Ten Statements About....THE BLOB (1988)

"Hey...someone threw up in the center aisle...a LOT!"

“All I saw was an old man with a funky hand, that's all I saw."
“The thing on that man's hand killed him and then it killed Paul, and whatever it is, it's getting bigger!”

1) Jeez, Chuck Russell....you sure take your time with starting this party.  That first couple of scenes start out sooooo slowly that I almost gave up on it.  Luckily I remember liking it when I saw it in college because things pick up.

2) I have to give this film props for the sheer ruthlessness of its body count.  While I certainly understand the Janet-Leigh-ification of Donovan Leitch’s Paul, I did not expect the film to follow through with the murder of a number of supporting characters I expected to see last the night--including one child!

3) Maybe it’s me, but I never quite bought Kevin Dillon (who, oddly enough, looks like what would happen if Kevin Bacon and Matt Dillon had a child) as the rebel Brian.  It’s obvious that he is aping Steve McQueen from the original, but there’s something missing that robs him of that quality.

4) I always thought Shawnee Smith was hella cute, but I’m struck by how, even at this early juncture,

Scream, Shawnee Smith...scream like the wind!

she has some real acting skill.  Meg could have been a nothing, cliched character, but Smith does give her life, nuance, and something of a backbone.  As such, she manages to cover for Dillon’s shortcomings and becomes the de facto central character.

5) This film’s major twist would never have worked without Joe Seneca.  Seneca plays Dr. Meadows very, very cagily; I love how, as we peel away the layers to find out what he truly is, we never quite lose the kindly doctor we first meet--and that makes him all the scarier.

6) And speaking of that twist--while I will certainly agree that it’s a reflection of the times in which this remake was made, I do think it’s a great swerve for people familiar with the original, and is another sign of All Bets Being Off.

7) God bless the 80‘s for giving us a horror film that focuses primarily on teenage characters with enough grue and grotesqueness that it garners an R rating.  You know that the studios would never allow that to stand today.  And speaking of the grotesqueness...

There' a phallic symbol joke just begging to be told here....

8) Given that we’re talking about the era of practical effects, this Blob is seriously scary.  It’s got an even more organic look than the original that’s positively disturbing.  Sure, there are a couple of clunky shots (including the one that was used on the film’s posters), but overall there’s a sense of immediacy to the creature.  Even when it switches to being somewhat obviously blue-screened in, it evokes fond memories of Ray Harryhausen.

9)  You know, I sometimes balk at how some horror films aren’t horror films, but are action movies with horror elements.  An argument can be made that this film slides into an action movie with horror elements in the third act...and yet, thanks to the script by Russell and Frank Darabont, I did not mind it.  Hell, I loved the way it sort of mimicked those 50‘s sci-fi films where it boils down to man beating the crap out of a giant monster.

10) Even though the small town is pretty much a cipher--I don’t think the place is even named--but the casting of some major character actors like Candy Clark, Art La Fluer and the great Del Close in key roles help flesh out the world by giving the populace a life of its own.

Overall...a fun, effective and gruesome update on a classic B-movie that’s been unjustly forgotten.

Ten Statements About....THE PROPHECY II (1997)

"I'm an angel and I oppose Chris...when do I get my check?"

“Ironic, isn't it? An archangel needs a monkey to get a vision from God."

1) Wow....not even ten minutes into this less-than-ninety minutes sequel and two of the more three dimensional characters get written out--one just gets a voice over before bursting into a CGI flock of birds.

2) You remember how I praised the original film for taking the time to create a credible mythology and backstory for their angelic war?  Well, forget that.  This whole film has a strong whiff of ‘just go with it’ from beginning to end; everything, from the way Christopher Walken’s Gabriel returns to Earth to the way he is defeated, seems made up on the spot.

3) Jennifer Beals’ Valerie fares a little bit better than Virginia Madsen’s Katherine from the previous film--but that might be because there’s a lot less required of her.  She’s much more reactive than proactive, and admittedly there are some moments toward the end where Beals acquits herself quite well, including the final confrontation between her and Gabriel.

