The Stepford Wives- a comparison

            Having finally seen the 1975 version of “The Stepford Wives” and the 2004 I can honestly say the original was the better version.  A great novel written in 1972 by Ira Levin the 1975 movie follows rather well.  I was really really impressed by the paranoia and simplicity used to make it a decent thriller. 

            The 2004 version has a good cast and snappy writing but takes away the terror of that the book and the 1975 movie gave by letting us see a strong independent woman ultimately betrayed by the man she loved and had children with.  I will say this though.  It’s insane how the some of the actresses in this movie look like other actresses.  Katharine Ross has a hint of Diane Keaton and Paula Prentiss looks like Linda Lovelace.

            The story is very dark and very interesting and the new version just glosses over every thing.  Mathew Broderick plays the husband and he looks like Nicole Kidman could kick the shit out of him.  I don’t believe for a second this man could force any sort of power trip on his wife much less a conspiracy of control.  Not wee Ferris Bueller.  At least Katherine has the wee frame that makes her seem a mix of intimidated and willing to risk it all to get her kids back.

            Whether you like one or the other the story is has been parodied.  Its good book and most people would benefit to read it.  Anyway, if you are looking for something dark about a town where nothing is as it seems then “The Stepford Wives” (1975) is a good movie and even better book.  It’s very feminist and takes a very interesting view of the modern housewife.  There are hints of “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” but with a much more obvious message. 

The Blob- a comparison

There is something really funny about a bunch of goo as a threat.  It’s something you really don’t think about from a typical alien attack.  “The Blob” first came out in 1958.  In its most base sense it’s a boy cried wolf story.  The boy in this case is played by a young Steve McQueen and his performance and likeability really make this movie fun.  Funny thing is he’s playing a teenager when he was in his late twenties.

This movie has a huge following.  The town where it was filmed holds annual festivals in its honor.  The theater where people ran screaming from the blob as it attacked them is still there and they watch the movie and during that scene folks will run screaming from the theater.  It’s awesome that this blob brings people together after so many years.

​It really is a pinnacle point of the monster movie era of the fifties.  We have an intro song that you’d think the movie was going to be a comedy.  We have an alien terror that comes down in a meteor. It terrorizes a small town with teenagers in their jaunty jalopies by oozing around the movie theaters and make out spots.  Finally after figuring out its weakness to cold they realize the best thing they can do is contain it.  So they freeze it and ship it to where it will remain frozen permanently.  It ends with a question mark at the end of the “The End” title.  Mix with Steve McQueen’s raw talent at his young age and its cinematic gold.

Then there was a remake in 1988.  I was going into this thinking I was going to be sort of bummed. But actually this movie is REALLY good on its own merits.  It’s different for sure but it really impressed me that a movie made 30 years after the original could make a blob scary.  First off the screenplay I was shocked to discover was written by Frank Darabont,  “The Walking Dead” director as well as director of such movies as “The Shawshank Redemption”, “The Green Mile” and “The Mist”.  So that was looking up.  After the last piece of crap I watched (“Resurrection Mary” for anyone who cares) I was in the mood to watch something that actually was good for a change.

So it’s different.  Kevin Dillon is the main hero and Shawnee Smith is our leading lady. Shawnee Smith, by the way if you don’t know is the woman that plays Amanda in the early “SAW” movies.  Here she plays a teen dream.  So that takes some imagination for me since I am used to her being a psycho.   Anyway I was impressed because for the most part it followed the other movie.  Meteorite crashes, goo gets on a poor saps hand.  Kids take him to a doctor. The goo liquefies the entire bottom half of the poor sap and …..holy shit.

Yeah they cranked up the gore a ton making this movie a trip to watch.  The blob engulfs people and you actually watch as it dissolves them inside the goo.  It’s horrible and yet the effects are so cool it reminds me how I loved movie “The Thing” for basically the same reason.  The blob terrorizes a movie theater and is stopped by freezing much like the original.  But the major difference is this blob is not an alien.

It’s technically a bioweapon developed by our government and is going out of control.  It’s our next step to outwit the Soviets. Ok, that does give it a new twist.  Of course during all this insanity the revered of the town has gone batshit crazy and is spouting verses of hellfire and brimstone even collecting pieces of the frozen blob corpse and putting it in a jar.    Finally the blob is destroyed by liquid nitrogen and exploding.   So all is well and there is no question mark at the end of this one.  Oh no!  The revered is having a tent revival telling people about the coming apocalypse.  When we see someone ask him how soon it’s coming.  He pulls out a jar with his throbbing sample of the still living blob saying it’s on its way.  Ooh he’s evil.

