THURSDAY NIGHT HORROR! - 'Deadly Friend' (1986)

In 1986, director Wes Craven and screenwriter Bruce Joel Rubin were tasked with adapting “Friend”, a 1985 book by Diana Henstell, into a movie. Neither of the filmmakers were keen to adapt the story which they thought had a lot of flaws. However, they thought that they could make a solid PG sci-fi thriller about how the adults in the story were revealed to be the true monsters instead of the titular character.

The movie was renamed “Deadly Friend” and the filmmakers were off to the races.

In the movie, Matthew Laborteaux plays Paul, a genius teenager who has built a self-sufficient robot named BB. Paul eventually meets Samantha (Kristy Swanson), the next door neighbor who also has an extremely abusive father. One day, BB is destroyed by a disgruntled neighbor named Elvira (Ann Ramsey) and after that, Samantha is accidentally knocked down some stairs by her father.

Samantha suffers brain death and is about to be pulled off of life support. Paul has another alternative when he takes the main chip that powered BB and implants it into Samantha. She is revived, but she is definitely not the same as BB’s personality appears to still be a part of the chip that has rewired Sam’s brain.

And this robot wants revenge! Soon, Sam is going after those that have wronged both her and BB and there is an internal conflict going on between Sam and BB’s personalities.

Yes, there is a robot in "Deadly Friend"... there sure is.

If that sounds silly as hell, then yes, you’d be correct in assuming that the movie is completely absurd. This is B movie schlock and probably the best Roger Corman film that Corman himself didn’t even produce. The movie is messy because not only does it have the original PG elements that Craven shot, it has extra gory scenes that turn it into an R rated slasher flick.

So, how did Craven and Rubin’s original film end up this way? The story goes that Craven completed his PG cut of the movie and it was shown to a test audience along with Warner Bros. president Mark Canton. Apparently, this test screening did not go well as the audience was accustomed to seeing bloodier fare from horror master Craven.

After the screening, Canton talked with both Craven and Rubin about adding more violence. Craven and Rubin obliged and filmed the additional bloody scenes. They screentested the movie again and, supposedly, that audience was far more cheerful about the movie.

The only problem was that this time, Warner Bros. actually told Craven to trim back the violence. So, there is a mixture of flat-out gore and more straightforward kills and it’s understandable if someone in the audience wouldn’t understand what type of film they were watching other than a butchered cut of what was originally there.

I’ll be honest, I went into this movie blind. I didn’t even know it existed until just a few months ago. When Shout! Factory had a sale on some of their blu-rays, I realized that I had already owned several other films in this particular sale, but discovered “Deadly Friend” among them, so I pulled the trigger.

So, what do I think of the movie? Well, it definitely is a schlocky mess, to be sure. There were moments where I was wondering where in the hell the story was going. I’m also not sure how I feel about Swanson’s performance and make-up job after she transforms into an almost mindless killing machine.

I will say that there is one death scene in particular that is both extremely gory, comes out of nowhere, and is also extremely funny as a result. This is a movie that you definitely don’t take seriously and if you’re a fan of crazy low-budget fare, you could possibly get a kick out of this movie like I did.

What can I say, this is the kind of crazy over-the-top 1980s horror film that is right up my alley. While it is definitely far from being Craven’s best work, I do understand why there were a few horror buffs out there that kept this movie on life support in order to make it the genuine cult film that it is today.

If you're a fan of bonkers 1980s low budget horror films, then this one might be for you!

FROM THE COLLECTION! - 'Waterworld' (1995)

So, how did one film controversially become the most expensive movie of the time? Well, surprisingly, the script had its start in the low budget world. Famed low-budget producer Roger Corman had come across some money in 1986 and tasked screenwriter Peter Rader to make a “Mad Max” rip-off film as they were cheap to make.

Rader wanted to put a unique spin on the dystopian genre and thought, “What about ‘Mad Max’ on water!?” After being told that would be too expensive a movie to make, he moved forward with writing it anyway. He ended up shelving the movie for a few years only to pull it out when producer Lawrence Gordon told him that Largo could make the movie for $65 million and it would be distributed by Universal Pictures.