"So there are angels and they're at war...when do I get my
check?"

4) Here is where Walken just dives right into Full On Walken Mode--his Gabriel this time is all quirks, wisecracks and callbacks.  Even though he does spend some time paying lip service to his jealousy of humanity, the script by Matt Greenberg and Greg Spence has robbed a lot of that jealousy of the poetic nature originator Gregory Widen gave it in the first film.

5) I find it fascinating how all the life and humor of Steve Hynter’s Joseph has been sucked out of him in his one scene where he rants at Valerie and fills in some of the backstory.  My impulse is that Joseph was turned into a grump solely to make Gabriel the most vivid character in the film.

6) ....and that’s further borne out by how freaking dull the other angelic characters are.  Russell Wong’s Danyael, who is supposed to be the male lead of the flick, is colorless and without life (his most distinctive characteristic is his nationality, which sticks out amongst the all white angelic hosts), and Eric Roberts’ Michael is so sonombulistic that you can imagine Roberts watching the clock the whole time.

"So we decided to tear it down and put up a Galleria..."

7) So, ummm....that’s Eden?  I guess someone took the song ‘Big Yellow Taxi’ literally.

8) I think nothing shows this film’s inconsistency--not only with its predecessor, but with itself--as much as Britney Murphy’s Izzy, who is supposed to be Gabriel’s companion in the way both Adam Goldberg and Amanda Plummer were in the first film.  The script is extremely fickle with Izzy--she acts all tortured and resistant like Goldberg and Plummer did when the script needs her to, and makes her act like a full on accomplice when it needs that.  It robs her of the little shading these previous characters had.

(Although admittedly, she has the best laugh line in the film.)

9)  Given how this is pretty much confined to Los Angeles proper (although I suspect a large portion of the film is Vancouver-Pretending-To-Be-LA), the film doesn’t have the beauty the first film had.  Quite the opposite--there’s a real sense of tawdriness and cheapness to the way it looks and feels.

10) Even though I have no idea whatsoever how the film ended up there (and I hated the last shot, which had that ‘nudge in the ribs’ sort of overobviousness), I did like the fate of Gabriel...and it’s one of the few times in this movie where Walken underplays the role.

Overall...even with a few rare grace notes, this makes all the mistakes the original avoided.  Probably best to avoid unless you’re committed to watch the whole series.

Ten Statements About....FRAILTY (2001)

This may not look like a weapon of divine retribution...

“You're my son, and I love you more than my own life. But you know what's funny about all of this, Fenton? I'm afraid of you."

1) One of the brilliant things in a film filled with brilliant things is Bill Paxton’s performance as the unnamed patriarch of the Meiks clan....because he is able to convey that he’s a good father even as he becomes obsessed with his new calling in life.  This makes his decision midway through the film thoroughly logical (even as that decision may have led to both his fate and the fate of his sons).

2) I have to wonder if writer Brent Hanley is a fan of writer Jim Thompson; not only does the film have a narrative feel similar to Thompson’s work, part of the film’s resolution seems to quote an aspect of one of his most famous (and twice filmed) novels, The Killer Inside Me.

3) I am so grateful that Paxton knew that the violence in the film needed to be implied.  If we actually saw the ax murders on screen it might distract from the fact that this film is purportedly a psychological character piece about how one person copes with the rest of his family being, in his mind, thoroughly and utterly insane.

...but this man would disagree....

4) One thing I did not care for is how Hanley cements the bulk of the film as happening in 1979.  Given the universalities of the themes this film explores, the way the film stops so Adam and Fenton Meiks can debate about whether they should go see Meatballs or The Warriors or who’s the funniest character on The Dukes of Hazard distracts from the story while adding nothing.  The script would have been better served to keep the time frame ambiguous, to give the past segments more of a ‘fairy tale’ feel.

5) God bless Powers Boothe.  He’s one of those rare actors who can look like he’s working both sides of the fence in the same damn flick and never look like he’s faking one or the other.

