237) Weapons (2025)

"Those kids walked out of those homes, no one pulled them out. No one forced them."

Director
Zach Cregger

Cast
Julia Garner -Justine Gandy
Josh Brolin - Archer Graff
Alden Ehrenreich - Paul Morgan
Cary Christopher - Alex Lilly
Austin Abrams - James
Benedict Wong - Marcus Miller
Cary Christopher - Alex Lilly
Justin Long - Gary
Sara Paxton - Erica
Amy Madigan - Gladys

* Spoilers ahead *

Actress Amy Madigan, whom I remember most as Buck Russell’s (John Candy) girlfriend, Chanice Kobolowski, in the 1989 John Hughes comedy Uncle Buck, just won an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress for her role in the 2025 supernatural mystery horror film "Weapons." A well-deserved congratulations goes out to Amy Madigan. I think she established a new staying face in the lexicon of horror movie monsters. That monster being Aunt Gladys.

Back when "Weapons" came out last year, I heard a lot of good things about, even from commentators whom I was surprised had given it positive reviews. Based on that, I was anxious to see it but couldn't do so until now. 

It's directed by Zach Cregger who wrote and directed the 2022 horror movie "Barbarian" which I commented on last year. "Barbarian" is unsettling, disturbing, and grotesque. So, I anticipated "Weapons" to be similar with gross content. Hence, my surprise at the praises thrown at it. Well, it is unsettling and disturbing before being scary. Anytime a film depicts the vulnerability of the innocent threatened and attacked, what else can it be? 

For a horror movie, "Weapons" is such an intense mystery right from its start. 

The story begins at 2:17 am in Maybrook, PA as seventeen children, all from Justine Gandy's (Julia Garner) third-grade class, suddenly run out of their homes and vanish. One student, however, named Alex Lilly (Cary Christopher) doesn't run away. 

Of course, worried parents think Justine must somehow be responsible. One of those parents, Archer Graff (Josh Brolin), whose son Matthew is among those missing children, is very accusatory of Grandy, certain she must have a part to play in these disappearances. 

Amy Madigan as Gladys Lilly in "Weapons."

Justine attempts to figure out why Alex is the only student in her class who didn't run off. Despite warnings from the school principal, Marcus Miller (Benedict Wong) that she cannot make contact with her student while she's on administrative leave, Justine attempts to talk to Alex outside of school. She even goes so far as to snoop around the outside of his home. What she finds is truly unusual and something that can't be ignored. But what else can she do? Justine also turns to alcohol to get through the amount of scorn and accusations parents are throwing at her daily. 

On top of that, she has a chance encounter with her old boyfriend, Paul Morgan (Alden Ehrenreich) who works as a police officer. They hook up for the night, though Paul is married. Shame on both of them!

Later, Paul spots a drug-addicted vagrant named James (Austin Abrams) in the middle of an attempted break-in. When he catches James and arrests him after a chase, he accidentally pokes in the finger on a drug needle in James's pocket. Angered, he punches James in the face and then tries to rectify the brutality by letting James off with a warning. He also tells James to never cross his path in the future. 

Meanwhile Archer has some unusual dreams and visions about the disappearance of his son. He conducts his own investigation as well which leads him to a specific spot where he thinks the missing children might be located.

James the vagrant also stumbles upon a location and thinks he found the missing children. He calls the police in the hopes of obtaining the cash reward, which leads him back into Officer Paul's path. 

The individual stories of these characters are all tied together, and they all have visions of an unusual woman named Gladys (Amy Madigan). 

And this same Gladys eventually shows up to Alex's house when the film gets to his story. Alex's mom invites her to stay as Gladys is a distant relative who no longer has a place to live, and her health is declining.
The movie unfolds through various perspectives from multiple characters. The dread, suspense and anticipation are drawn out this way. Thankfully, it's not so drawn out that it becomes frustrating and boring. The pace and run-time are just right. It hooked me! The characters are so well fleshed out that I was truly concerned about each one, especially the teacher and Josh Brolin's character.
Jennifer Garner's performance is fantastic. She goes from a being caring schoolteacher to a coping and struggling resident who's the subject of hatred among the residents. So, she turns to booze to cope.
The strongest element in "Weapons" is missing school children. I tried to understand where the title comes from. I think the story uses that imagery of children as instruments or “weapons” in order for the audience to consider society's violation of innocence and disdain for the vulnerable (children specifically).
The premise specifically deals with corruption of youth as a result of the occult and occult practices.

In "Weapons," as in reality, evil/sin dominates the will and enslaves people. 

And once evil is exposed, it's easier to defeat as the film's conclusion, to some degree, manages to depict well enough. Even when someone's delivered from evil, it still leaves a scar. I appreciate the depiction "Weapons" conveys as it's a truth seldom seen in film, especially horror.

By chance, I happened to see a post on the "Creepy Catalog" Facebook page claiming that "Weapons" has a similar plot to an episode from the anthology TV series "Night Gallery" called "Since Aunt Ada Came to Stay." The episode, from season two, episode three, aired on Sept. 9th, 1971. While I've seen several episodes of "Night Gallery," created by Rod Serling who also created "The Twilight Zone" for those who didn't know, I don't recall this episode. So, I looked into it. 
In that episode, an unassuming old lady named Ada moves in with a young couple she's related to. It turns out Aunt Ada is a witch who puts some sort of spell or hex over the husband so she can use him as a sort of puppet who does whatever she commands him to do. Even...murder!
So, like "Since Aunt Ada Came to Stay," the movie has a premise of evil managing to sneak within an otherwise peaceful home. Then a victim loses his free will to sin thanks to a terrifying supernatural control from an unassuming elderly family member using a supernatural power for evil purposes. Well, that's interesting! 

"Weapons" gave me something very few other modern horror/thriller movies convey. Chills. I can't recall the last movie that gripped my intrigue and attention, and even made me a little nervous.
I don't know what other movie I can compare that apprehension and tension to. The 2022 survival thriller "Fall" does come to mind. My palms began to sweat when I saw that. Still, they're two completely different movies.
"Weapons" doesn’t slither its way onto the screen like a pretentious thriller. It skips the self-aggrandizing introduction and gets to the damage. It kicks the door in, dumps a bag of jagged anxieties on the table, and dares you to pay attention to each one.
Right as the premise grabs your attention and sensitivities by the shirt collar, it throws you right into the scenario with an opening narration told by a child. The movie isn't concerned with jump scares. Rather, it panics the audience with the dread within its tone and atmosphere. To see the most innocent and vulnerable among us so easily taken over by evil is jarring enough. And the adults in the story are just as helpless.
Without a doubt this is one of the most suspenseful movies I've seen!