Eventually, Rader learned that actor Kevin Costner had come across the script and was interested in starring in the movie. This meant that the production was going to be way more expensive and Universal completely took over control of the movie’s production and distribution.

After Costner signed on, he had only one condition. He wanted Kevin Reynolds, a director whom he had previously worked with on “Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves” to direct the movie. At first, Reynolds said he wasn’t interested as he and Costner had creative differences on “Robin Hood”, but after having a meeting at a hotel that was set up by Gordon, the two agreed to work together again.

Kevin Costner plays The Mariner in 1995's "Waterworld".

Reynolds’ first decision was to call Steven Spielberg who had directed “Jaws” on the ocean. When he told the famed director that he was planning to shoot on the ocean, Spielberg only told him one thing: DON’T SHOOT ON THE WATER!

That could have been sage advice, but Reynolds carried on anyway with the idea to shoot the movie mostly on the open seas. There’s only one problem that Spielberg had found out twenty years prior: the ocean doesn’t care what your shooting schedule is. This meant that the movie went over budget and over schedule.

At the time, this hit the press and they stomped on the opportunity to write negative articles about the movie and its ballooning budget. But the question was, how accurate were these articles? In reality, there was a healthy dose of truthful and exaggerated articles.

Reynolds actually recalled how he wanted to get a shot on one of the ships with two cameramen up on a tall mast. When he realized that the shot would be too dangerous due to weather conditions, they cancelled the shot. The next day, a reporter called and asked about the two cameramen that had been killed the day before, much to Reynolds’ surprise, and it took the director awhile to convince them that no one had died.

Dennis Hopper plays the Deacon in "Waterworld".

While the production was long and the budget did balloon, it wasn’t quite as bad at the end of the day as the reports were making it out to be. Unfortunately, the deed was done and the negative reporting did impact people’s decision to go see the movie.

At the end of the day, the movie made $264 million against a $175 million budget. It was not, as is to be believed, a box office flop as it made even more money on the home video market. However, the box office take was definitely well below what was expected of the movie and it was considered a box office disappointment.

Now, 31 years later, with the troubled production behind it and the luxury of time, the movie has become something of a cult hit. An oddity from the 1990s that some remember fondly while others still remember the troubled production. Hell, I even had a friend just the other day tell me she didn’t watch the movie because of the negative reports of its production.

I first saw the movie back when it was initially released on home video with my dad. I remembered enjoying the movie while dad kind of had a more lukewarm response. I do remember him briefly bringing up the massive budget of the movie and, yes, for some reason that had already soured him on the movie before he even saw it.

The Mariner, Helen, and Enola spot something in the distance in "Waterworld".

To be fair, even though I enjoyed it, I quickly moved on to other movies and kind of forgot about “Waterworld”. It was only a few years ago when I came across some articles talking about how the movie was actually quite good and probably deserved a reappraisal. I bought the film digitally as it was one sale and gave it a second go and I really enjoyed it, probably more than the first time.

So, I’ve decided to give the film a third viewing. Is the movie perfect? No, it is not, but it is worth anyone’s time who is a fan of high-concept 1990s action films. It’s one of the better dystopian pictures out there even in spite of an admittedly silly premise.

The movie sets up that the polar ice caps have melted and the entire world is submerged underwater. This is already a scientific conceit considering that this couldn’t happen in the real world as there is not enough water to cover everything up. Still, with the plot established, we are introduced to a world where our characters live on their ships and there are ramshackle cities that float on the waves of the ocean.

Our main character is the Mariner, a loner played by Costner that is your typical antihero. He’s in full survival mode, quiet, and doesn’t care to help anyone but himself. He eventually comes across a massive city called the Atoll and he meets both Helen (Jeanne Tripplehorn) and Enola (Tina Majorino) and Enola has a secret.

The Mariner prepares to trade in "Waterworld".

Tattooed on her back is the apparent location of the mythical “Dryland”, the only land that is still around on the planet. Of course, when others learn of this, they want to get to Enola and reach Dryland first. Of the people chasing Enola, Helen, and the Mariner, the sinister Deacon (Dennis Hopper), the leader of a gang known as the Smokers, is the worst.