6) You know why Matthew McConaughey is so perfect as our narrator?  His eyes have such a haunted look to them throughout the film.  Even though Paxton makes it pretty clear early on that this is an unreliable narrator film, McConaughey manages to make us forget it every time we look into his eyes.  After all, there’s so much pain in them, how can we not believe that he went through the horrific moral quandary depicted in his tale?

Sometimes family advice is not good advice...

7) This film would not work without the effective performances by Luke Askew and Jeremy Sumpter.  The twist that fuels the third act would not have worked without one of them creating enough of a resonance with McConaughey’s performance that we take something said in the present day as gospel.

8) I guess one of the reasons I found the twist so effective is how Paxton makes sure to make the trappings of Pa’s obsession seem so ordinary. When these three divine weapons turn out to be an axe, a pair of workman’s gloves and a lead pipe, we tend to downgrade the grandiosity of his delusions.  And by downgrading him, we are taken off guard when we realize the nature of what is really happening.

9)  I’m sure a lot of people balked at the supernatural element that’s introduced in Act Three...but even though Paxton gives us reasons not to believe there is the supernatural in this world, at no point does he ever definitively say there is no supernatural.  When the presence of the superatural is revealed, the moments where it presents itself in the first two acts do not contradict this new information.

10) I don’t know which is goofier--the dream that results from moonlight shining on a trophy, or the dream that shows a fully armored angel emerging from the undercarriage of an auto....but maybe that goofiness is intentional, and plays into the impact Paxton wants the big reveal to have.

Overall...a very nuanced horror film that addresses the concept of morality emphasizing atmosphere over gore, cleverly directed and well written.

Ten Statements About....THE PROPHECY (1995)

"I'm a tweety bird...CAW! CAW!"

“Do you know how you got that dent, in your top lip? Way back, before you were born, I told you a secret, then I put my finger there and I said "Shhhhh!"

1) I love the care and attention with which director Gregory Widen maintains his mythology for this film, especially his ‘biology’ of the angels within.  Something as simple as the way the preferred state of rest for angels is perching like a bird adds a degree of otherness that gives the film something extra.

2) Yes, this film is carried mainly by Christopher Walken being Christopher Walken...but the intriguing thing is that this is Walken at the beginning of that phase in his career.  As such, Gabriel is a fully rounded character full of rage, pride, arrogance and jealousy with only peeks of the Walken-as-Walken quirkiness coming through (I’m looking at you, trumpet lessons scene...)

3) What I wouldn’t give for a film which has Viggo Mortensen’s Lucifer front and center.  Every second he’s on screen in the third act, your eyes are drawn to him.  And thankfully the script never loses sight of how Lucifer is motivated solely by selfish reasons.

(Hell, what I wouldn’t give for a film where Mortensen’s Lucifer and Peter Stomare’s First Of The Fallen from Constantine hang out together....)

4) I honestly don’t know if the whole Amerind aspect of the story has any point whatsoever.  I suspect you could take out everything related to the reservation and still have a full story.  Maybe it’s because Widen had cast Moriah Shining Dove Snyder (who should be called Shining Teeth considering how bright those choppers are) in the central role of Mary.  Given how limited Ms. Snyder’s acting range is, maybe the film would have been served better to have gone with a different actress and dispense with the gratuitious Amerind Ritualizing.

"He ain't human...so I ain't taking him to Mendy's!"

5) The thing that always bothers me about Elias Koteas as a leading man is how generic he is.  There’s nothing wrong with his performance per se--there are a couple of moments where he acquits himself quite well, in fact.  But he tends to melt into the background and remind me of other, better actors.  In this film in particular he keeps blurring into a sort of lumpen version of Adrien Brody crossed with Robert deNiro.

6) This film needed Steve Hynter’s Joseph.  The first half of this film is so dour that we needed someone like him to provide much needed comic relief.  Hynter plays Joseph well, as someone secure enough in his intelligence that he can goof a bit...and if the facts are the facts, he won’t disbelieve that.

