Body Snatchers (1993).

Review #2095: Body Snatchers.

Cast: 

Gabrielle Anwar (Marti Malone), Terry Kinney (Steve Malone), Billy Wirth (Tim Young), Meg Tilly (Carol Malone), Reilly Murphy (Andy Malone), Christine Elise (Jenn Platt), R. Lee Ermey (General Platt), Forest Whitaker (Major Matthew Collins), and Kathleen Doyle (Diana Platt) Directed by Abel Ferrara (#1963 - The Driller Killer)

Review: 

"Body Snatchers was kind of laid on me. It wouldn't have been my choice. If I was going to make that movie from scratch, I would stick to the original from 1956 where the event happened in a town where he grew up in so he kind of knew everyone and realized who was changed and who wasn't. With the military, it's training."

Admittedly, this film has a hard ground to get over in being the third film adaptation of the novel The Body Snatchers (1956) by Jack Finney. You might already know the first version as directed by Don Siegel in 1956, or perhaps the 1978 version as directed by Philip Kaufman (as was the case with the 1978 film, Robert H. Solo served as producer for this film). But here we are with a third film that was directed by Abel Ferrera, fresh off the results of Bad Lieutenant (1992), an NC-17 rated film that is now thought of as a cult classic; this was the first sci-fi film Ferrera did, as I'm sure you can tell from a director considered a cult favorite for those who read into that. But this was a production that was distributed by Warner Bros and made for a budget of $13 million, what could go wrong? Well, Ferrera groused at the fact that he had to film with a setting that is distinct from the previous films, because it takes place on a military base. The screenplay was written by Stuart Gordon, Dennis Paoli, and Nicholas St. John while the story had been done by Raymond Cistheri and Larry Cohen. Anyway, Warner Bros. had planned to release the film in 1992...and then they decided that Innocent Blood would match well in that time when compared to the handful of horror films packed around that time such as Candyman and Bram Stoker's Dracula. So, instead, the film made a run on the festival circuit (such as Cannes, I am serious) and then was dumped. To put it lightly, Warner Bros. should have felt deep shame that they let this film get released to less than a thousand theaters, but, well, here we are. Incidentally, this film was released 15 years after the 1978 version, and the next rendition of the Finney work would come 14 years later with The Invasion (2007).

In a different era, conformity striking its tendrils upon the individual happens all the same just as much as it did in the 1950s or the 1970s. It can't really hold a candle to the previous adaptation when it comes to paranoia or all the gobbledygook that folks say made it better than the original (debatable at the very least), but I enjoyed this one as an embrace of sticking out in violent oddness more than anything. How many films have the stones to have a scene that depicts a kid getting bopped out of a helicopter? The threat present is one that lives among a structure that undoubtedly would have little trouble living undetected: the military structure of rules and order. And, this time around, it also looks upon the family structure (one bit of dialogue relates a feeling of "replaced" when it comes to describing a stepmother) and gives it a nice kick in the stomach with a film that might as well dwell in chaotic order, complete with looking upon the feeling that has to come when seeing a bunch of tendrils upon you and a slowly growing lookalike version lurks nearby. Admittedly, the cast with its lead has hard ground to cover, since one has moved from town doctors and health inspectors to a youth (okay, 20-year-olds playing minors, but still). But Anwar makes a worthy focus because of the vulnerability that comes through in reacting to the conformity that occurs around these strange military man and among the family around her that makes for compelling entertainment in the build of alienation. Kinney and Tilly are two ends of the "ordinary parent pod", which proves interesting for the inevitable confrontation of conformity crashing into chaos, as signified best by the sequence revealing the end of the normal version of the latter complete with decay that looks neat. I'm not too big on Wirth, but then I realize that anybody with a seeming pulse that looks like they care more than the usual guy lackey would seem interesting to Anwar, so that's fine. The most interesting person to probably react to the pod stuff in support is either Elise (edgy looking folks, cool) or Whitaker, although the latter is best spent in their last scene about the reaction to seeing offers of conformity. Ermey is probably underused, but he's a neat presence to see for a bit anyway. In general, I get a kick out of the movie because its 87-minute runtime makes for a generally involving good time of intense interest that rewards viewers that appreciate a good effects show but also a good show about the desolation of authority and family when it comes to pods that want for the thoughts to sound alike. Granted, the ambiguity of the ending is probably not as enduring as the aforementioned last one, but at the end of the day, well, "Where you gonna go?" is still a pretty good one to look upon, as one can't stay up forever nor seemingly trust anyone. It seems strange that Ferrera groused a bit at being wrapped with a military base setting rather than one that honed closer to the 1956 film, because in the end he made an interesting film that is entertaining in its own merit of being more than just a remake. For the folks interested in a degree of horror from a director with a distinct manner for weaving a film in his own way, this is a pretty good one to sift through.

 

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next up: The Mummy (1959).

The Last of the Mohicans.