Hopper plays Deacon as a truly sinister black hat character. In the ‘90s, Hopper made for a fantastic villain and that’s no different here as well. Every good film needs a good antagonist and Hopper definitely provided that on that front.

Costner is also great as the Mariner and plays the character as a Mad Max/Man with No Name type character. At both times, you want to know more about the character but you also don’t want the mysteriousness of the character to be fully revealed as well.

Now, before I get to the good stuff about the movie’s production, I’ll go ahead and make note of a few blemishes on the movie. First off, it doesn’t try to move the needle on the dystopian film formula, so if these are not your kind of movies, this one won’t change your mind.

In addition to that, there are plenty of special-effects that have that good ole fashioned 1990s aging going on. In particular, the movie does contain some CGI and this was the early days and you can definitely tell. However, the filmmakers were smart as they filmed most of the movie practically and this is where the movie shines.

The practical effects hold up exceptionally well and give you some pretty spectacular action sequences. Yes, the movie went over budget, but the money is on the screen. There is something about tangible special-effects that I feel, more times than not, win out over CGI effects.

The truth is that this movie was shot in the foot by journalists who were hellbent on sensationalizing this movie’s budget and production. No, the movie is not perfect and it can definitely be classified as “Mad Max” on water, but the performances are solid, the effects are great for the most part, and the story is fun to watch.

If you’ve never given “Waterworld” a chance because of its seemingly troubled production or you’ve just never seen it before, I say give it a shot. I think you may just be surprised by what you find.

REVISITING SPIELBERG #5 - Spielberg Misfires with "1941" (1979)

After the successful release of “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”, Steven Spielberg wanted to direct a comedy. Writers Robert Zemeckis and Bob Gale originally wanted to write a serious film about the real-life 1942 Japanese bombing of Ellwood, California, and the 1943 Zoot Suits Riots. The story became a comedy after Spielberg was hired to direct the project after it moved to Universal Pictures.

The movie was released on December 14, 1979, and it proved two things. Spielberg was not immune to negative criticism and disappointing box office returns. Now, notice that I used the word “disappointing”, not box office bomb or flop. Most people believe that the movie was not a success financially, but this isn’t the case.

The movie was made for $35 million and went on to gross over $90 million worldwide. This is actually not bad for how a comedy would generally perform at the time. However, Spielberg’s last two films were blockbusters that had made over $300 and $250 million each. So, the film was considered a box office disappointment by the standards that Spielberg was held up to, but it also turned in a profit.

Box office disappointment aside, how good or bad is the movie? I finally got to find out as this is one of Spielberg’s films that I had never seen before writing about it here. I think I kind of subconsciously avoided it because any time anyone would bring it up, I would never hear anything good about the movie. In fact, Spielberg himself has even mentioned that it wasn’t that funny, but now that I’ve seen it, here are my thoughts…

Steven Spielberg directing "1941".

Well… I’ve seen it. As mentioned before, the movie is based on a real-life Japanese bombing and a true scare that the west coast had of a possible Japanese invasion. I would tell you about the characters, but there are so many of them that none of them truly stand out. 

There are people that also didn’t have to be here, either. Legendary actors such as John Candy, Ned Beatty, and Robert Stack are wasted here with very little to do. Now, is the movie totally bad? No.

There are visual effects that are amazing and big, huge set pieces such as an elaborate dance number and “dog fight” over the skies of Los Angeles that look spectacular. The problem is that sequences like this are all over the movie, leading you to feel overwhelmed instead of jumping out of your seat. Also, these sequences feel like they’re in the wrong genre and would be great in other big budget action films.

The true tragedy is the movie is mostly missing the one key component to any comedy… the comedy. Even if it wasn’t for a delirious Dan Ackroyd or Slim Pickens on a Japanese submarine, I don’t think I would have laughed out loud once. Even the mighty talents of John Belushi are wasted here as even he couldn’t pull in any of the laughs.