236) The Changeling (1980)

"Whatever has to be done, has to be done by me."

Director
Peter Medak

Cast
George C. Scott - John Russell
Trish Van Devere - Claire Norman
Melvyn Douglas - Sen. Joseph Carmichael
John Colicos = DeWitt
Jean Marsh - Joanna Russell

Michelle Martin - Kathy Russell

Madeleine Sherwood - Mrs. Norman

The last time I saw the 1980 supernatural horror/thriller movie "The Changeling" starring George C. Scott and Trish Van Devere stands out clearly in my memory. It was back in high school over 20-years ago. 

I went to a Catholic boys boarding school back then which also included a four-year Liberal Arts college. The school's headmaster, a priest we'll call "Fr. A," showed us dorm students this movie on a Saturday night. And the best part of the movie night which only happened three times with Fr. A during my four years of school, was that we got to watch it in the college reading room - a prestigious part of the campus that us peon high school boys were otherwise not allowed to step foot in. He ordered us pizza, soda, and we watched "The Changeling." Thanks, Father! 

It's a flick that has certainly stayed with me primarily because of that movie night with Fr. A in the college reading room. Plus, it has George C. Scott. 

I forgot the plot though since I first saw it. I remembered the general story, but that's about it. 

Still, it wasn't the kind of movie this kind of school would generally show. There's nothing wrong with the movie. It's just with the sensitivities of traditional Catholic parents being what they are, a paranormal thriller seems like the kind of flick that would cause a row. It's rated PG-13, if anyone is wondering. Fortunately, no one complained. Not that I know of, anyway. Honestly, so what if any did?

Anyways, I decided to stroll through movie watching memory lane and put on "The Changeling" thanks to my free subscription to the Fawesome Horror movies app. Afterall, since my high school days, I have much more of a fondness for George C. Scott. By the way, Fawesome is notorious for saturating their movies with tons of commercials, often the same few commercials, and all running on a loop for two and a half minutes per each commercial break. It's a frustrating app!
In this movie, Scott plays John Russell - a musical composer from New York City who, at the beginning of the story, loses his wife Joanna (Jean Marsh) and their young daughter Kathy (Michelle Martin) in a tragic car accident up along a snow-packed country road. 

The grieving widower leaves the city and moves to Seattle to embrace a quieter life while continuing to do what he loves most - composing music. He hopes this change of life will help ease the pain of loss even if just a little. 

There, he rents a gorgeous old Victorian mansion. 

However, the old house is already inhabited by a ghost which quickly makes its presence known. Little by little, the spirit tries to reveal to John the evil secrets that took place inside that house long before he ever moved in. 

John's curiosity is, of course, on alert as paranormal happenings keep occurring around him. Thunderous banging sounds come from somewhere up in the upper floors of the house. Doors slam on their own. Objects move on their own. It's a real scare show!

John discovers a secret door hidden in the back of a storage closet. Behind it he finds a sealed attic that clearly hasn't been seen or touched for years. 

George C. Scott in "The Changeling."

There's some web-covered furniture up there, along with an antiquated wheelchair and a music box that plays an unsettling tune. What's unsettling about it is that it's a tune he has been composing. 

When John has a vision of a young boy drowning in a bathtub, he starts drawing some dark conclusions. 

He enlists the help of Claire Norman (Trish Van Devere) from the local Historical Society to aid him in uncovering the house’s unsavory past.

They both find that a young boy named Joseph Carmichael lived there back in the early part of the century. 

John and Claire have a medium come to the house to conduct a seance where Joseph's voice is captured on audio. This is where traditional Catholic parents would lose their mind!

Joseph's rich and powerful father murdered him by drowning and then replaced him with an orphan so that the family fortune would remain. That imposter Joseph Carmichael grew up to be a U.S. Senator (Melvyn Douglas) and a patron of the historical society that owns that very same house. 

Now, John takes it upon himself to ensure that justice can be served for the late (and real) Joseph Carmichael so he can rest in peace, once and for all. 

The movie is more a paranormal thriller than a paranormal horror movie. It strikes me as such because of George C. Scott's performance. It's not a bad performance given what Scott has to work with, and surely with the direction he's given. In fact, he's great in the film. 

Scott never seems to act scared or terrified as he resides in a huge house with a restless ghost. Sure, his character is coping with an unbearable tragedy. 

Still, all the paranormal activity just rouses his curiosity enough to dig deeper and deeper into the house. That would be a logical reaction, but so would fear and trepidation. 

This lack of fear from the main character steals the fear from the audience. If John isn't scared, why should the audience be scared? 

In one scene, Scott's character yells at the ghost in exhausted frustration as it manifests its anger at him after John's first attempt to make contact with Sen. Joseph Carmichael which ends in failure and humiliation. He hurls some obscenities at the ghost, which slams all the doors in the house one after the other as soon as he returns home. 

"What is it you want," John shouts. 

He stares up the huge staircase anticipating some kind of response. 

"What do you want from me? I've done everything I can do!" His voice echoes back from the bowels of the house as if to taunt him for his defeat. "There's nothing more to do!" Is he living with an angry ghost or a spoiled brat? 

I think Scott, playing Ebenezer Scrooge, conveys a lot more fear when he encounters the ghost of Jacob Marley in the 1984 version of "A Christmas Carol" than he does in this move. 

Still, Scott is fantastic in this movie for what he's going for. It's that his performance doesn't go as far as it very well could and should have. In other words, I don't think Scott was used to his full potential. He is one of the most talented actors in Hollywood history.

That's not to say there's no emotion in the movie. There is! John is trying to cope with loss, after all. And now he's found himself trying to unravel and expose an old secret no one was ever meant to know about, all revealed to him by a child's ghost. 

There's an unsettling atmosphere in "The Changeling" that's certainly haunting. The story doesn't rely on jump scares or in-your-face effects. It's all about the atmosphere, tension, plot and paranormal happenings.

Trish Van Devere as Claire.

It's a much more genuine or authentic haunted house story than others I've seen.  

The movie tries to scare, but what terror the movie possesses emerges naturally, unfolding with an eerie authenticity. 

The story is sinisterly engrossing and a haunting study in suspense. Its key scene is a seance in which the spirit of the young Joseph Carmichael speaks through a medium via psychography, or automatic writing. It's not an activity I would recommend nor endorse as it's a straight path towards losing one's soul and mind. 

