The Blob (1988)
One of only a handful of remakes that gets it right (The Thing '82, Invasion of the Bodysnatchers '78 and The Fly '86 being the standard bearers for remakes done right). This reimagining (are you as sick of that term as I am?) of the 1958 classic is gory, smart, and scary.
The main difference (other than the horrifically goopy updated special effects, some of which are fairly lousy in their own right but most of which are still satisfyingly squishy) is that (spoiler, by the way) the blob is no longer a menace from outer space but a biochemically engineered weapon of mass blobbage. Making it a government experiment was a masterstroke, giving it a plausibility the 50's blob never had.
Another thing this Blob has going for it is a few genuine surprises regarding who survives and who ends up becoming a helping of Purina Blob Chow. There are real shocks scattered around the movie, upping the intensity factor and adding to the fun.
Kevin Dillon and Shawnee Smith are very appealing leads, and the movie is stuffed with top-notch character actors like Jeffrey DeMunn, Art LaFleur, Paul McCrane, and Jack Nance. Improv comedy legend Del Close appears as well, making him the only person I know of to be in two Blob movies since he also has a brief role in the atrocious sequel to the original, Beware! The Blob!
This movie is flat-out great. It's still scary, it's lots of fun, and I hope Scream Factory gets a hold of it and gives it the special edition blu-ray it richly deserves. The current DVD has no special features other than a creepy, graphic trailer that gives away quite a few deaths. I'd love to hear a commentary from Frank Darabont and/or Chuck Russell and see some footage of Tony Gardner's effects team at work. Oh, well. Even with a bare-bones disc, it's still a big pile of slimy, gooey fun.
Monday, October 14, 2013
Sunday, October 13, 2013
Scary Movie Month, Day 13
Jason X
Ahhhhhh...that's more like it. Sure, it's not a scary movie, but it's a damn fun one that deserves more love.
Jason Voorhees, the hockey-masked murder enthusiast of the Friday the 13th series is cryogenically frozen after his latest spree and is thawed on a spaceship about 400 years in the future. Sound ridiculous? I haven't even gotten to the part where his head is blown up and he's regenerated as a terminator-esque Uber-Jason...hey, where are you going?
I know, it's nuts, but the movie finds just the right tone and plays everything with enough of a wink that you never feel like it doesn't know exactly what movie it is. Screenwriter Todd Farmer has built his career on movies that have their tongues firmly planted in their cheeks, and he always manages to deliver a fun ride.
The movie gets a lot of flack for being so different but it's way more entertaining than many others in the series. I finished it about half an hour ago and I already kind of want to watch it again...that's a sign of a fun movie. Time to fire up the commentary track...
Ahhhhhh...that's more like it. Sure, it's not a scary movie, but it's a damn fun one that deserves more love.
Jason Voorhees, the hockey-masked murder enthusiast of the Friday the 13th series is cryogenically frozen after his latest spree and is thawed on a spaceship about 400 years in the future. Sound ridiculous? I haven't even gotten to the part where his head is blown up and he's regenerated as a terminator-esque Uber-Jason...hey, where are you going?
I know, it's nuts, but the movie finds just the right tone and plays everything with enough of a wink that you never feel like it doesn't know exactly what movie it is. Screenwriter Todd Farmer has built his career on movies that have their tongues firmly planted in their cheeks, and he always manages to deliver a fun ride.
The movie gets a lot of flack for being so different but it's way more entertaining than many others in the series. I finished it about half an hour ago and I already kind of want to watch it again...that's a sign of a fun movie. Time to fire up the commentary track...
Saturday, October 12, 2013
Scary Movie Month, Day 12
Cornered!
Remember yesterday when I said I couldn't imagine sitting through a worse movie than 976-EVIL? What a difference a day makes.
Obnoxious characters, awful dialogue, and a pathetically predictable "reveal" make this one of the worst slashers I've had the misfortune to see. There's simply no imagination or ingenuity on display. When I was a kid, my friend Stu & I would make horror movies on his camcorder all the time. Those were less amateur than this mess.