So, the movie is, admittedly, not good. If I were to review this as a new movie and give it a star rating, I would give it two stars out of five. One star for Ackroyd and Pickens at least eliciting an audible giggle and another star for the brilliant filmmaking including the special-effects.

This would also be the third time that Spielberg went over budget and over schedule, but the first time that it didn’t pay off with big box office returns. This meant that while Spielberg was a household name, the studios didn’t want to work with him. However, Spielberg’s closest friend and fellow filmmaker, George Lucas, would come to the rescue.

More on that later when I take a look at 1981’s “Raiders of the Lost Ark”, a film that would not only be a comeback moment for Spielberg, but a movie that would launch one of the greatest action film series of all time.

THURSDAY NIGHT HORROR! - "Warlock" (1989)

Warlock (1989)

Screenwriter David Twohy first conceived of the Warlock as a good character who was genuinely persecuted in the 1600s and was whisked away to the present day only to face a different type of persecution. However, he soon realized that the Warlock was the true villain of the piece.

The movie was directed by Steve Miner, the man behind other horror films such as “Friday the 13th Part 2”, “Friday the 13th Part 3”, “House”, “Halloween H20: Twenty Years Later”, and “Lake Placid”. For the movie, he wanted the Warlock and the main protagonist, Redferne, to be played by British actors due to the fact that the time there from, the American colonists would not have been far removed from their British roots.

Julian Sands was given the script in order to read for Redferne, but he ignored the script at first. He didn’t feel like he wanted to be in a horror film. When he did finally read the script, though, he realized that it had a lot of black comedy and was not the slasher that he thought it’d be.

Julian Sands is the titular character in "Warlock"!

When he auditioned, Miner thought that Sands would actually be better for the Warlock role, which Sands ended up relishing. Richard E. Grant was scheduled to audition for the Warlock role and Miner decided to still let Grant audition despite having just cast Sands as the Warlock.

Miner was so impressed with Grant’s audition that he offered him the role of Redferne instead. Lori Singer was eventually cast as Kassandra, the female lead.

In the movie, the Warlock and Redferne are from 1691 and Redferne has already captured the Warlock who is set to be put to death. However, Satan intervenes and transports the Warlock into the future and Redferne follows him through the portal. They end up in 1980s Los Angeles where the Warlock comes across Kassandra.

The Warlock is then tasked with putting back together the Grand Grimoire, Satan’s own version of the Bible. He puts an aging curse on Kassandra, thus she has to team up with Redferne in order to find the Warlock and reverse the curse.

Richard E. Grant is Redferne in "Warlock"!

Now, of course, this is a low-budget B movie with a hokey premise. However, it works primarily due to Sands and Grant as the Warlock and Redferne. Sands stated in an interview that he had always wanted to do a sequel with Grant that never came to fruition and I have to say, had that sequel happened, I would have been psyched.

The movie’s premise, though absurd, is also just a load of fun. Kassandra and Redferne traveling across the country to try and stop the Warlock causes several fun events to happen such as when the Warlock terrorizes a family farm.

All that being said, there are a few problems with the movie. First off, I can always handle weak special-effects for a low-budget movie. I generally give them a lot of wiggle room as I know they were working on the smallest of budgets. However, the effects in this movie have aged poorly even by those low standards and can be quite distracting.

The other issue is Singer as Kassandra. I’m sorry, but Singer does not give a good performance here. It’s almost as if Singer thought this movie was too beneath her to really give a shit about her performance. In fact, it’s been reported that Singer was difficult to work with.

This was apparently true especially with make-up man Carl Fullerton. According to sources, Fullerton had devised far more elaborate and convincing prosthetics for Singer’s transformation into her older self. However, Singer reportedly refused to wear anything but the bare minimum of prosthetics.

This meant that they had to resort to older techniques to make her look older. So, not only does her performance suck, but the makeup looks like shit too.

In spite of its flaws and a terrible performance by Singer, the movie is fun at the end of the day. It’s neither the best nor the worst of the Bs, but if you’re looking for a quick fix of supernatural, low-budget horror, then “Warlock” may just be the movie you’re looking for!