Still, it's when the story grows the most intense. After this scene, John listens to the reel recordings of this seance and hears the voice of a child whispering above the medium's voice. 

"The Changeling" has an appealing classic atmosphere of a haunted house story. It manages to take the audience along with a steady increase of tension and foreboding. Grief, pain and loss are strong themes in this story. "The Changeling" tells a story not just about a haunted house, but a tale of isolation. It could have used much more for the sake of fear it's trying to depict. In this regard, I think the movie falls short. 

But I love that old fashioned atmosphere, increasing intensity and crawling fear. That sense of isolation is a strong ingredient in a paranormal horror flick, or most other horror subgenres. It's seen in paranormal movies such as "The Others" (2001) with Nicole Kidman, which is all about a grieving mother in a mysterious house. It's effectively used in "Lake Mungo" (2008) which is a really understated eerie film that deals with family tragedy and a haunting. And it's utilized in "The Innocents" (1961) which is a classic gothic film which pairs isolation with repression and the sense of a lost child. 
Familiar terrors, when well told, still have the power to grab the full attention of audiences. 

However, the story soon catches itself and veers the atmosphere towards a mystery than a ghost story, only to bring it back to that paranormal feel similar to a campfire ghost story. 

It's not terrible. It's just not as scary as I wanted it to be. 

Director Peter Medak directed a string of British comedies prior to directing "The Changeling" such as "A Day in the Death of Joe Egg" (1972) with Alan Bates and Janet Suzman, "The Ruling Class"  (1972) with Peter O'Toole, "Ghost in the Noonday Sun" (1974) with Peter Sellers and Spike Milligan, and "The Odd Job" (1978) with Monty Python veteran Graham Chapman. So, this seems like a change of pace for Medak. Evidently, the story is based on real events experienced by playwright and composer Russell Hunter. Look it up! 

Regarding "The Changeling" Medak said, "I'd like to make a civilized sort of picture, that people would still go and see. A friend of mine said that I should make 'Hamlet on roller skates." 1

It's worth noting that George C. Scott and Trish Van Devere were married at the time up until Scott's death in 1999. 

Despite the flaws, "The Changeling" somehow manages to earn the status of "underrated classic." 

 

---

1 Michael J. Weldon, The Psychotronic Encyclopedia of Film (New York: Ballantine Books, 1983), [115].

235) It's Alive (1974)

"I think this little guy's trying to kill me."

Director

Larry Cohen

Cast
John P. Ryan - Frank Davis

Sharon Farrell - Lenore Davis
Daniel Holzman - Chris Davis

Andrew Duggan - the Professor
Guy Stockwell - Bob Clayton

James Dixon - Lt. Perkins
William Wellman Jr. - Charley

When it comes to horror, is anything sacred? Well, today, probably not. But when Larry Cohen's "It's Alive" made its way to theaters back in 1974, some things were surely still untouchable as far as horror goes. 

This was the era when realism was intruding into the horror scene. Horror movies involving a child antagonist, or rather, child monsters had appeared in movies prior to 1974 - "Village of the Damned," "The Bad Seed," "Kill Baby...Kill!" and the creepy kid movie of all creepy kid movies, "The Exorcist." 

But they involved older children. "It's Alive" is about a killer infant. When it came to evil newborns, well there is "Rosemary's Baby" from 1968 (a movie I particularly don't care for) but her baby wasn't a killer monster. Not right away, at least.

Honestly, I have mixed feelings about the movie "It's Alive." On the one hand, it feels like a satirical creature feature attempting to cross a line, and possibly succeeding. The satire does keep things a bit on a leash, though. On the other hand, I have the impression there's some social commentary I wasn't sure I was understanding well enough. 

The movie centers on Frank Davis (John P. Ryan) and his wife, Lenore (Sharon Farrell) who are expecting their second child. 

When Lenore goes into labor, she delivers some kind of mutated fanged baby monster that immediately kills the doctor and nurses in the delivery room. 

The baby, a boy, escapes the hospital before anyone can stop him or even knows what's going on. And poor dad is in the waiting room with the other nervous dads completely unaware of what his poor wife just went through. He finds out soon enough when he goes to check on her in the delivery room and sees the dead nurses and doctors laying on the floor bleeding out. 

When the medical staff start joining the patient list, it’s a sign the birthing process didn’t go according to the maternity ward's happy delivery plan.

With the killer baby monster on the loose in the streets of Los Angeles, police detectives, and even the media are trying to find it by following its trail of death. 

Frank is horrified at the situation, though he certainly tries not to act so. But we know he is. He's just good at hiding it. Anyways, Frank refuses to believe that this monster child is his son and agrees to kill it or have it killed - whichever comes first. 

John P. Ryan as Frank Davis in "It's Alive." 

Lenore's motherly instincts kick in right away and she's not so eager to see it die no matter what it has done. It's just a baby, afterall.  

Authorities and scientists think the baby's deformities and dangerous behavior may be the result of experimental drugs or environmental toxins. 

Whatever the case might be, the kid needs to be found and if the authorities have their way, destroyed once and for all. 

Overall, watching this felt uncomfortable. Even though the movie hides the gruesome parts, leaving things up to the imagination, it's jarring to watch a movie about a ravenous killing newborn child.

Honestly, kids before their teen years are innocent enough, generally speaking. Newborns are the most tender and innocent of all of us. Still, audiences don't cringe as much should a teenager be the killer antagonist in a movie. 

There's an interesting subplot with Frank clearly attempting to ignore his own emotions and give permission for authorities to end the life of his son. Despite all that, I grew somewhat bored with "It's Alive" halfway through it. 

It tries to have shock value but even with its jarring premise, it proceeds cautiously with its premise otherwise previously considered too shocking even for horror. 

Going back to my mixed feelings, as I said I couldn't tell if this movie is trying to make some sort of social commentary, or what commentary it's trying to make. Is it trying to make a pro-abortion stance, or is it a commentary on the anxiety that comes with parenting? Is it anti-child? Is it anti-parent? Is it both? Then again, there is that satirical element. Subtle, but present. 

Well, according to the 2018 article "Killer Babies, Winged Serpents, and the Hammer: The Guerrilla Genius of B-Movie Maestro Larry Cohen" published on theringer.com, while "It's Alive" was released the year after the Roe v. Wade decision, Cohen denied the suggestion that the movie is inspired by the abortion debate as well as the thalidomide deaths of the 1950s and 1960s. 