The story follows a group of terrible people locked in a convenience store overnight with a slasher. The worst thing about these people is how slowly they're killed off, even though the movie is only 80-something minutes long. I've never rooted for a killer to murder absolutely everybody before, and I'm a lifelong slasher devotee. I can't think of a single movie with less likable protagonists, even Sleepaway Camp. The extent of their characterization is that the fat guy is constantly eating donuts, because that's all fat guys ever do, right? That's the sort of thing that passes for characterization in this movie, and it's still worse than you're thinking it must be.
It's rare that I have occasion to utter the sentence "Steve Guttenberg should fire his agent," but there you have it. I have tremendous affection for low-budget independent horror, but Cornered! shows that just because you have the tools to put a movie together doesn't mean you have the talent. Or a movie, for that matter.
Friday, October 11, 2013
Scary Movie Month, Day 11
976-EVIL
I sincerely hope that this is as low as Scary Month Goes because I can't imagine sitting through something worse than this. This isn't "so bad it's good" it's "so bad it's embarrassing".
The story (such as it is) follows a teen named Hoax (no, really. According to this movie Hoax is a name that has been given to a human person) as he uses a demonic 976 "Horrorscope" number to avenge himself on bullies and such. As played by future gay porn icon Stephen Geoffreys, Hoax goes from unlikable to somehow less likable over the course of the movie. Geoffreys' shrillness worked very well for the role of Evil Ed in the great Fright Night, but here it's just too much to make it possible to sympathize with Hoax.
There are no good performances in the movie, but Geoffreys isn't even the worst. That dubious honor goes to Academy Award winner Sandy Dennis in one of her last movies. She goes so far over the top as Hoax's religious zealot mother that she practically has to tunnel back up from the bottom of the screen. I'd say it's a performance that has to be seen to be believed, but I don't think anybody should have to see this.
It was directed by Robert Englund, who rose to fame playing Freddy Krueger. The direction is uninspired at best, leaving us with a 90 minute horror movie without a single scare. Englund has only directed one other movie (unseen by me), a comedy called Killer Pad, released about 20 years after 976-EVIL. The fact that he hasn't directed more is not a surprise.
There is some good news here. The fact that the plot is centered around a 976 number means we should be spared a remake, as 976 numbers no longer exist. Thank God for progress, I guess.
I sincerely hope that this is as low as Scary Month Goes because I can't imagine sitting through something worse than this. This isn't "so bad it's good" it's "so bad it's embarrassing".
The story (such as it is) follows a teen named Hoax (no, really. According to this movie Hoax is a name that has been given to a human person) as he uses a demonic 976 "Horrorscope" number to avenge himself on bullies and such. As played by future gay porn icon Stephen Geoffreys, Hoax goes from unlikable to somehow less likable over the course of the movie. Geoffreys' shrillness worked very well for the role of Evil Ed in the great Fright Night, but here it's just too much to make it possible to sympathize with Hoax.
There are no good performances in the movie, but Geoffreys isn't even the worst. That dubious honor goes to Academy Award winner Sandy Dennis in one of her last movies. She goes so far over the top as Hoax's religious zealot mother that she practically has to tunnel back up from the bottom of the screen. I'd say it's a performance that has to be seen to be believed, but I don't think anybody should have to see this.
It was directed by Robert Englund, who rose to fame playing Freddy Krueger. The direction is uninspired at best, leaving us with a 90 minute horror movie without a single scare. Englund has only directed one other movie (unseen by me), a comedy called Killer Pad, released about 20 years after 976-EVIL. The fact that he hasn't directed more is not a surprise.
There is some good news here. The fact that the plot is centered around a 976 number means we should be spared a remake, as 976 numbers no longer exist. Thank God for progress, I guess.
Thursday, October 10, 2013
The Blob (1958)
A 30-year-old teenager and his 30-year-old teen girlfriend encounter a Jell-O™ space monster that eats several upstanding citizens and generally wreaks havoc upon their small town.