FROM MY COLLECTION - "Dumb and Dumber" (1994)

In the early 1990s, there was an idea for a film called “Ski Nuts!” The movie revolved around two dumb skiers in Aspen, Colorado. The idea came from John Hughes, but he wasn’t interested in developing the idea any further beyond a rough first draft. Peter and Bobby Farrelly decided that they liked the idea and bought it off of Hughes on the famed filmmaker’s condition that his name not be credited anywhere on the movie.

Then came the casting. Steve Martin and Martin Short reportedly turned down the roles of Lloyd Christmas and Harry Dunne. Apparently, for a small bit of time, Nicolas Cage and Gary Oldman were said to have been cast but ultimately dropped out. Heeding the advice of their agents, the Farrelly brothers also decided that they themselves would direct the movie instead of getting someone else.

At first, they didn’t know anything about Jim Carrey. All they knew was that he was “the white guy” on “In Living Color”. However, they saw an early screening of “Ace Ventura: Pet Detective” and decided they wanted him to play Lloyd. The subsequent success of “Ace Ventura” allowed Carrey to ink a $7 million deal with the studio.

Jeff Daniels, on the other hand, was not wanted by the studio despite both the Farrelly brothers and Carrey wanting to work with him. The studio thought Daniels was nothing more than a serious actor and didn’t think he could do the comedy. Therefore, they lowballed him and only offered Daniels $50,000 for the movie thinking he would turn it down.

Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels play Lloyd and Harry in "Dumb and Dumber"!

Sure enough, Daniels’ agent told him to reject the deal based on how much they were offering. However, to the shock of everyone, Daniels really wanted to do a comedy and he took the low offer to star in the movie along with Carrey. Thus, one of the great comedy duos was born in what would become a massive smash comedy hit.

Released in December 1994, the movie would end up grossing over $247 million against a $17 million budget. It was the third film in a string of hits for Carrey in ‘94 following “Ace Ventura” in February and “The Mask” in July ‘94. The only thing that bugs me is that some modern film “experts” refer to this movie as a cult classic.

I’m sorry, but before I talk about the movie itself, I want to clarify something. If a film is a smash hit at the box office and has no problem finding its audience, then it doesn’t have a cult following… it just has a following and this movie is well deserving of its following.

For the uninitiated, the movie follows Lloyd Christmas and Harry Dunne, two extremely unintelligent characters. After Lloyd drops off Mary Swanson (Lauren Holly) at the airport, he notices that she left a briefcase in the terminal. He quickly grabs the briefcase, but is unable to return it to Mary before her flight to Aspen leaves.

Lloyd and Harry go through many misadventures in "Dumb and Dumber"!

After other setbacks such as losing their jobs and what little provisions they had left, Lloyd convinces Harry that they should take a road trip to Aspen in order to return the briefcase to Mary. What they don’t know is that the briefcase actually contains a ransom for Mary’s husband and that they are being tracked by two criminals who were supposed to receive the money.

From beginning to end, the movie is filled with belly laughs. The first thing to note is that Carrey’s signature physical comedy is on full display here, whether it’s him falling from an empty terminal or the scene where he’s trying to deal with just eating a hot pepper.

The second and, in my opinion, most important note is the chemistry between Carrey and Daniels. Their interactions are always hilarious and they give you the sense that these are genuine albeit dumb kindred spirits. They have the same successful chemistry that powered other famous duos from Abbott and Costello to Richard Pryor and Gene Wilder. The only regret here is that they didn’t make more comedies together outside of “Dumb and Dumber”.

It’s also a fun road trip movie, at least for the first half before they get to Aspen. It belongs up there with others such as “Planes, Trains, and Automobiles”, “The Blues Brothers”, and “Cheech & Chong’s Up In Smoke”.

Now, like most other comedies from this era, there are a couple of jokes that probably come off as out of date or not with the times. However, this movie holds up way better than other movies from the 1990s.

For me, it’s still in my top ten, if not my top five, for favorite comedies of all time. Carrey and Daniels make for a successful team in a road trip comedy where the jokes hit far more than they miss. So, get your provisions for a road trip, settle in, and either catch this comedy for the first time or prepare to revisit a stone cold comedy classic!