The article quotes Cohen as saying, “I wasn’t thinking about that. I was thinking about articles that I saw where parents kill their kids because they were so drugged up and so violent and so intimidating that they were terrifying the parents. Suddenly, these people found out that the little boy that they had in their home had suddenly turned into some kind of monster that they feared. In several cases they actually kill their own kid. So I said, what about if it’s a baby, and nothing more angry than a frustrated baby, so I just decided to make the movie.”

Aside from all that, "It's Alive" has definitely aged into a typical creature-feature flick truly straight from its era. 

Cohen uses a lot of fast cut-aways, quick glimpses, fish-eye lenses and low point-of-view angles, along with typical gore (mild, but present) to sell the scare to the audience and give it a period feeling. Plus, it even manages to have a bit of emotion. I mean, despite all that hasn't aged well within this movie, the premise of two parents wrapping themselves around the shock that their newborn is a fanged terror cannot-not be an emotional story to some degree when the parents are concerned.

Cohen has directed other movies with plots that contain social commentary and satire to some degree or another. 

His 1972 dark comedy "Bone" certainly satirizes racism and class divides as well as wealthy suburban life. 

His well-known film, "The Stuff" which I commented on back in 2021 is one big horror satire on consumerism, capitalism, and America's love of junk food. "Can't get enough of 'The Stuff'!" So, it's no surprise "It's Alive" would be satirical, too.

This movie did spawn two sequels, It Lives Again (1978) and It's Alive III: Island of the Alive (1987). It also has a 2009 remake with Bijou Philips, James Murray and directed by Josef Rusnak
"It's Alive" dabbles in territory often deemed too disturbing for horror, yet it earns recognition for portraying a father who discovers humanity within his monstrous child while an impulsive society fails to do the same. Cohen deserves applause for concluding the film on such a poignant note.

234) What's the Matter with Helen? (1971)

"I offered you my blessing, but you refused it. Now move along."

Director
Curtis Harrington

Cast

Debbie Reynolds - Adelle Bruckner
Shelley Winters - Helen Hill
Dennis Weaver - Lincoln Palmer

Micheál Mac Liammóir - Hamilton Starr
Agnes Moorehead - Sister Alma
Logan Ramsey - Detective Sergeant West

The 1971 psychobiddy horror flick, "What's the Matter with Helen?" has more tap-dancing, smeared eyeliner, and guilt-ridden older women than any other movie in the horror subgenre I've ever seen and written about. It'll unsettle more than it'll inspire jazz hands.

In my commentary on the movies, "Whoever Slew Auntie Roo?," "Funeral Home," and "Mountaintop Motel Massacre" - of course all real cinematic gems and true masterpieces - I've discussed the horror/thriller subgenre known as hagsploitation, or psychobiddy horror. I'll reiterate.

Movies in this subgenre center on the lead role played by older women who fall into psychological instability, usually brought on by some traumatizing scenario. And this pushes them to violent behavior. So, it's all about old women going berserk.  

The subgenre began to spring up on movie screens sometime around the 1950s and into the 1960s with such movies as, "Sunset Boulevard" (1950) "What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?" (1962), "Straight Jacket" (1964) "Hush…Hush, Sweet Charlotte" (1964) and "The Nanny" (1965). There's also the movie "What Ever Happened to Aunt Alice?" (1969). I guess when it comes to hagsploitation, that's the imperative question. What ever happened?
I'd say one of the more well-known movies of the subgenre is Stephen King's novel turned film, "Misery" (1990). That movie really demonstrates how much these cock-a-doody psychobiddy movies can be jarring to watch.

"What's the Matter with Helen?" has been on my radar for a couple years. I have a copy down in my horror collection paired as a double-feature with "Whoever Slee Auntie Roo?" Both movies, which star Shelley Winters, are packaged together as part of the "Midnite Movies" collection from MGM Home Entertainment.  

If she hasn't been dubbed "the queen of hagsploitation" already, I'm bestowing the title on Shelley Winters right here, right now on this platform. Between Winters's performance in this movie, and in "Whoever Slew Auntie Roo?" the title fits for her two unhinged woman roles.

"What's the Matter with Helen?" also stars "Singin' in the Rain" star and Carrie Fisher's mom, Debbie Reynolds. 

Shelley Winters and Debbie Reynolds in "What's the Matter with Helen?"

The movie is set in 1934. It kicks off with a period newsreel to make sure the audience knows exactly where and when they are. Among the news items in the newsreel, Eleanor Roosevelt is broadcast cheerfully touring Puerto Rico. The mood swerves hard as the final story is broadcast. It regards two mothers, Adelle Bruckner (Debbie Reynolds) and Helen Hill (Shelley Winters), swiftly exiting a courtroom after watching their respective sons each receive life sentences for the murder of a girl named Ellie Banner. Nothing says “nostalgia for America's golden era” quite like watching some happy news followed immediately by a soul-crushing tragedy.

As the mothers jump into a car at the courthouse, Helen claims someone in the rabbling crowd sliced her hand. 

Helen and Adelle decide to leave Iowa, change their identities, move to Hollywood, and open a dance studio and live in apartments above. There, they can teach young girls how to dance and perhaps become the next Shirley Temple. 

As they get accustomed to their new lives, Helen receives calls from an unknown stalker claiming to be the culprit who sliced her hand. He threatens to gain revenge on both of them for what their sons did.

Meanwhile, elocution instructor Hamilton Starr (Micheál Mac Liammóir) pays the ladies a visit to offer his assistance with their dance studio. 

Adelle welcomes his assistance. Helen, meanwhile, is weary and nervous about his presence, especially considering the phone calls she has been receiving. 

Helen is also certain she has seen a strange man watching them from across the street on a few occasions. 

Helen doesn't know who the strange man she claims to be seeing is, but the whole scenario is clearly wreaking havoc on her nerves and mental well-being.

Adelle ends up falling in love with a suave looking guy named Lincoln Palmer (Dennis Weaver) who's the father of one of the dance students. 

She regularly tunes into an evangelical religious preacher on the radio named Sr. Alma (Agnes Moorehead from the TV sitcom "Bewitched") which bolsters up a sense of guilt within Helen. It certainly doesn't help her frame of mind. Increasing paranoia stacked upon guilt, repression and religious anxiety slowly consume Helen. 

Plus, Adelle's romance with Lincoln arouses jealousy in Helen, too. Watching Adelle focus her attention to Lincoln has Helen feeling alone. Her mental stability is breaking down. 