One of the best creature-features of the 50's, from the insanely catchy theme song (credited to The Five Blobs) to the question mark that caps off "THE END?" it's pure fun through and through. In the interest of full disclosure, I should mention that this movie scared me to death when I first saw it (on broadcast tv) when I was 7 or 8. I had blobmares for years. I was 12 when Chuck Russell's remake hit theaters and the posters alone were enough to rekindle the blobmares I thought I had finally put behind me. Those memories are reignited every time I see either movie, and this is the first time I've gotten to see this one on blu-ray. The transfer is fantastic and it's hard to believe I watched it so many times on EP mode VHS over the years...today was practically like watching it for the first time. Hope I don't get more blobmares...
There's something so staggeringly horrifying about a concept like The Blob that it amazes me there have only been 3 blob movies in the history of film. An unstoppable ooze that can't be reasoned with or spoken to, it exists only to consume and as it consumes it grows bigger and redder with the blood of its victims...that is some primally scary shit. The 50's trappings of the original may seem a bit silly in hindsight, but the creature itself is still scary and the movie still plays really well. At a brisk 82 minutes it doesn't overstay its welcome and keeps the chills coming at a reasonably steady pace.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go downstairs to my kitchen and throw away all my Jell-O™. Better safe than sorry...
A 30-year-old teenager and his 30-year-old teen girlfriend encounter a Jell-O™ space monster that eats several upstanding citizens and generally wreaks havoc upon their small town.
One of the best creature-features of the 50's, from the insanely catchy theme song (credited to The Five Blobs) to the question mark that caps off "THE END?" it's pure fun through and through. In the interest of full disclosure, I should mention that this movie scared me to death when I first saw it (on broadcast tv) when I was 7 or 8. I had blobmares for years. I was 12 when Chuck Russell's remake hit theaters and the posters alone were enough to rekindle the blobmares I thought I had finally put behind me. Those memories are reignited every time I see either movie, and this is the first time I've gotten to see this one on blu-ray. The transfer is fantastic and it's hard to believe I watched it so many times on EP mode VHS over the years...today was practically like watching it for the first time. Hope I don't get more blobmares...
There's something so staggeringly horrifying about a concept like The Blob that it amazes me there have only been 3 blob movies in the history of film. An unstoppable ooze that can't be reasoned with or spoken to, it exists only to consume and as it consumes it grows bigger and redder with the blood of its victims...that is some primally scary shit. The 50's trappings of the original may seem a bit silly in hindsight, but the creature itself is still scary and the movie still plays really well. At a brisk 82 minutes it doesn't overstay its welcome and keeps the chills coming at a reasonably steady pace.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go downstairs to my kitchen and throw away all my Jell-O™. Better safe than sorry...
Wednesday, October 9, 2013
Scary Movie Month, Day 9
The Thing (2011)
There's a question that I've heard Patrick Bromley pose a few times on F This Movie! that was going through my head through most of this premaquel to John Carpenter's 1982 The Thing. The question is simple: who is this movie for? The answer in this case is also fairly simple: nobody.
It's positioned as a prequel to Carpenter's classic, but it covers all the same beats which makes it play as more of a remake. I don't know who was clamoring to hear the story of what happened to the Norwegian researchers before MacReady and his crew showed up, but if they're out there all they got was a bland carbon copy of the '82 version. If there are people who just want to see what the '82 version would look like with digital effects in the place of Rob Bottin's spectacular practical effects I guess they've got their movie, but to what end? It doesn't bring anything new to the table, and only leaves us wondering why bother telling us we're going to get an untold story and then just giving us a remake?
Carpenter's film was a remake to begin with, of 1951's The Thing From Another World, but it was smart in that it separated itself enough from the original to justify its existence. I can think of no justification for this. If you really want to know how the ax ended up in the wall, I guess this movie is for you. Maybe if you're out there you can let me know what difference knowing that makes, and if the answers found here are in any way satisfying.
There's a question that I've heard Patrick Bromley pose a few times on F This Movie! that was going through my head through most of this premaquel to John Carpenter's 1982 The Thing. The question is simple: who is this movie for? The answer in this case is also fairly simple: nobody.
