"Dolly Dearest" (1991) is a poor imitation of "Dolls" (1987) and "Child's Play" (1988)--certainly its only financial hope being to cash in on the others' success. The cinematography is pedestrian, the story predictable. I saw the preview for "Dolly Dearest" on the "Servants of Twilight" (1991) video--both straight-to-video releases. The preview, I must say, was quite frightening, giving the impression that "Dolly Dearest" would be more like the straightforward plot of "Child's Play." But "Dolly Dearest" posits a Mayan devil-child taking over the bodies of some Mexican dolls. (Why dolls? Why not!) However the children of Satan apparently can be easily killed with a shotgun and some dynamite. Not much to worry about here.
Comparing "Dolly Dearest" and "Dolls" shows the absolute need for 1) a modicum of imagination from the director, and 2) a smidgen of creativity from the cinematographer. The plot of "Dolls" is rather ordinary, although it does have an E.C.-revenge logic to it. But "Dolls" just plain looks better. If you're going to sit through an hour-and-a-half of dumbness, at least make the dumbness look good. The cinematography of "Dolly Dearest" is usually plain, sometimes plain ugly. Also, the camera does absolutely nothing to increase the tension. The director apparently felt that a grimacing girly doll would be scary enough.
Comparing "Dolly Dearest" and "Dolls" shows the absolute need for 1) a modicum of imagination from the director, and 2) a smidgen of creativity from the cinematographer. The plot of "Dolls" is rather ordinary, although it does have an E.C.-revenge logic to it. But "Dolls" just plain looks better. If you're going to sit through an hour-and-a-half of dumbness, at least make the dumbness look good. The cinematography of "Dolly Dearest" is usually plain, sometimes plain ugly. Also, the camera does absolutely nothing to increase the tension. The director apparently felt that a grimacing girly doll would be scary enough.