One night, the two ladies have a nasty fight, and Adelle demands Helen move out. After all, she needs to tend to her own inner struggles without having Helen pull her into her problems. Besides, this new life and her budding romance with Lincoln are quickly becoming Adelle’s new escape.

While Adelle is on a date with Lincoln one evening, a stranger walks into the studio and heads up to their rooms calling for Helen while she is preparing to move out. 

She panics and pushes this stranger down the stairs. This guy slams his head against the wall causing a fatal gash in his head. Seeing this guy bleed out on the bottom of the stairs causes Helen to have visions of her late husband who died in a plowing accident. She also can't help but think about Ellie Banner as she watches this random stranger lose his life right in front of her. 

Helen is beside herself in fear at what just happened. When Adelle arrives back from her date and sees this guy lying dead in the studio, she fears what sort of press this will surely receive. 

So, she convinces Helen to wrap the guy up so they can both dump him into a ditch at a nearby construction site. Since it happens to be raining, it will easily look like the guy was out walking or something and had himself a nasty accident. 

Helen is an emotional mess after this. She's desperate for redemption and forgiveness. So, she goes to the church where Sr. Alma preaches in order to ask her for that forgiveness. But as they say, never meet your heroes. 

During the religious service, Helen approaches Alma and begs for forgiveness. Alma reluctantly plays along and offers her a blessing which is nothing different from what she's offering everyone else in the church. This isn't what Helen feels she needs. She wants forgiveness poured on her, but Alma doesn't do much to just humor this emotional woman, and tells her to move along. Helen's anguish erupts into a scene in front of the entire congregation. She's then dragged out in front of everyone and left to wallow in her complete shame and embarrassment. It's a thrust for Helen that pushes her into a darker and depressing phase. 

Despite a doctor's visit, and his advice for her to stay in bed and rest, Helen's mental state declines to the point of dangerous insanity. Not only is the question "what's the matter with Helen" a crucial one, but so is, "what's left for Helen to do now?" 

It's worth mentioning that Reynolds also stars in the 1959 dark comedy "The Gazebo" where she plays a wife caught in the middle of a plot that involves murder, a cover-up, and escalating tension. So, she's not a novice to psychological horror. There's solid chemistry between Winters and Reynolds as they play almost opposite characters trying to deal with a tragedy that fell on them and changed their lives. The key point is how each of them deal with their grief, and clash in the process. I sense a very slight hint of inspiration from Thelma Todd and ZaSu Pitts minus the slapstick comedy, replaced with anguish and mental breakdowns.

The story in this movie about Helen is quite a blend of psychological suspense, blame, festering guilt, the dire human need for forgiveness and redemption, and emotional repression. Despite this emotional salad, there's a lack of gusto that should push the movie forward. Still, Shelley Winters creates a truly sympathetic character as the audience watches her mental breakdown. 

The effort to make a serious psychological horror picture is clearly present. However, it feels a little too much like a made-for-TV movie of the week as it moves forward a little too cautiously.  

The biggest take-away from this movie - the blatant underlying plot point - is the immense guilt each mother carries after their sons are sent to prison for murder. However, no one ends up a winner or victor in this story. There's no happy ending because story has no room for one.

Helen and Adelle certainly deal with their terrible burdens in different ways though they both go into the same business together to push down their grief. It's an intriguing plot, indeed. 

The whole movie has a real unsettling atmosphere about it even outside all the psychological turmoil. There's a lot of psychological fear upon more psychological fear packed into this movie. It's all set against a backdrop of faded Hollywood glamour and glittered moral decay. 

Their depression-era dance studio setting makes the overall atmosphere feel darker and unsettling. That flows from these eager happy parents watching their children gleefully sing and dance, and work towards a potentially promising future while Helen and Adelle just watched their sons get put away for murder.  

But that singing and dancing  as a cynical tone to it. The movie gets even more awkward and uncomfortable to watch during a scene when an underage girl performs a song and dance number dressed as Mae West during a recital. She puts on her best sultry singing and dancing style, repeating the phrase in the best Mae West voice she can provocatively bellow out, "Oh, you nasty man!" The audience, with their trapped souls, sit there and pretend this is perfectly normal children’s entertainment. It's clearly a cynical depiction of parents pushing their children into the glamourous life. 

 "What's the Matter with Helen?" is directed by Curtis Harrington. He's no newcomer when it comes to psychological horror movies. Harrington also directed Shelley Winters in "Whoever Slew Auntie Roo?" the same year as this movie. He directed other B-horror movies such as "Queen of Blood," as well as the psychological horror movies "Game" (1967), and "The Killing Kind" (1973) plus the supernatural horror movie "Ruby" (1977).

It's worth mentioning that Harrington also directed the 1961 fantasy horror movie "Night Tide" with Dennis Hopper in his first starring role.

"What's the Matter with Helen?" has a truly intriguing, horrifying and original plot. How would a mother, or a pair of mothers, handle having sons who were convicted of murderers? What did these boys do to their moms? Meanwhile, all of America is looking in as they try to hide and start life anew. 

The movie tries but lacks conviction. It displays the entire facade of both of these women but feels a little too reluctant and a bit too reserved to allow the real horror to claw its way out so the audience can see it. It tries, but proceeds with a just a little hesitiation - just enough to notice. 

233) Deadly Friend (1986)

Halloween 2025’s rewind of terror ’80s horror movie thread extravaganza - the revenge! (One last review)

"I studied brain physiology and cognitive theory till it's coming out of my ears. I have ideas no one's ever thought of."

Director 

Wes Craven

Cast

Matthew Laborteaux - Paul Conway
Kristy Swanson - Samantha Pringle
Anne Twomey - Jeannie Conway
Richard Marcus - Harrison Pringle
Anne Ramsey - Elvira Parker
Charles Fleischer - voice of BB

In an interview back in 1989, Wes Craven says "I am in the business of intensity. That's what my films are about." 

That intensity is definitely loud and clear in many of his movies such as, "The Hills Have Eyes," "Shocker," "The People Under the Stairs," and definitely, "A Nightmare on Elm Street." Wes Craven's 1986 movie, "Deadly Friend,"  tries to make its way into Craven's realm of intensity, but does it actually arrive there? 

I was initially going to review "Deadly Friend" in this year's Halloween thread but it wasn't available when I was writing my seventh post in this series, "Deadtime Stories." "Deadly Friend" was my primary choice for that slot. But I couldn't get access to it on any platform, nor did I want to spend money rent it. None of my backup titles were available. So, I went with "Deadtime Stories." I didn't want to review it, but I was out of options. 

