When the After Dark Horrorfest popped up in November of 2006, I caught about half of the offered 8 Films to Die For, despite a transparently sensationalized campaign of just how horrendously extreme these titles must've been to get such a specialized release. My experiences ranged from not bad (The Abandoned and The Gravedancers) to pretty dreadful (Penny Dreadful), but between the ratio of enjoyment that year and the yanking of actually-possibly-horrific Frontier(s) the next, I just passed entirely in 2007.

One might assume that, in an effort to meet me halfway, the Horrorfest has skipped out on itself this year, but while this is technically true, it's merely shuffled away into the doldrums of this coming January 2-9 instead. Scott Weinberg had already pointed out that The Broken and The Butterfly Effect 3 were among this year's (next year's?) selected batch of titles, and now The Hollywood Reporter reports that From Within -- about a rash of suicides in a small town -- and three After Dark productions: the aforementioned Effect, Slaughter, and Perkins' 14.

That leaves three more titles in the running. Any guesses? Just remember now: they can't be too scary.

*Photo courtesy of The Hot Blog

So we've spoken at great length about the MPAA and the way in which they go about approving billboards. Earlier in the year, After Dark Films found themselves in some hot water after a billboard for Captivity that wasn't approved by the MPAA found its way onto city streets and on buses. Apparently, those ads, separated into four different frames, featured Elisha Cuthbert's eyes and the words 'abduction,' 'confinement,' 'torture' and 'termination.' Folks were pretty shocked to see a woman's eyes on top of those four words, and so the ads were immediately yanked while After Dark Films was slapped with all kinds of sanctions. Cinematical later spoke with After Dark's Courtney Solomon who attempted to clear up the skirmish.

Now, as you can see above, there's a new billboard for the movie Beowulf featuring the mo-capped, left-boobage of Angelina Jolie. And it's a PG-13-rated film. Am I missing something here -- who at the MPAA approved this advertisement? Is this appropriate for 13-year-old kids? She's obviously naked in the picture, except for the fact that they did something weird to her boob, making it look like she's wearing a strange, golden bikini top ... as her hair "slithers" and "snakes" around her body. Hmmm. Personally, I think we, as a society, need to loosen up a bit -- but I do find it interesting that the MPAA would allow an image like this for a PG-13-rated film. I wonder how many guys will get into fender-benders while reaching to get a closer look at Jolie's breast? What do you think?

Gallery: Which Boob is Better -- Right or Left?

"Wait, so is she actually eating a dog?" I swear I said that to myself at one point while watching all these Miss Horrorfest videos. What is Miss Horrorfest? And how to I date her? Well, I can answer the first part for you -- Miss Horrorfest is an annual contest held by After Dark Films in which they award one lucky (and freak-ish) lady with the title of Miss Horrorfest in conjunction with After Dark's actual Horrorfest, which screens 8 new films between the dates of November 9-18, 2007. If you're a cool chick who digs horror and warped beauty pageants, then all you need to do is submit a 90-second video to YouTube with the words "Miss Horrorfest" and "Horrorfest, November 9-18, 2007" somewhere inside the Oscar-worthy masterpiece. However, the contest only runs through September 30, which is like four days from now, so you don't have a lot of time to get to it.

If you're not into the whole YouTube thing (and I don't blame you -- all those nasty comments would give me a complex in all of about two minutes), you can participate in one of four live auditions held in Los Angeles, New York City, Chicago and Dallas. I'm not sure whether any of the live audition dates have passed, but you can get all of the info over on Horrorfest's official YouTube page. Because I have nothing better to do with my time, I spent part of the morning watching some of these videos. While most of them are -- how do I say it -- friggin' awful, there are a few that I enjoyed. I've included the video that I liked the most after the jump, although the girl certainly pimps herself out -- and I hate people who say, "Look, I've done all these things, which means you simply have to pick me!" But so far it's the best I've seen, so head on over there and check out the rest. I think you vote for your favorite, and the winner is chosen that way ... or something. Also, stay tuned to Cinematical this October as we'll be shelling out more Halloween-themed content than you know what to do with.

There's always been a bit of an attraction to life-sized things. You can get full-scale cardboard cutouts of your favorite stars, and even almost-real mannequins. For a while a few years ago, I was trying to figure out if I could afford to buy a life-sized shaky, old man butler. I thought it would be a good jump-inducer for unknowing guests. But why scare them with a wrinkly old man who shakes, when you can scare them with a life-size Skinwalker?

What's that? It's one of those hairy beasts from the thriller Skinwalkers, which opens today. See, Stan Winston Studios designed the monsters for the movie, and After Dark Films is now giving away one of the creatures -- all snarling and arms out-stretched. According to the contest's official rules, the prize will be 7' to 9' tall, so you best have big ceilings, and, I'm assuming, some way to prop the thing up. To throw your hat in the ring, you have to mail your ticket stub to the address on the website with your contact info written on a 3x5 card. Now, before you go saying: "Awesome! A scary werewolf for free!" please note the contest rules over at the movie's website, which state that the winner picks up the tab for delivery and travel/lodging costs.

If you can afford them, it's a pretty small price to pay for a realistic creation from Stan Winston Studios, especially if you have a thing for werewolves. Me, I'd much rather have a full-sized Elias Koteas (who co-stars in the flick as Jonas) to guard my pad, instead of a dude who wears a jean jacket with no sleeves, but we can't all get what we want.