7) I don’t know who the person was who thought Virginia Madsen would look good as a brunette is, but he needs to be stopped.

8)  ...although I wonder if my response to Madsen is due not to her appearance, but because her character Katherine is all over the place.  Widen’s script seems to force so many aspects on her--she’s weirdly placed in the role of surrogate mother to Mary, she’s got this teacher thing going, she has to be the love interest, she has to be an exposition dump--that she becomes diffuse.  Unlike Koteas’ Thomas, who does have a single strong throughline, Katherine is everything to everyone, and becomes nothing to no one.

"And then David Cronenberg snuck up behind me and
whispered 'Boo!'  He does that a lot."

9) I don’t know how I feel about Eric Stoltz’s Samuel.  I get the impression he’s trying to be a bad ass at times, and he fails...but there are other moments where he’s called on to be a manipulator, especially when he reaches Chimney Rock, and there he excels.  If Widen had lessened the former and emphasized the later, we might have ended up with a more effective character.

10) It’s kind of sad that this was Widen’s only theatrical film as a director.  Throughout this film, there are lots of striking visual moments that indicate that he could’ve been a real contender, even if he stuck to genre filmmaking.

Overall...a rather striking horror film both visually and narratively in spite of its flaws.  Granted, I wish that Dimension hadn’t tried to force a franchise out of this one little gem (four sequels!), but taken on it’s own it’s worth a watch.

Ten Statements About....DESPERADO (1995)

Yep...one of the hottest women in the world and Antonio
Bandares walking away from an explosion.  Nothing more
to say here, really..

"Easier to pull a trigger than play a guitar.  Easier to destroy than to create."

1) Even moreso than Sam Raimi and Evil Dead 2, Robert Rodriguez structures this film so that it can be both a sequel and a remake.  We do get flashbacks and dialogue callbacks to El Mariachi, but there are new elements that make it feel like its own movie.  Plus the presence of Carlos Gallardo in a very flashy cameo toward the end (that does not in any way contradict his character in the previous film) can make the argument that this is a parallel film in the same universe a valid one.

2) Watching this after watching Rodriguez’s later films in the same tradition like the Machete films, it strikes me that he has a much better balance of the outrageous and comedic elements here.  The humor never gets in the way of his intention to make a modern day spaghetti western reset in Chicano dress.  And speaking of humor....

3) ...as good as Antonio Banderas is, as good as Salma Hayek is, the true MVP of this film is Joaquim de Almieda.  Almieda’s Bucho has the unenviable task of being both a credible bad guy while also carrying the bulk of the humor, and he does so with grace and aplomb.  This film would have fallen apart if Almieda didn’t handle both aspects of Bucho well.

4) You know, the sexiest moment in the film is not the sweaty love scene of Banderas and Hayek rolling about naked (and don’t get me wrong...naked Salma Hayek is always a good thing), but the bookends to that scene.  The brief moment of Hayek’s Carolina helping Banderas play guitar, and the equally brief moment of her singing with eyes closed as Banderas prepares to defend himself are so easy in their sensuality that no amount of nudity can match it.

Is there anything more Rodriguez than a gorgeous Chicano
woman shooting a gun?

5) You wanna know how you can get your audience to accept something as insane and out there as a guitar case rocket launcher, Robert Rodriguez?  You pepper your movie with smaller examples of nuttiness so that when the insane moment shows up the audience is ready for it.

6) There are some moments in here that remind you that Rodriguez had a real painterly eye for compositions before he fell down the ‘all exploitation all the time’ rabbit hole...the moment where Banderas is stumbling down an alleyway, leaving brilliant smears of blood on the white adobe wall, is both horrifying and beautiful at the same time.

7) And I do respect how Rodriguez at this point in his career is not only aware of how ludicrous his action can be, he comments on it.  Just take a look at the parallel scenes from the first and second act of this film--first we get Steve Buscemi narrating an aggrandized, over the top gun battle, then we get Quentin Tarantino (why is it only Rodriguez can get tolerable performances out of QT?) telling a piss joke prior to an over the top gun fight that is awkward and obviously exhausting for all involved.  It’s an effective bit of metacommentary on his own style.