REVISITING SPIELBERG #4 - Spielberg Looks to the Stars with "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" (1977)

"Close Encounters of the Third Kind" (1977)

After the massive success of “Jaws”, Steven Spielberg found that he could do any project he wanted to next. Growing up, he was always fascinated with space, particularly after his father took him to see a meteor shower in the middle of the night. In 1964, when he was 18, Spielberg had made a feature-length film called “Firelight”. The mostly lost film was filmed for $500 and had only one screening where the movie made $501.

The movie was about an alien encounter and subsequent invasion. While the movie may be mostly lost (with only three minutes and forty seconds ever released to the public), Spielberg used the ideas and concepts there to develop a newer, bigger version of a story about our first encounters with beings from another world.

In 1973, before he had a massive success with “Jaws”, Columbia Pictures had already signed Spielberg to a deal in order to develop his science fiction movie. In fact, Spielberg later expressed that he had wanted to make “Close Encounters” before he made “Jaws”.

Initially, Spielberg wanted to shoot the movie entirely on sound stages due to his negative experiences filming “Jaws” on location. However, he ultimately decided against this and would shoot on location at such spots such as Devils Tower, a butte and national monument that was made even more iconic by the movie.

Melinda Dillon and Richard Dreyfuss in "Close Encounters of the Third Kind"!

Casting wise, Spielberg asked Richard Dreyfuss who should play Roy Neary, an electrician who has an encounter with the aliens that changes the course of his life. Spielberg didn’t consider Dreyfuss right away because they were in the middle of shooting “Jaws” and Spielberg couldn’t see Dreyfuss as anyone but Matt Hooper while filming.

Eventually, though, Spielberg realized what Dreyfuss himself was trying to tell him and hired the actor to play Roy. François Truffaut, one of the iconic founders of the French New Wave, was hired by Spielberg to play Claude Lacombe, a French scientist who is trying to figure out what the motives are behind the extra-terrestrials’ visits to Earth. This was Truffaut’s only acting role in a film he did not direct and the only English-speaking movie that he ever acted in.

Truffaut and Spielberg got along famously, with Truffaut having a profound respect for Spielberg’s patience and directing. In fact, Truffaut once told Spielberg that he had the heart of a child and should make something about children. This would directly inspire Spielberg to eventually make another science fiction classic, “E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial”, but more on that little ole film later.

Steven Spielberg with François Truffaut during the filming of "Close Encounters of the Third Kind"!

In “Close Encounters”, several people are witnessing UFO sightings. Chief among these people is the aforementioned Roy and Melinda Dillon’s Jillian Guiller, a mother whose son Barry (Cary Guffey) is also witnessing these events. Things seem to take a dark turn when the aliens seem to have an interest in Barry.

Meanwhile, Claude and his assistant David Laughlin (Bob Balaban) discover World War II ships long after they had disappeared and long from where they were reported missing. They also appear to be new and in fine working order.

Eventually, the scientists discover a way to communicate with the aliens. This leads to the film’s now iconic final act which can be credited to legendary composer John Williams just as much as it can to Spielberg. The five note communication has become just as recognizable as other themes Williams has written for Spielberg, such as themes for “Jaws” and “Raiders of the Lost Ark”.

The performances are great as well. Dreyfuss is perfect as an everyman who is going through an extremely weird situation where he’s having visions but doesn’t know quite how to handle them. His wife Ronnie is played excellently by Teri Garr. At first, you’re kind of against her because you understand that what Roy is going through is real. However, you soon begin to sort of sympathize with her because all she sees is that Roy is inexplicably acting insane.

Humankind comes into contact with another life form in "Close Encounters of the Third Kind"!

Dillon is also another highlight of the film as Jillian, a mother who doesn’t exactly have the best experiences with the aliens due to their interest in Barry. Speaking of Barry, Spielberg was able to use some method acting techniques to get a genuine response from the then three year old Guffey and it’s quite impressive how well Spielberg is able to direct children.

