaints, this is a great entry in the series and isn't all that a bad horror film in general. Fans will no doubt be very pleased and entertained with the film, though others may be a bit put off because it really screws with logic and isn't the all around classic of the original.

Rated R: Graphic Violence and Graphic Language

---

3 out of 3 people found the following comment useful :-
A good entry, worth a look!, 27 April 2005
Author: Prolox from Canada

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

After escaping his evil good guy doll's clutches in the last installment, young ANDY BARCLAY is put in the care of a foster family, but when the company that make's the good guy dolls resumes production, they accidentally resurrect the evil Chucky, who goes in pursuit of Andy, once again hoping to transfer his evil soul in Andy's body, leaving a string of bodies in his wake. Although it lacks the edge of the previous entry, CHILD'S PLAY 2 is still a lot of fun, the acting & directing were well done, not to mention the sometimes sick, but hilarious jokes Chucky spews out & the kills are still pretty inventive, the ending is especially suspenseful but really bloody & gooey, so if you're looking for a good horror movie I advise you give it a look, no it's really not that scary, but it sure is entertaining. But make sure you see the first film before seeing this one, or you might be confused. Followed by another sequel, CHILD's PLAY 3

*** (stars)

---

4 out of 5 people found the following comment useful :-
Great Horror Fare!, 24 July 2006

Author: jonathon_naylor from Manitoba, Canada

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

It's difficult to accept the numerous poor reviews this movie garnered, particularly those from bona fide horror buffs. Of all the films within major horror series stretching from the late '70s to the '90s -- Friday the 13th, A Nightmare on Elm Street and Halloween among them -- "Child's Play 2" deserves a place very close to the top.

This sequel picks up two years after the original in which young Andy Barclay (Alex Vincent) was tormented by Chucky, the killer-possessed doll trying to transfer his soul into the child's body. With his mother traumatized, Andy is sent to live with a foster family. Trouble is, there's a certain rebuilt Good Guy brand doll all too eager to get reacquainted.

"Child's Play 2" is solid horror fare. It has legitimate thrills as the seemingly innocent doll plunges to murderous life in the blink of an eye. It has a smart, unpredictable storyline. Its strongest asset, however, is an exciting finale at the Good Guy doll factory in which Chucky, piece by piece, meets his maker. First he's forced to amputate his own hand (he replaces it with a knife blade). Then his legs are torn off in an unsuccessful maiming. Next he's showered in gallons of steaming hot doll plastic before finally having an electrical cord stuffed in his mouth, exploding his head into a thousand gooey pieces. Where do they come up with this stuff?

There are plenty of other things to like about this picture. Its budget is much higher than that of the original, a fact that shows up in leaps and bounds on the screen. With the origin storyline out of the way, the sequel is able to focus solely on the excitement without getting bogged down in too many details. And Brad Dourif outdoes himself as the creepily frightening voice of the homicidal doll.

"Child's Play 2" established Chucky as a legitimate horror icon. Simply put, the series never again reached this high a caliber and probably never will.

---

2 out of 2 people found the following comment useful :-
Yes…Chucky's back! (Best of the series!), 21 May 2005
Author: Rents (Renty_The_FBI_Agent) from London, England

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

Andy Barclay (Alex Vincent) is now in a foster home. We don't know what ever happened to his mother. She was a great character. She was sent to an institution…and now poor Andy is alone and afraid. That haunting figure…Chucky has been in his dreams ever since he experienced the first horror.

Meanwhile, the evil doll is resurrected in a terrible accident, and he leaves on a mission: to find the little boy who destroyed him not too long ago. At the foster home, Andy becomes friends with the couple's other foster child, a high-schooler named Kyle (Christine Elise). Chucky finds the child, and begins to cause accidents around the home-all of which Andy is blamed for.

Kyle finds out that Andy is not lying about the doll, and together, they set out to destroy the evil being that is Chucky.

With Alex Vincent, Christine Elise, and Brad Dourif

---

3 out of 4 people found the following comment useful :-
"No more Mr. Good Guy-doll !", 31 August 2003

Author: Coventry from the Draconian Swamp of Unholy Souls

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

You don't have to be Nostradamus to predict a sequel to the original and creepy film by Tom Holland was inevitable. The soul of a psycho-killer inside a doll was a big hit at the box-office and you know what that means...More from the same!! And fast! But hey, who's complaining? Child's Play 2 is fairly good. Some nice twists, several funny moments and a few very original killings. What more could you ask for in a horror sequel? Story doesn't matter. In fact, can you call this a story ? Chucky comes back to life and continues to chase Andy to take over his soul. He has to kill everyone who comes too close to him and his secret and every time he's about to call Dumballah ( or whatever ), he gets interrupted. Voilà, there you have the plot of Child's Play 2. Original ? No. Entertaining ? Yes, very. Jenny Agutter plays the role of Andy's foster mom. I tell you, she still is as adorable as when she played her role in American Werewolf in London...only older, of course. Brad Dourif returns as the voice of Chucky and he seems to enjoy that very much. That's about all there is to say about Child's Play 2. Certainly not a "urgently need-to-see movie" but pure fun if you come across it on TV or something. It's recommended to watch the first two films in a row. Child's Play 3, however, should be avoided like the plague...yuk. The more recent Bride of Chucky uses a whole other style, but surely is worth a look. I'm quite sure more sequels have yet to come...

---

3 out of 4 people found the following comment useful :-
Chucky Has His Energizers!, 16 December 2001
Author: BaronBl00d (baronbl00d@aol.com) from NC

Chucky, the sweet-faced lovable little doll filled with the soul of a voodoo loving serial killer, is back in his second feature, aptly if not originally named Child's Play 2. The only other member of the cast of the original film to return is the young Alex Vincent as the boy Chucky must kill so as to not permanently be imprisoned in the body of the doll. Brad Douriff is back as the maniacal voice of the pint-sized murderer. What you would expect from a sequel of this caliber is pretty much what you get. Little plot, little characterization, lots of killing, lots of blood, lots of gore effects, and a Chucky that comes back, comes back, comes back, comes back, and comes back. I got so tired of watching Chucky come out of situations where he was supposed to be 'dead" that it was like a test of endurance for my common sense. Vincent does a good job with his role, but the film really lacks from the freshness and individuality of the original film's characters. I don't know why people that make horror sequels always think it is just the gore and blood which makes the first film popular. They are integral parts, but the film probably(not always) has other elements that appeal to people over 15. This sequel eliminates those elements and makes it very clear that its intended audience is between 15-19. Pity, because I found the first film very effective and slightly intelligent on one level. This film is really nothing more than one killing after another until we get to the factory where other Chuckies are made and the real nonsense begins in what has to be one of the most ridiculous finales of a horror film I have seen in some time. Now it sounds like I am really bashing this film...and I am...but one small concession on my part is that the film moves by quickly and is entertaining on a bad its good level.

---

---

Page 1 of 13:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Plot synopsis	Ratings
Newsgroup reviews	External reviews	Parents Guide
Plot keywords	Main details	Your user comments
Your vote history