Yep...a mariachi with a rocket launcher guitar case...nothing
more to say here.

8) I do like the fact that this film is very much about grey areas, which is why it is at its core a spaghetti western (a burrito western?).  When not only one of the supporting characters, but the female lead are cooperating with Bucho, it changes our point of view on our hero’s quest.

9)  I really wish Steve Buscemi’s American had been given a larger role, simply because he provides the closest thing we get to a conscience for our POV character that none of the other characters can be because of their cooperation with Bucho.

10) I have to respect this film for deciding what it wants and then working out a way to logically make it happen.  Just look at how Rodriguez makes it so that he has the shot of Hayek and Banderas walking away from an explosion without it looking stupid, unlikely or cheesy.

Overall...a very good example of how you can feed your grindhouse belly without the story flying off thoroughly into fantasy land, bouyed by some excellent performances.

Ten Statements About....GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY (2014)

Cue the late 70's pop rock....

“Why would you want to save the galaxy?"
“Because I'm one of the idiots who lives in it!”

1) It is kinda refreshing to have a movie that takes place in the Marvel Universe that is standalone.  While there are tiny connectors to the other films (primarily the presence of Thanos and The Collector), someone not interested in the Cinematic Universe could watch it and have a satisfying experience.

2) I’m surprised at how well Chris Pratt carries this film.  He sets the tone of the film, balances out a number of other characters with diametrically opposite genre traditions and keeps the plot driving forward.  It’s a rather remarkable performance.

3) I wonder if Vin Diesel had flashbacks to The Chronicles of Riddick when dealing with Ronan’s ‘NecroCorps’ and all.

4) But while we’re on the subject of Ronan...he comes off kinda weak as a villain, boasting and posturing until he gets the Holy MacGuffin of the film.  Hell, one could argue that the real villain is The Holy MacGuffin, which is responsible for giving Ronan the ability to do what he wants to do.

Yep...would still hit that...

5) For a change, director and co-writer James Gunn gives us a solid reason for the mostly classic pop soundtrack, and even gives us a solid reason why Peter is obsessed with that era of music.  Okay, it never explains why the most delicate music delivery system in history survived 26 years of interstellar travel, let alone how Quill finds batteries, but....shrug.

6) My problem with Zoe Saldana’s Gamora isn’t that you’ve got a stick insect playing a character who’s supposed to be softer featured, uncommonly tall and uncommonly curvy (okay, maybe it’s a small part), but the fact that there’s nothing that makes me feel she’s this hardcore assassin, let alone one of the most dangerous beings in the cosmos. Yeah, she does a lot of kicky do’s but the sense of this great face turn is blunted.  That being said....

He's not just an Elder of The Universe...he's fancy.

7) I do appreciate that, while there is chemistry between Saldana and Pratt, Gunn stays true to Gamora’s statement that she will not be one of his conquests.  Thus their developing friendship seems genuine while hinting at the possibility of something more.

8) Okay, we get that Benicio delToro’s Collector is Designated Expository Man, there only to give us the lowdown on The Holy MacGuffin...but damn if he isn’t fun.  From his admonishing his servant to use her elbows lest she meet the fate of the previous assistant to the end credits stinger (which featured the single most surprising character ever to appear in a Cinematic Universe film), he is a joy to watch.

"Behold my Holy MacGuffin Supercharged Hammer!"

9) Even with what looks like a skid mark on her face, blue skin and no hair, Karen Gillen is still hot.

10) I give Gunn a lot of credit for making sure the humor is fully integrated into the adventure and feels nature.  Everyone takes their turn as comic relief, and when we think the character is being treated too much as a joke, Gunn and cowriter Nicole Perlman slip in a moment of pathos like Bradley Cooper’s Rocket's drunken breakdown.