That was good.  It’s a pretty decent remake and pretty worth seeing the two of them if you are in the mood for a cheesy movie about colorful ooze that pulsates around getting larger and killing people.  All in all they are fun movies. The remake is not probably pretty tame by today’s standards but is still more towards the gory side so use discretion if showing to kids  FYI a kid does get eaten by the blob I this version so if that might cause then to freak out then maybe this pick isn’t for them.  The original I think is one even kids should be able to see and enjoy.

The Mummy movies-a comparison

Universal Pictures had the feather in its cap as creating some of the classic golden age horror movies of American cinema.  Having seen both versions it’s amazing though that they not only changed the story with of the remake but altered characters to make the new one more of a display of special effects of the time.  

The first version of “The Mummy” came out in 1932 and stared Boris Karloff.   Despite what you would think he hardly walks around in his bandages.  In fact he only does that at the very beginning of the movie.  It starts with some archeologist digging out Im-ho-tep’s sarcophagus.  They read the curse on the inscription that says he was buried alive for sacrilege but open it anyway and read from the scroll of Thoth.  This brings him back to life. Only one man sees this happen though and he is goes mad after seeing a mummified human shamble away.

Ten years later Im-ho-tep is disguised as a regular Egyptian named Ardath Bey.  He doesn’t care about destroying the world or causing pain to untold thousands he basically wants to steal the scroll of Thoth back to resurrect his dead girlfriend.  But he finds out his girlfriend’s soul is trapped in the body of a socialite, Helen, played by Zita Johann, and must be sacrificed for the ritual to work.  She eventually summons the aid of Isis who fires out a beam destroying the scroll and causing Im-ho-tep to crumble into a skeleton.

It’s a creepy love story from beyond the grave.  It was definitely a good one but as anyone who as seen the 1999 version with Brendan Fraser will know these movies are different as night and day.  First let’s talk about the cast.  In the original the leading male, Frank Whemple, played by David Manners sort of took a back seat.  Meanwhile the lead we get in the 1999 version is the Encino Man himself Brendan Fraser.  An American in the French Foreign Legion stationed in Egypt built as a poor man’s Indiana Jones, Rick O’Connell.

The Helen has gone from the classy socialite who can pretty much take care of herself to the librarian damsel in distress, Evy Carnahan, played by Rachel Weisz.  When she isn’t getting herself kidnapped she is making laughably goofy faces with the hero as if to say “As if you can do better out here.”  So because O’Connell knows the location of a secret city they hire him to help uncover it. The expedition helps reveal a book which some dupes read from this bringing Imotep to life.

In this version he has to go around draining the folks that read from the book and have his canopic jars to gain strength and look human.  It’s actually kind of a cool effect.    The heroes are followed by a guy named ARDETH BEY.  Played by Oded Fehr, but I just think of him as the man whore in “Deuce Bigalow Male Gigolo”.  They have to content with the fact this Mummy wants Evy to sacrifice for the same reason as the old version.   But for some reason this one also can magically cause the ten plagues of Egypt and has more magical ability than Gandalf the Grey.

I know this is nitpicking but that is REALLY stupid.  He was cursed with this horrible death that involved death by being mummified alive and for some reason having scarab beetles poured on him (which shouldn’t do anything to him unless he is made of vegetation or poop).  So what was the brilliant plan of the Egyptian leaders there?  If he comes back he’ll have all the powers of a god?  So why bury the book that makes him an immortal badass with him?  Anyway it’s a plot hole in the original as well.  If you are going to put someone to death just make sure you don’t put the key to immortality buried next to them to resurrect them.

So the heroes tangle with him in various forms so the producers can show their CGI prowess.  Then during the ritual to resurrect his girlfriend it turns out there is another book that will kill him.  So they read form that book and his soul gets taken by a ghostly chariot. O’Connell runs him through and he falls in some sort of ghostly water and dies.  Then heroes get rich on the gold of the temple.

Yes I have left a lot out.  It’s a cheesy movie to say the least but it can be enjoyable in the right mood.  They are both so wildly different that saying both are even in the same league is pretty wrong.  I do prefer the original mostly because I like the simplicity and the fact that it doesn’t seem to insult the audience’s intelligence by throwing more CGI to make up for a lack of story and some really BAD comic relief.  I recommend seeing them both just to compare the two.  It is a strange what 67 years difference will do.