Finally, Truffaut and Balaban are great as Claude and David due mostly to how their characters are portrayed. In science fiction films that deal with benign aliens, the scientists are usually the ones that are trying to track down the aliens for more nefarious purposes such as experimentation. Claude and David, on the other hand, are simply fascinated by the encounters and want to learn how to communicate with them.

The movie is a wondrous adventure of discovery and trying to find a higher purpose in life. It’s a wonderful exploration of the possibilities of what might be waiting for us out there beyond our small planet. At the end of the day, it’s also just about one of the best science fiction films ever made.

The movie would prove to be another rousing success for Spielberg. The movie went on to make over $288 million plus additional box office numbers due to re-releases over the years. The movie was also well received by critics who considered it a great follow-up to “Jaws”.

Unfortunately, even the G.O.A.T. isn’t immune to having a misstep here and there. The next time we meet, I’ll be discussing what many consider to be Spielberg’s first disappointment as I take a look at the World War II comedy, “1941”.

THURSDAY NIGHT HORROR! - "The Dead Zone" (1983)

“The Dead Zone” is an odd entry in David Cronenberg’s filmography. It is the first movie where he really moved away from the body horror that he had become known for. It’s also the first film where he had no involvement in the script’s development. Cronenberg himself said that the aspect of filming someone else’s script, along with encouragement from producer Debra Hill, was what convinced him to take on the project.

Christopher Walken was cast to play Johnny Smith, a school teacher that is living a happy life along with his fiance, Sarah Bracknell (Brooke Adams). Unfortunately, Johnny is involved in a horrible accident that puts him into a coma.

Five years pass when he wakes up. He finds that Sarah has moved on and married someone else. Johnny must also deal with a body that has not been used regularly and weakened over time… 

Oh! And there’s the pesky problem where he can now see into the past and futures of people that he touches.

When the public finds out after he predicts a fire at a nurse’s house, he becomes an unwanted celebrity. Eventually, Sheriff George Bannerman (Tom Skerritt) from Castle Rock wants Johnny to use his abilities to see if he can track down a serial killer that’s been terrorizing Castle Rock for a few years now.

Christopher Walken plays Johnny Smith in "The Dead Zone"!

After that goes down, Johnny isolates himself from the rest of the world. Johnny then eventually meets politician Greg Stillson (Martin Sheen) and the vision he receives from him is a terrible future where Stillson will become President and do something terrible. So, can Johnny change the future or are we all doomed?

The movie is an episodic piece. First, Johnny has his accident, must recover, and then come to terms somewhat with what he considers his newfound psychic curse. Secondly, he helps Sheriff Bannerman with his problem in Castle Rock before finally getting his vision of Stillson’s future that must be prevented at all cost, setting up the final thrilling act.

The script is a strong adaptation of Stephen King’s book, only sacrificing elements that just couldn’t fit into the movie adaptation. Of all the adaptations of King’s books, this actually proves to be one of the best ones.

The performances are also strong as well. Walken deserves the most praise as you feel like you’re living alongside this normal man who is going through hell. He also has to carry most of the weight of the movie due to being the only character that is consistently present in the movie’s episodic structure.

Sheen is also worthy of praise as a very different politician here than the one he would play years later on “The West Wing”. Stillson is a bad hombre and Sheen never lets you forget it. Sheen takes the insanity of his character to the edge a time or two, but thankfully stops just shy of being too over-the-top as the movie’s main antagonist.

Finally, Adams is also great as Sarah, Johnny’s tragic love interest who hasn’t let go of her own feelings towards Johnny despite having moved on. Along with Walken, she helps make this movie a genuine love story in addition to the sci-fi thriller that inhabits the rest of the movie.

Now, I will say that the movie moves along at a deliberate pace. If a slow burn doesn’t appeal to you, then this movie may not be for you. The filmmakers take their time and allow us to hang out with Johnny for a minute before the next major event occurs.

Yes, of all the Stephen King adaptations that have come through over the years, “The Dead Zone” still holds up. I would definitely say that it’s in the top ten of film adaptations of King’s work. It’s a great movie for fans of Walken and Sheen and it’s a surprisingly effective sci-fi thriller from Cronenberg.