However, as I was finishing up my commentary for "Pet Sematary," I saw that "Deadly Friend" was finally streaming on Pluto, I think. So, I'm getting to it at the last minute, and just in time for Halloween.

In this movie, Matthew Labyorteaux (from the TV series "Little House on the Prairie") plays Paul Conway, an intelligent teenager who works with computers and computer tech like a master artist works with paints or clay. 

Among his prized achievements is an interactive intelligent robot he built named BB. 

His attention is heavily diverted when a cute blonde named Samantha (Kristy Swanson) moves in next door. 

Among Paul's top priorities is making sure BB stays out of his neighbor's, old Miss. Elvira Parker's (Anne Ramsey) yard. She's a cranky spinster who has threatened to blow it away with a shotgun if it ever makes its way onto her property. 

Aside from that, Paul and Samantha become pretty friendly. Sadly, Samantha lives with an abusive alcoholic father, Harrison (Richard Marcus). 

On Halloween night, Paul's buddy, Tom (Michael Sharrett), along with Paul, BB and Samantha pull a trick on Elvira.

Kristy Swanson as Samantha Pringle in "Deadly Friend."

The robot manages to unlock Elvira's front gate and Samantha goes to ring her doorbell. An alarm goes off on the property, and the trio hide behind a bush. BB, however, can't move that fast because he's a 1980s robot. 

Elvira freaks out, grabs her shotgun, and fires off a few rounds at BB, hitting him each time. 

Paul is devastated at seeing his robot pal laying motionless in Elvira's yard. 

Later, in a drunken rage, Harrison gets abusive again with Samantha, and accidentally knocks her down some stairs. She hits her head against a wall hard enough to leave her brain dead. 

She's kept on life support with no signs of recovery. Her dad makes the deicsion, a little too easily, to pull the plug on his own daughter. 

Paul, however, has a plan. He thinks he can bring Samantha back by taking BB's microchip and implanting it in Samantha's brain. Being the scientist he is, Paul is certain he can pull it off. But he needs Samantha alive so he has to get to the hospital and operate on her without getting caught before the plug is pulled. It's a race against the clock. 

Of course, Paul succeeds and Samantha is revived but acts more like a robot than a human being. Possessing BB's knowledge, she's out to seek murderous revenge on those who harmed BB and Paul starting with Harrison. Elvira, of course, is next! 

After she kills, Paul has to stop her and get the old Samantha back. 

"Deadly Friend" is quite a mix of dark humor, horror, and a bit of heart-throb. It mixes these genres together pretty well.

According to a January 5, 2022 Dread Central article, Craven wanted the movie to be a sc-fi romance story, which it clearly is. But the studios wanted some of his intense horror. So, they had him throw in some gore. The movie includes gore, and outlandishly so. 

Kristy Swanson and Matthew Laborteaux.

One particular scene in which robot-brained Samantha takes on Elvira with a basketball. It's a scene that has become a viral video, and is probably the most iconic scene in the movie.   
Kristy Swanson's performance is best before she becomes a robot-brained science experiment thanks to her lonely-hearted boyfriend. 

She puts on that sweet girl next door motif rather well. After her character is put through the robot treatment, Kristy must have been told to look like a lost puppy or a deer in the headlights. I'm not blaming her, necessarily. She is clearly working as best she can with what she's given. 

I think the biggest issue with "Deadly Friend" is studio interference. It's pretty darn clear too many hands where involved in this movie. With Craven's successful "A Nightmare on Elm Street," I'm willing to bet the studios wanted a success along those lines. "Deadly Friend" was meant to be a romantic sci-fi, and who wants that when it could be a money-making gore-fest like Elm Street. 

It seems like the movie is trying to go in a certain direction but something is keeping it from getting to where in needs to go. 

And then it's ending caps the story with a feeling that something important was left out. The ending makes no sense. 

The movie feels too loose at the seems, and unable to get to a suitable conclusion. It's a Sci-Fi romance so it needs to end on a romantic note. But it doesn't.

I think the movie managed to score some fandom thanks to its cheesiness, dark humor, and outlandish plot despite its inconsistant tone, overall poor acting and incomplete feel. 

The story changes tones quickly, and the creepiness lies mostly with the main character keeping Samantha in both his basement and attic for "side keeping." This movie could have been better than it is. 

Despite Wes Craven's well-earned reputation as a master of horror, "Deadly Friend" could have been a memorable teen romance in either the horror or sci-fi genre. The final product, rather, is simply a movie that happens to have romance, and horror, and some science fiction. It touches upon themes of grief and obsession. But thanks to what the studios want in order to make a quick buck, "Deadly Friend" is another curiosity of the 1980s.

~

So, thar's another review series in the bag for yet another Halloween season. I'm already anxious to do another for next Halloween. In the meantime, I have some movies already in mind to watch and review for the upcoming new year. 

Until then, happy Halloween! 👻🎃

232) Pet Sematary (1989)

Halloween 2025’s rewind of terror ’80s horror movie thread extravaganza - the revenge! (Part ten)

"Sometimes... dead is better." 

Director
Mary Lambert

Cast
Dale Midkiff - Louis Creed 
Denise Crosby - Rachel Goldman-Creed
Blaze Berdahl - Ellie Creed
Miko Hughes - Gage Creed
Fred Gwynne - Jud Crandall
Brad Greenquist - Victor Pascow
Andrew Hubatsek - Zelda Goldman

A thread of 1980s horror movies would feel incomplete or ill considered without at least one movie based on something by horror writer Stephen King. We're talking Stephen King before "X" was a thing where King can be found tossing out all sorts of random non-sensical posts. 

Most of King's iconic movie adaptations came out in the 1980s - "The Shining" (1980), "Cujo" (1982), "Christine" (1983), "Children of the Corn" (1984), "Stand by Me" (1986), and this movie, "Pet Sematary." 

In my review of "Day of the Dead," I made some comments about how zombie movies generally speaking tend to be repetitive and as slow as the zombies they depict. 

To be fair, I including a handful of zombie movies that are actually well made and entertaining. 

The 1989 back-from-the-dead horror flick, "Pet Sematary," based on the 1983 novel by Stephen King, stands far above any zombie movie I've ever seen. 

I've seen this movie, as well as the 2019 remake, before I read King's book. I consider it to be the scariest King novel I've read, and I've read a bunch of his books.   

Like the novel, the movie "Pet Sematary" has a bleak tone, highly unsettling atmosphere, and a despairingly dark story that goes places other horror tries to reach but doesn't quite get to. 

