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.

The Green Mile.

Review #1522: The Green Mile.

Cast: 
Tom Hanks (Paul Edgecomb), David Morse (Brutus "Brutal" Howell), Bonnie Hunt (Jan Edgecomb), Michael Clarke Duncan (John Coffey), James Cromwell (Warden Hal Moores), Michael Jeter (Eduard Delacroix), Graham Greene (Arlen Bitterbuck), Doug Hutchison (Percy Wetmore), Sam Rockwell (William "Wild Bill" Wharton), Barry Pepper (Dean Stanton), Jeffrey DeMunn (Harry Terwilliger), Patricia Clarkson (Melinda Moores), Harry Dean Stanton (Toot-Toot), Dabbs Greer (Old Paul), Bill McKinney (Jack Van Hay), Brent Briscoe (Bill Dodge), Eve Brent (Elaine Connelly), and William Sadler (Klaus Detterick) Written and Directed by Frank Darabont (#1506 - The Shawshank Redemption)

Review: 
"I think it's the basic need for all of human kind to be a part of something bigger than themselves because as actors we get to create that."
"The notion that we can be better than we are, as human beings; that there’s a bar that can be raised in all of our lives. And that there are certain acts of incivility that we should no longer indulge in. Maybe we should try to do a little better."

The 1990s had a plethora of memorable Tom Hanks performances that turned him from just a star in comedies into an icon. The California native had done plays in high school and at Chabot College and California State University, Sacramento before dropping out to do work with the Great Lakes Theater Festival in Cleveland. He did theater work for a few years (doing three years at the Lakewood Civic Auditorium) before venturing into film with He Knows You're Alone (1980) and television with Bosom Buddies (1980-82). Splash (1984) was his first starring role, which proved beneficial to his career in leading to more comedy roles and a gradual shift to drama with films such as Big (1988). While the 1990s started off with flops like The Bonfire of the Vanities (1990), he proved himself in the following years with neatly-picked roles suited to his personality that resulted in praise, with numerous highlights being iconic ones like Philadelphia (1993), Forrest Gump (1994), and Toy Story (1995). Coincidentally, Hanks was once thought of to star in The Shawshank Redemption before turning it down to commitments, but Hanks found himself onto this film after Darabont's first preference of John Travolta fizzled out. This was also the first major role for Duncan, who had worked odd jobs such as a bouncer/security guard and bit roles before having a break with Armageddon (1998, which he did when he was 40 years old) that led to a recommendation by none other than friend and actor Bruce Willis in this role.

The source material that this is adapted from is the serial novel of the same name, published from March to August 1996 as six paperback volumes (all except the last were 96 pages). There are a few differences between the two works, such as the change in year from 1932 to 1935 (Top Hat, the film with a significant part to play in the story, was released in the latter year), while certain characters are excluded (such as a vicious orderly present in the bookends that Darabont felt was beside the point). Ultimately, what we have here is a nicely-done fable, one that captures a sense of miracles with dignity and emotional power that makes an fairly watchable experience like no other. If it isn't as striking in depth as Darabont's other adaptation of a King work about prison in The Shawshank Redemption, it is at least spirited enough to maintain enough reason and hope to make its lasting point all the more endurable. It sits well with mature audiences without seeming too wistful in 189 minutes to the point of sanctimony, building its foundation with its bookend aspects in Greer that keep its lasting words about miracles and other ideas that can be interpreted with thought by viewers with the patience to do so and linger with it.

Undeniably, the cast live up to the period piece fable staging with care. Hanks proves charming in everyman consistency, sinking into manner of dignity and curiosity for those he works with in a place of officers and a cell of doomed men. Morse accompanies him as the lead focus of officers to view, maintaining a spirited patience that contributes well to the sequences within the prison in pragmatism. It is Duncan who shows the best presence with his time needed, a force of nature that inspires the passion and pan that comes with someone who pulls off sensitivity and conviction with no trouble at all, seeming one with the world and with us in a world that seems to just have pain. Hunt and Clarkson accompany the film with fair importance that proves useful, whether in grace or in withered nature. Jeter provides a little warmth within the bars, while Hutchison makes a tremendously slimy bully with accomplishment. Rockwell taps into wild evil with careful energy that could have been thought of as just a loon in lesser hands but seems quite underlying in creepiness with him. Cromwell does fine in hard-lined moments while Stanton provides a chuckle in his one key scene involving a execution rehearsal.

There were various filming locations that ranged from studio work at Warner Bros along with the Tennessee State Prison to go with custom-built interior sets from Terence Marsh to depict a sense of space and mystery in those prison scenes, which are quite effective. In its fable of miracles and pain, one has time to ponder upon its style and its weaving of story threads that make an experience that can inspire curiosity alongside revulsion, such as during its first hint of a miracle or a disastrous execution in the chair, respectively. It makes us want to think a bit more clearly about life, or more specifically the joys and pains that can come from such an emotional release that comes from something like this. It isn't completely perfect in its road to perdition in all of its time spent, but I find it worth at least one watch, particularly if one is looking for a Stephen King adaptation with an accomplished director and stars behind it.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Christmas Evil.

Review #681: Christmas Evil.

Cast
Brandon Maggart (Harry Stadling), Jeffrey DeMunn (Philip Stadling), Dianne Hull (Jackie Stadling), Andy Fenwick (Dennis Stadling), Brian Neville (Marc Stadling), and Joe Jamrog (Frank Stoller) Directed by Lewis Jackson.

Review
Yes, today is Christmas Eve. In the four years of this show, I've review four films on Christmas Eve (#018 - Die Hard with a Vengeance, #019 - For a Few Dollars More, #318 - The Santa Clause 2 and #506 - Bullitt), but this time I've picked a real winner, a horror/Christmas film called Christmas Evil (clever pun BTW). The movie is also known as You Better Watch Out and Terror in Toyland. And...it's pretty decent. For one thing, it takes its time before the killer starts his spree, though the first few minutes pretty much sets up everything...weirdly, but still. I guess a kid could go crazy they saw Santa groping their mother. See, the weirdness from the last review did latch onto this review. The reason it's not bad is because it manages to be interesting to watch Maggert's character evolve in terms of mood, and I like how much fun it has with itself. The actors are standard, but it doesn't matter due to the movie's strange charm. The ending has to be seen to be believed because it isn't what you would expect in a horror film. If you like horror films that don't exactly take themselves too seriously and have some fun, this is for you. I kinda like it, so call this a guilty pleasure, or a killer flick, if you will.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.