Review #1631: The Last of the Mohicans.

Cast: 

Daniel Day-Lewis (Nathaniel "Hawkeye" Poe), Madeleine Stowe (Cora Munro), Russell Means (Chingachgook), Eric Schweig (Uncas), Jodhi May (Alice Munro), Steven Waddington (Major Duncan Heyward), Wes Studi (Magua), Maurice Roëves (Colonel Edmund Munro), Patrice Chéreau (General Louis-Joseph de Montcalm), Edward Blatchford (Jack Winthrop), Terry Kinney (John Cameron), Tracey Ellis (Alexandra Cameron), and Justin M. Rice (James Cameron) Directed by Michael Mann (#1531 - Ali)

Review: 

“The idea for The Last of the Mohicans came to me because I’d seen the film written by Philip Dunne when I was 3. I realized 40 years later that it had been rattling around in my brain ever since, that it was a part of me, a very important part. I just hadn’t been consciously aware of it up to that point. I also thought: there hasn’t really been an exciting epic, period film in a long, long time."

Sometimes you can't help but awe at someone's attempts at reshaping the frontier in terms of a period piece. The film is an adaptation of The Last of the Mohicans: A Narrative of 1757, written by James Fenimore Cooper in 1826. It was the second of five novels written by Cooper involving the frontiersmen Natty Bumppo, known by numerous nicknames to settlers and natives alike, one of which being "Hawkeye" - this was also chronologically the second in the series (referred to as the Leatherstocking Tales) that had adventures that spanned from 1740 to 1804 that was inspired by the real-life exploits of figures such as Daniel Boone (the capture and rescue of his daughter Jemina was fictionalized into an episode in his book) - he had his share of praise and criticism (most notably with Mark Twain, who mocked his excess), but that novel is generally referred to as his masterpiece work. There were a few previous adaptations of the stories to film, most notably with the 1936 adaptation in The Last of the Mohicans, featuring Randolph Scott as Hawkeye that was written by Philip Dunne - Dunne is credited for his screenplay in this film (right after Cooper), and each film had their clear differences to the book; a look into the details of the book when compared to the film reveals a few key differences, such as Hawkeye actually being older in the film, alongside additions and omissions such as a focus on settlers and their struggle with conscription alongside other moments spent away from the main group (such as focusing on the romance of Hawkeye and Cora rather than Cora with Uncas).

Here, we have a film where the authority of ritual become loosened and challenged by the wilderness. It has the look and gravitas needed in capturing the magic that other frontier films (shall we say Unconquered (1947), for example) that makes for a fairly useful attempt at making reactionary drama come alive for what is needed for the 1990s. It was shot in North Carolina with no expense spared to make a frontier adventure in the wilderness that had a committed Day-Lewis (in terms of actually living in the wilderness for a few months prior to shooting), a runtime of 112-117 minutes that is generally available in a revised cut (Mann had to trim it down from a planned three hours and tinkered with the film for DVD release - the 112 was the original, while the director's expanded version runs at 117) and a budget of $40 million. On the whole, it is a pretty good looking movie (as shot by Dante Spinotti in the second of films with Mann as cinematographer), one that aims for sweeping passion and excitement in the 18th century without being tied down to complete accuracy that tries to strike at the heart of forging forward in a new land with Mann's aesthetic for vivid entertainment that sticks with one for quite a while after seeing it. In a plethora of urban dramas that characterized Mann's previous work (this is his fourth feature film), one in which he wanted to do a current perspective on a complex time with intensity.

In this case, Day-Lewis certianly captures the task needed for such an earthy role. It is one that demands a resourceful actor that can play to romance and adventure needed in a film presenting a clear tapestry of athmosphere. The preparation done by Day-Lewis plays a part in how he does his performance, but it is also the striking eyes that play the key aid in how he balances his standing in where he is in when it comes to converging cultures. It is as if he reflects the soil of the frontier, reactive in what is needed. Stowe reflects the other side of frontier pursuit, an independent streak with grace that pairs quite well in romance (or the opposite feeling with Waddington) without getting lost in the land or with the action. Means and Schweig play their parts with reasoned solumn efforts despite not having as much dialogue - but they sure do help when it comes to the climax, where dialogue isn't needed to much to depict swift tension. Waddington reflects the stubborn spirit of the British well enough, one that moves by what seems proper and what seems to be needed in the wilderness. Studi plays maleficence with rightful emphasis, one that burrows his descent with edge that we can see in anyone as interested in seeing the perspective of preservation within revenge. At any rate, what we have here is an interesting piece between two genres, one that fits in the mold of adventure like a matinee film from decades ago but with the modern style and perspective that comes with the territory of forging a fresh film that takes inspiration from paintings of that era for a dazzling look to go with those weapons of the time to make a compelling narrative come alive. It plays with facts to make a useful time seem all the more interesting, and it has sat well within Mann's line of work after nearly three decades.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.