In this movie, Dr. Louis Creed (Dale Midkiff) moves his wife, Rachel (Denise Crosby) along with their daughter, Ellie (Blaze Berdahl) and their younger son, Gage (Miko Hughes) from Chicago to the small country town of Ludlow, Maine. 

Blaze Berdahl, Dale Midkiff, and Fred Gwynne in 'Pet Sematary.'

Louis took a position as a local small-town doctor. Their gorgeous country home sits near a highway road highly used by trucks from a nearby factory down the road.  

The Creeds are welcomed by their elderly neighbor, Jud Crandall (Fred Gwynne). After getting to know Jud, they ask him about a trail nearby their house. 

He tells them it leads to a children's pet cemetery, and that he'll take them down there sometime. 

When they all finally go to check out the cemetery, the sign above the enterence spells cemetery, "sematary." As trucks whiz by down the highway, many a pet have been victims of those trucks. Hence, the burial ground for pets. 

While starting off his new job as the new local doctor, college students bring in a fellow college student named Victor Pascow who was hit by a car while on a jog and has suffered severe head trauma. 

As Louis prepares to examine his injuries, Victor suddenly awakens long enough to tell the doc not to venture past the pet cemetery as the ground is "sour." After that, Victor dies. 

His ghost visits Louis late that same night and has him follow as he leads Louis to the cemetery to warn him not to "cross the barrier." Of course, Louis doesn't know what to make of this, or what Victor means. Victor tells him he's trying to help in return for Louis trying to help him. 

While the family is away at Rachel's parent's house back in Chicago for Thanksgiving, Louis stays home. He doesn't quite get along with his father-in-law, and he has to work. 

Ellie had previously been worried that her pet cat, Church, would be another victim to the trucks that fly past on the highway and end up in the "pet sematary."  

Such is Church's fate. Jud finds the cat's remains and Louis doesn't know how he's going to break the news to his little girl when she gets back from Chicago.

But Jud has a recommendation. One he'll later deeply regret. 

He takes Louis to the ancient Miꞌkmaq burial ground past the cemetery to bury Church. Jud instructs him not to tell anyone about what they did. 

The next day, Church is back home seemingly alive. However, he's not the friendly pet cat he was before getting hit by a truck. 

Louis, of course, has tons of questions for Jud beginning with, "what did we do?". 

He tells Louis about his experiences with the burial ground back when he was a young man. And though Church has a much different personality, at least Ellie won't have to suffer the loss of her cat. 

Jud really regrets divulging this information about the burial ground to Louis after his little Gage is tragically killed by a truck. That's when the story really turns dark. 

"Pet Sematary" is uncomfortable for me to watch. 

Like the book, this movie went places other horror movies before it hadn't gone. It doesn't present the reality of death in a way that takes the edge off that inevitable part of life. 

And the movie is one of the creepiest and far-reaching flicks of the decade. It takes death as a real part of life and as a concept, and uses it to play around with the audiences' imagination to make them think "what if." King uses that question, "what if"in most, if not all, of his stories. It's what strikes a chord of trepidation and fear among his readers. 

"Pet Sematary" isn't just scary because of the monsters and creepy things in it. It's the subject matter of death and how bluntly it's depicted. That's what'll keep you up after watching. 

The movie takes its moral that death, though painful, is a necessity. To eliminate it is against nature. It's an effective method that gives this movie its staying power, for sure. 

Though it's a dead-rising-from-the-grave movie, the originality is the most effective I've seen from a film.

The story doesn't turn the return-of-the-dead premise into an emotional feast of good feelings and reunions. Nor does it turn the risen dead into brain-eating zombies. 

The story explores human grief, denial and human aversion to the fact of death. The movie doesn't tackle the what-if question in bringing the dead back to life, especially when the pain of loss stings the most sharply, into some typical zombie horror movie audiences have already seen. There's a lot of depth in the story, thanks to director Mary Lambert. 

Brad Greenquist (left) as Victor Pascow.

The story goes further into the realm of life, death, and strong human emotions that spur the main character to cross boundaries that once crossed can't really be returned from. That crossing leads to the destruction of the main character's family, emotions, and his son. "Sometimes, dead is better," Judd tells him. "Pet Sematary" is certainly the most intense "wish-gone-wrong" movie I've seen. 

It's difficult to compare "Pet Sematary" to any other movie. 

The 2001 movie "The Others" explores death and life after death as the main character is a mother protecting her children. "The Sixth Sense" from 1999 also deals with the subject of death amidst a horror movie tone in a unique way as well. 

One movie that comes close is the 1985 horror movie "Re-Animator" based on the work of H. P. Lovecraft. "Re-Animator" relies a lot on shock, grotesqueries, gore and a fair amount of comedy. 

There is a horror movie from 2011 called "Wake Wood" that has some similarities to "Pet Sematary" in that two parents participate in a ritual to resurrect their deceased daughter. When it works, their returned daughter isn't quite the same as she was before. 

"Pet Sematary" managed to spawn a sequel, "Pet Sematary II" in 1992 and a remake in 2019. There's also a prequel to the remake called "Pet Sematary: Bloodlines" from 2023. I saw the remake and had mixed feelings about it. I found it inferior to this movie. But that's another commentary for another time. 

Anyways, hands down, this movie is one of the most uncomfortable movies I've sat through. Not because it's a terrible movie, but because the film takes the reality of death, its role in human existance, and really hammers in the reality of it. It does that more effectively than any other movie, horror or otherwise, that I've seen. It captures that very element from King's novel spot-on. 

231) The Blob (1988)

Halloween 2025’s rewind of terror ’80s horror movie thread extravaganza - the revenge! (Part nine)

"Your meteor brought something all right but if it's a germ, it's the biggest son of a bitch you've ever seen!"

Director

Chuck Russell

Cast
Shawnee Smith - Megan "Meg" Penny
Kevin Dillon - Brian Flagg
Donovan Leitch - Paul Taylor
Jeffrey DeMunn - Sheriff Herb Geller
Del Close - Rev. Meeker
Candy Clark - Fran Hewitt
Beau Billingslea - Moss Woodley

I love it when a sequel or remake is as good, or better, as the original. 

Such is the case for the 1988 creature feature of all creature features (the ones that aren't "Alien" or "Jaws" or "Jurassic Park" or "Godzilla"), "The Blob." 

How ridiculous it is that the creature in the feature is a big glop of man-eating goo. The more it eats, the bigger it gets. And yet, the movie still taps into the realm of fear and gag reflexes. It turns a mass of goo into a shapeless mass of unstoppable dread and cold, slithering death.  

