Next of Kin.

Review #2553: Next of Kin.

Cast: 

Patrick Swayze (Detective Truman Gates), Liam Neeson (Briar Gates), Adam Baldwin (Joey Rosselini), Helen Hunt (Jessie Gates), Andreas Katsulas (Johnny "Papa John" Isabella), Bill Paxton (Gerald Gates), Ben Stiller (Lawrence Isabella), Michael J. Pollard (Harold), Ted Levine (Willy Simpson), Del Close (Frank), Valentino Cimo (Rhino), Paul Greco (Leo), Vincent Guastaferro (Paulie), and Paul Herman (Lieutenant Tony Antonelli) Directed by John Irvin (#1591 - Hamburger Hill)

Review: 

Sure, you probably saw this on a DVD pack sometime or maybe your dad had the film on the shelf (this is a case where both applies, because it lurks on both the bottom of the film shelf and also on an "action multi-pack" with stuff such as The Last Boy Scout). You might say this is a case of a movie being so mediocre that I have to strain to find words to talk about it. This was the seventh film of John Irvin, who had moved over from his native England (where he did documentaries, TV adaptations such as Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy) to do feature films, with a few of his first being a mix of British and American productions, such as The Dogs of War (1980) and Raw Deal (1986), respectively. The years after this film saw him do a varied amount of films and TV work afterwards, mostly outside the States. The movie was written by Michael Jenning in his only film credit (the only other credit is writing for a TV movie called "Spot Marks the X"). Made on a budget of roughly $12 million and released a few months after audiences could see Swayze in, say, Road House, the movie was not a major success with audiences.

Admittedly, I wanted to like the movie. You've got young promising talent with Neeson, Hunt and Stiller (one of these people won an Academy Award, and somehow it wasn't Neeson) to go along with ideas of interest with Baldwin and Katsulas and a semi-game Swayze for a movie...that never really goes that far. It lumbers for 108 minutes with what can only be described as "the bare minimum" in generic nature that will work for some and make others shrug when it ends and leaves the memory bank just as quickly. It's a revenge tale that has an idea in mind: a tale serving revenge "country style" (no, I will not use the word "hillbilly") that you would imagine would sound like someone trying to drunkenly combine Deliverance and The Godfather. But no, it basically just meanders around Chicago with Swayze trying to corral Neeson from blazing a path fierier than Sherman's March to the Sea*, complete with one stunt about jumping onto a train. It is an aimless movie that only really commits to having a battle between country style folks and gangsters for the ending, which naturally has to be at night, with arrows being involved (somehow, there's a scene of preparing lunch for the travelling country boys that amuses me in its placement). There are flashes of lunacy from Baldwin to be compelling, but it mostly feels like moving the chairs on the deck waiting to see if something really comes into play beyond neutral gear. Swayze basically has the movie stolen from him by Neeson, who just has the offbeat energy to be more compelling in a misguided quest (and accent, because if you have the shot to cast a Northern Irishman to play a man from Kentucky, you take it) than whatever is supposed to be the case with an ordinary family dynamic between Swayze and Hunt. Obviously one character has to go at minimum to advance the plot, but it sure is a shame to see Paxton go so early, but it almost seems necessary to do so with Stiller in a nepo baby role that basically screams "move along". It all is just a long-winded revenge tale where you find yourself entranced at the stuff you've seen before in these type of movies or just check your watch. At least the climax tries to present something different in resolving the wounds of a blood feud, corny as it can be. As a whole, Next of Kin might as well be the Ink blot test of action movies: you see what you see and go from there in either liking the experience or forgetting it just as quickly as you saw it.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

*Stretching a reference, sure. But fuck the Confederacy.

The Blob (1988).

Review #2136: The Blob.