It's positioned as a prequel to Carpenter's classic, but it covers all the same beats which makes it play as more of a remake. I don't know who was clamoring to hear the story of what happened to the Norwegian researchers before MacReady and his crew showed up, but if they're out there all they got was a bland carbon copy of the '82 version. If there are people who just want to see what the '82 version would look like with digital effects in the place of Rob Bottin's spectacular practical effects I guess they've got their movie, but to what end? It doesn't bring anything new to the table, and only leaves us wondering why bother telling us we're going to get an untold story and then just giving us a remake?
Carpenter's film was a remake to begin with, of 1951's The Thing From Another World, but it was smart in that it separated itself enough from the original to justify its existence. I can think of no justification for this. If you really want to know how the ax ended up in the wall, I guess this movie is for you. Maybe if you're out there you can let me know what difference knowing that makes, and if the answers found here are in any way satisfying.
Tuesday, October 8, 2013
Scary Movie Month, Day 8
Curse of Chucky
Perhaps it's just a case of low expectations, but I thought this latest entry in the Child's Play franchise (the sixth, for those keeping score) was a blast.
Lots of franchises will point at a late entry and say that it's where they wanted to go back to basics to make their killer scary again. The shocking thing is, the killer doll franchise that devolved into straight-up comedy in the 4th and 5th entries is one of the few series that managed to do exactly that, and even more astoundingly they did it without ignoring the ones that came before. This is also the first Chucky movie to debut direct to video, so the fact that it's watchable at all is a major feat, the fact that it's as good as it is is practically miraculous.
Series creator Don Mancini (he wrote or co-wrote all six movies, this is the second one he directed) truly brings things back to basics, keeping Chucky mostly offscreen for a good portion of the movie and concentrating on suspense (though gorehounds needn't worry, when the kills come they're suitably gruesome). There's a scene involving a poisoned bowl of chili that manages to create real tension, something we haven't seen in a Child's Play movie since the first one.
The basic plot finds Chucky menacing a wealthy family in a large house, and it's set up almost like a haunted house movie, only the audience knows that the threat is real. Mancini does an admirable job showcasing the geography of the house so we always know where the characters are in relation to one another, and manages a few decent jolts along the way. Brad Dourif is fun, as always, as the voice of Chucky and his daughter Fiona Dourif is a standout in the lead role. The movie gets pretty crazy as it builds toward the conclusion, and it feels like Mancini is having lots of fun with the world he helped create.
Fans of the series (and I don't know who else would be watching this, honestly) should be sure to stick around after the credits. There's a stinger that makes absolutely no narrative sense, but should still leave you with a smile on your face.
Perhaps it's just a case of low expectations, but I thought this latest entry in the Child's Play franchise (the sixth, for those keeping score) was a blast.
Lots of franchises will point at a late entry and say that it's where they wanted to go back to basics to make their killer scary again. The shocking thing is, the killer doll franchise that devolved into straight-up comedy in the 4th and 5th entries is one of the few series that managed to do exactly that, and even more astoundingly they did it without ignoring the ones that came before. This is also the first Chucky movie to debut direct to video, so the fact that it's watchable at all is a major feat, the fact that it's as good as it is is practically miraculous.
Series creator Don Mancini (he wrote or co-wrote all six movies, this is the second one he directed) truly brings things back to basics, keeping Chucky mostly offscreen for a good portion of the movie and concentrating on suspense (though gorehounds needn't worry, when the kills come they're suitably gruesome). There's a scene involving a poisoned bowl of chili that manages to create real tension, something we haven't seen in a Child's Play movie since the first one.
The basic plot finds Chucky menacing a wealthy family in a large house, and it's set up almost like a haunted house movie, only the audience knows that the threat is real. Mancini does an admirable job showcasing the geography of the house so we always know where the characters are in relation to one another, and manages a few decent jolts along the way. Brad Dourif is fun, as always, as the voice of Chucky and his daughter Fiona Dourif is a standout in the lead role. The movie gets pretty crazy as it builds toward the conclusion, and it feels like Mancini is having lots of fun with the world he helped create.
Fans of the series (and I don't know who else would be watching this, honestly) should be sure to stick around after the credits. There's a stinger that makes absolutely no narrative sense, but should still leave you with a smile on your face.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)