The 1988 movie is a remake of the 1958 sci-fi horror flick of the same name, starring none other than Steve McQueen.  I have an old copy of the '58 "Blob" on VHS. It's a campy movie, but it's still a certified classic. 

The 1988 remake, directed by Chuck Russell, takes the premise of the 1958 classic and sharpens up the gore, fear, performances, and effects (even for 1988) while eating away the general campiness. It's a well-made and well-performed update. 

In this movie, just like in the original, a meteor crash-lands in the fictional town of Arborville, California. It's nowhere near the strangest thing to happen in California.  

Anyways, some transient bum is the first to discover the meteor. As he studies it, a gelatinous entity spews out and attaches itself to the guy's arm. 

He screams in terror and pain dashing all hope of getting rich off of the meteor he found. 

Local teens, Brian (Kevin Dillon), Meg (Shawnee Smith) and Paul (Donovan Leitch) find this guy and take him to the hospital. 

While they're at the hospital, which doesn't seem to be all that active, Paul and the doctor check on the homeless guy and find that this blob has eaten most of him from the inside out. 

The blob manages to escape the hospital, but not before dropping from the ceiling onto Paul and eating him in one terribly gruesome scene. 

The blob crawls around town permeating in every crack and crevasse, eating whoever is within reach.

The military gets involved; Meg and Brian find out that this thing isn't from outer space. It's actually the result of a failed government experiment. So, the government did what it does best and hid their mistake by launching it into space. 

Well, it found its way back. And now the military tries to contain and destroy the blob and make sure none of the locals leave town. Everyone and everything must be contained. 

Meanwhile, the blob continues eating victim after helpless victim. No one is safe! The military is also willing to permit casualties in order to stop this blob. 

Like "Day of the Dead," "The Blob" is another horror flick I recall seeing at an age I probably shouldn't have thanks to some older brothers of mine. I particularly remember the scene where the blob pulls a guy down the sink drain at a diner. Gross!

The '88 Blob is one of those instances where the sequel or remake is as good or better than the previous. It updates the story of the original blob amazingly well. The previous, though again a true classic in the truest meaning of the word, is a dated movie. 

The remake respects the original story and gives it some respectable updates. Plus, it turns on the gross blobby horror wonderfully. As far as creature features go, this is one of the best. 

The scene in which the blob attacks the movie theater as theater-going patrons run out in terror, is a legendary horror movie moment. Also, the way the blob is defeated is pulled out of the original movie. 

When no one is safe from a monster, then no one should be safe. Men, women, and children. No one! That's true in this movie. The blob traps a poor helpless waitress in a phone booth and also grabs and swallows a kid trying to escape. A monster is a monster. The more of a threat it poses on even the most innocent of victims, the worse the monster is. And the more satisfying it is to see it defeated. Sorry to see you go, kid. 

The title, as satirical as it sounds, might lead first time viewers to think the movie is another off-the-wall festival of campiness. 

The '58 "Blob" has more of a typical atomic age thriller sci-fi and teen melodrama to it. 

The remake of "The Blob" certainly moves faster than its '58 counterpart. It doesn't use the blob as a means towards one big climatic confrontation at the end. This thing thrashes, rips. tears and devours throughout. By the end, all that's left to do is figure out how to kill it. 

Plus, the '88 pours more horror into the story's sci-fi foundation. 

The teen melodrama is replaced with tension and gore plus some cynical humor surrounding government deception and corruption. 

Where the main character in the original, Steve Andrews (Steve McQueen) comes across as more passive than anything else, Megan is much more active in this version. She becomes the main protagonist after the hero "Brian" is devoured by the blob. 

The storyline for the '58 blob is rooted in the Cold War era as that's when the movie was made. The blob is an outside threat. Not even small-town America is safe. There's definitely a Cold War vibe in the first film.

However, in the remake, the blob is an unfortunate man-made secret government bioweapon gone wrong. Now the government is trying to cover it up and pretend it didn't happen. It's not alien. It's a disgusting by-product of corruption and governmental decay. In true 1980s horror fashion, the movie has a subtle hint of social satire. 

It's worth mentioning Chuck Russell's directorial debut was "A Nightmare on Elm Street III: Dream Warriors" which is pretty much the only decent and most frightening Elm Street sequel. That is, it has the most terrifying scenes and atmosphere outside of the first movie. It's good for a sequel. 

Russell also sat in the director's chair for "The Mask" (1994) with Jim Carrey, and "Eraser" (1996), He's good at creating intense images in his movies, especially when it comes to horror. 

It's also worth noting that movie director Frank Durabont wrote the screenplay for "The Blob." That's a plus for me. 

Durabont directed some note-worthy movies such as "The Shawshank Redemption," "The Green Mile," and "The Mist," all based on works by horror writer Stephen King. He also wrote the screen play for the aforementioned "A Nightmare on Elm Street III: Dream Warriors," and the not-so-terrific "The Fly II." 

Durabont was executive producer for the first season and part of the second season of the AMC series, "The Walking Dead." Lastly, he directed two episodes in the most recent fifth season of "Stranger Things." So, he has a respectable resume for sure. 

The following year after the movie' release, the blob would make an uncredited cameo in "Ghostbusters II" as footage from "The Blob" remake was used in the movie. "Ghostbusters II" centers on the evil acts of New Yorkers turning into pink slime accumulating underneath New York City. Shots from "The Blob" were recycled for the Ghostbusters sequel. 

"Ghostbusters II" even has a scene with movie-goers running out of a theater in terror as pink slime resembling the blob drips from the theater marquee. It's a clear homage to the '58 movie. 

The visual effects in "The Blob" are amazingly horrific and memorable, and it maintains that classic creature feature atmosphere amidst the modern (well, 1980s modern) setting. 

Some scenes definitely have staying power with audiences and pop culture, especially the scene where the blob eats Paul. 

It doesn't take anything away from the original movie. It does bring it up to date while respecting the source material and making the IP popular again. 

The blob is a creature/monster that deserves a high standing pedestal among other creatures of creature features. It's a simple blob that manages to strike a threatening feeling. No matter where someone hides, the blob can easily get in through cracks and crevasses to absorb its victim.  And once it has a victim, nothing can save them.   

It's a remake that's a lot darker and more suspenseful than before.

I'd be interested to see what another remake would do with the blob. However, I don't think the storyline would appeal to today's younger audiences like "The Blob" may have in 1988.