Cast: 

Kevin Dillon (Brian Flagg), Shawnee Smith (Megan "Meg" Penny), Donovan Leitch (Paul Taylor), Jeffrey DeMunn (Sheriff Herb Geller), Candy Clark (Fran Hewitt), Joe Seneca (Dr. Christopher Meddows), Del Close (Reverend Meeker), Sharon Spelman (Mrs. Margaret Penny), Beau Billingslea (Moss Woodley), Art LaFleur (Pharmacist/Tom Penny), Ricky Paull Goldin (Scott Jeskey), Paul McCrane (Deputy Bill Briggs), Michael Kenworthy (Kevin Penny), Douglas Emerson (Eddie Beckner), Robert Axelrod (Jennings), and Bill Moseley (The Soldier in the Sewer) Directed by Chuck Russell (#157 - The Mask and #649 - A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors)

Review: 

"Maybe it was a mistake to do a remake of The Blob with a sense of humor. I thought that would be an entertaining interpretation. … Unfortunately, it was released late in a very hectic summer filled with big films and it didn't have a particularly good ad campaign."

As you may remember, the 1958 film The Blob was a neat little film directed by Irvin Yeaworth that saw a script arise from Kay Linaker and Theodore Simonson based on a story that was suggested by Irving H. Millgate to producer Jack H. Harris, a film distributor in his first production that probably was inspired by the discovery of "star jelly" in Pennsylvania in 1950. You probably know that, well, it was a success that was a classic example of drive-in enjoyment that seems practically critic-proof when it comes to the very fact that one really can't pick apart a film with such a silly title and such red blobby fun. Inevitably, a remake had to come (well, there was a "sequel" with Beware! The Blob in 1972 that had Harris as producer, but who cares about sequels that turn into a comedy with Larry Hagman as director?), but three decades is a pretty decent amount of time for one to await a remake, particularly since it has been 35 years since this film and no one has managed to get a second remake of the Blob despite rumblings for years and years. The remake script was done by Chuck Russell and Frank Darabont, each of whom had been involved with the previous year production of A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors, as directed by first-timer Russell. The Park Ridge native from Illinois had been a writer and director of one-act plays when studying at the University of Illinois before graduation led to him becoming an assistant director and production manager while working his way up to film, with his first film credit having been a co-credit in writing and producing for Dreamscape (1984). Russell has attempted to branch out in various genres in a lengthy career (to varying degrees of audience attention), but his horror stuff has certainly lent the most interest of curiosity. This is true for a film that used a good deal of puppetry with its title threat, as realized by various people such as makeup man Tony Gardner and creature coordinators Lyle Conway and Stuart Ziff. One way that they accomplished the effect was with a "Blob Quilt" that came from silk bags filled with Methacil that made for quite the effect when it came to dissolving people; a good deal of puppetry was also used. Somehow, the film was a flop on original release, not quite making back its $10 million budget.

Honestly, the remake might be just as good as the original film. 95 minutes seem to bounce away under the dissolving eyes of terror in the creature shown to us alongside the paranoia that comes in a time where one wouldn't simply see government figures as the easy force of benevolence. Oh sure, it is a film mostly for those who like to see a faster moving terror of slime that packs tentacles, but it is a much more interesting film because of its perfect timing when it comes to effects-laden filmmaking. This is the kind of movie for folks who dig Body Snatchers (1993), if you know what I mean. Smith and Dillon make a suitable pair of leads to carry the experience when it comes to reacting against ever-shifting terror, which work well for the cliches required (screams, or the totally-a-rebel delinquent, you get the idea) because they have a good stab at it rather than letting the material roll them over. Besides, the fact that the acid dissolves someone that looks to be one of the leads early (well, sometimes you can crib from better horror films when it means something cool). Seneca is the adversary in terms of "people are expendable" that is at least presented with relative ease rather than distractions. Bottom line, I enjoy the way the blob asorbs folks, whether that involves a person trying to get pulled out only to see their arm rip off or to cap off a standoff. The ending to the film in terms of how to resolve a blob that goes around absorbing people like jello is mostly the same in being repelled by the cold, although it is as open-ended as before, since the last one had one of those "The End?" cards and this one involves a remnant of the stuff still around. Too bad there isn't more Close, because one can't have enough weirdo priests thinking about the "end of Days" (mention that phrase to a random guy at church and see where that goes). Anyway, it's a fun film that I enjoyed when it comes to its pacing that shows a worthy threat in its creature to make itself worth watching as a second go of "The Blob" that deserved better attention back then.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next up: Final Destination 2.