Overall...as someone who does not care for space opera, I was surprised at how much I enjoyed it.  By focusing just as much on characters as on spectacle, Gunn succeeds in creating the pulp science fiction film he claimed he wanted to make.

Ten Statements About....DOCTOR WHO STORY ONE HUNDRED TWENTY-THREE: TIME-FLIGHT (1982)

"And later I will go to ComicCon in this outfit and
fool everyone!"

“What's happened to the Xeraphin?” 
“Transferred to the center of the Master's Tardis.” 
“What does that mean?” 
“It means the Master has finally defeated me."

1) This story was written by long time Who director Peter Grimwade.  As a writer, Grimwade...makes an exceptional director.  This is just a sad and confusing story that has a strong whiff of Grimwade making it up as he goes along.

2) Nothing dates a story quite like having it revolve around a then ‘cutting edge’ technological wonder.  The way this serial fetishizes the Concorde makes it seem awful quaint in retrospective.

3) That being said, I’m almost willing to forgive the dated Concorde love for the inclusion of Richard Easton’s Captain Stapley.  The latest of this season’s Temporary Companions, Stapley is a lot of fun, and even has a pair of ‘companions’ of his own.  I particularly like how he unwittingly helps the Doctor plot The Master’s downfall.  And speaking of The Master...

Somehow I don't think the 'Possessed Sway'
will catch on as a dance craze....

4) ...what.  the.  Hell is the Master doing cosplaying as a fat-ass Persian sorcerer?  It’s not as if he expected The Doctor to pop up in this continuum.  He seems to wearing that uncomfortable looking fat suit solely because he can.  It’s ridiculous, and I was relieved when he rid himself of the Khalid identity at the end of the second part.

5) So are the Plasmatons a lesser version of the Xeraphin, a sort of creation pulled out of the Master’s mind by his leeching off of the Xeraphin’s psychic energy, freeform psychokinetic servants or....

Why am I ruminating on this?  They’re crap, right up there with Omega’s Jelly Bean Men from The Three Doctors in terms of silly looking.

6) Here’s one of my main problems with the Anthony Ainley version of The Master--he always seems to be doing stuff to fix things that went wrong with either a) himself or b) his TARDIS.  All this complicated bull is set up by him just so he can jump start his ionic column.

"It's not a crap matte...it's part of the story!"

7) Here’s where the benefit of having only two companions work--both Nyssa and Tegan have something to do, and for a change, Nyssa actually gets to do a little more than Tegan (which is odd, given that you would think the stewardess would have more to do in a serial where a commercial airplane has a prominent role).  Okay, granted, most of it is Sarah Sutton getting all stiff and channel-y as the Xeraphin try to communicate through her, but still...

8) So when it comes to the Xeraphin’s psychic defenses, they throw illusions up of Adric (makes sense, given that the mental pain caused by his death is still fresh), the Melkur (makes sense given the Xeaphin have tapped into Nyssa’s mind) and...a Terraleptil?  Even admitting how much I like the Terraleptils, that’s a pretty sad admission that so far, the Davison era has seriously poor monsters.  Why didn’t the Xeraphin throw the Master at them, given the pain he's caused both of the companions?  It’s not like Ainley’s appearance would blunt the ‘surprise’ of him being Khalid.

9) Not only is the Heathrow shooting way gratuitous, with long sequences taking in parts one and four, it draws too much attention to itself, as if Nathan-Turner is screaming, ‘Hey Look!  We’ve got enough of a budget to do location shooting!’  Much like the use of the Concorde having no purpose in the story, all this Heathrow love is pointless.

Well, at least they get rid of Teg--wait, what?

10) I give the serial credit for not only accepting the limitations of its low budget, but using it as an advantage when it comes to the scenes of the characters under the delusions caused by The Master.  The obvious matte shots of the background seems out of place until you realize those shots are psychic fabrications!

Overall...a terrible, terrible end to the nineteenth season of Who.  The nonsensical story, the too-long Heathrow elements, the dumb behavior of the Master....all these elements combine to provide a story that eminently missable.