[via Rotten Tomatoes]

I'm so annoyed that I have to pan Captivity, the horror film we've been hearing about forever that's finally arrived in theaters. The reason I'm annoyed is because I'm a fan of horror, the more extreme the better, and I couldn't be less on the same page as the Nikki Finkes of the world, who think that even working for a publicity firm that does business on behalf of a film like Captivity makes one morally bankrupt. So let me reiterate: I'm not one of those critics who would slam a horror film for being horrifying. I could conceivably write a glowing review of a movie where the lead actress is gang-raped by a group of angry coal miners, gives birth to a two-headed rape baby, and then is forced to eat that baby moments after delivering it. What I can't get on board with is directorial incompetence, which Captivity is, sadly, overflowing with. A retarded gorilla with nervous bowel syndrome could have done a better job of directing this film than double Oscar-nominee Roland Joffe, it seems.

The film drops us into its situation with next to no foreplay: a popular actress/model named Jennifer Tree (Elisha Cuthbert) is kidnapped during a night out at a club. An unknown party slips something into her drink, she stumbles into an out of the way area, and the next thing we see is her waking up in a makeshift jail cell that's presumably located in the kidnapper's basement. A lot of torture follows -- editing-room torture. Someone was clearly worried that audiences would be bored by extended takes of a woman sitting alone in isolation, so the movie makes the most awkward jumps forward in time, going from having Cuthbert's character being alone in her cell to being suddenly strapped to a gurney while a hooded figure walks around her in circles, ominously. Important information is lost in the cuts, like where the kidnapper is coming from, and what avenues of escape that could present the heroine. The film is so devoid of establishing shots that we have to accept the torture scenes on a nightmare level.

Earlier this week, I got a call from Elisha Cuthbert to discuss what has to be the most talked-about movie of the year so far, Captivity. If I actually tried to give you a rundown all the digital ink we've spilled on this little horror film since the beginning of 2007, I'd never get around to actually typing out this interview, so I'll just choose a few highlights, like the original outbreak of controversy over the film's graphic billboard advertising back in March, the harsh response by the MPAA, the arrival of the first trailer, the release-date musical chairs, and our exclusive interview with After Dark Films about the whole project and the fuss it had caused. As you can probably imagine, the first question I asked Elisha when I spoke with her was, inevitably, 'Do you get asked your opinion about Captivity every single day?'

Elisha is, of course, known for her starring roles in such films as The Girl Next Door, where she played a mercurial porn star called Danielle, House of Wax, the 2005 horror remake in which she starred alongside a pre-incarceration Paris Hilton and famously allowed the stunt people to glue her lips together for a crucial scene, and the Will Ferrell comedy Old School. She's also widely recognized for her work on the small screen, appearing for several seasons as Jack Bauer's daughter on the hit show 24. Those two worlds are expected to collide sometime in late 2008 or 2009 as a movie adaptation of 24 ramps up production, but until that happens, if it happens at all, Cuthbert has a number of projects on the runway to keep her busy. Here is the interview, and fair warning -- it does contain some spoilers about Captivity.

RS: What's it like being at the center of this film's controversy-fueled marketing campaign for the past few months? Do you get asked your opinion about Captivity every single day?

EC: Not every day, but I definitely get a lot of questions about it. To be perfectly honest with you, a lot of it baffles me, and a lot of it is intriguing at the same time, because I had no idea that, in the world of the Saws and the Hostels ... somehow our film has sort of stuck out. I'm grateful for that, but at the same time, I'm a little confused. I know that we had some controversy with the womens' groups, and I just feel like I wanted them to see the film before making any judgments on it. I set out to make a film about a woman who fights for her life and comes out in the end sort of strong and learns something from her experience. But 30 million people chatting about it online? I couldn't ask for anything more!

RS: Did you find the billboards personally offensive?

EC: I personally didn't, but then again that doesn't mean it's not going to affect someone in a negative way, and we're here to sort of appease the people who go see the films. The only thing I can say about it is that I thought that they were interesting enough to be up. I hope people see the film and give it a chance. We're not here to sort of ... this isn't a documentary about, you know, women getting kidnapped. This is a horror film.

RS: Where do you come down on the whole recent issue of R-rated horror films like Hostel II seeming to give ground to films like 1408, which are PG-13 and clearly less gruesome?

EC: I don't know, you know, it's hard to judge. I think that, back in the day, there used to be a lot of horror films that kind of had a checklist of what went into making the 'perfect horror film', and I think now people are raising the bar in the industry, as far as the types of horror films that are being made. There's a sort of psychological undertone to films. 1408 -- I think we're also in the same realm as that, just as the Hostels and the Saws, because there is that sort of psychological fear and we're basing something on reality. I don't know -- it's tough to say, I just think the industry in general and the genre in general has changed and modified -- people want to see more.

When I spoke with After Dark Films' Courtney Solomon not long ago, he told me it wasn't fair to label Captivity as a "torture porn" because, quite simply, there's no porn in the movie. While that may be the case, it certainly doesn't mean there can't be porn at the film's premiere party. Solomon recently told The New York Times that he's planning one of the craziest, most politically incorrect premiere party's in history; one that will take place at the West Hollywood club Privilege and feature, among other things, "the three 'most outlandish' SuicideGirls available from the punk porn service." I'm not exactly sure what that means, but apparently the craziest of the SuicideGirls once set a restaurant in Portland, Ore. on fire. According to Solomon, a few lucky fans will get to escort these SuicideGirls to the party under two conditions: "People take the date at their own risk, and everybody on the Internet gets to watch." Yay for us ... I guess.

Okay, so we have the porn, but what about the torture? Fear not my friends, Solomon also promised "individuals in torture gear" who will wonder through the club grabbing people. Classy! Not only that, but some nice friendly cage fighting (featuring a dude named Kimbo Slice) is also on the agenda. Regarding aspects of the extravagant event, which Solomon admits are "probably not legal," he says it's his "personal little tribute" to all the women's groups who are opposing the film. Another interesting note in the article is the fact that Captivity will screen only once prior to its release -- not for critics, mind you, but for women's groups in New York. Following the screening, Solomon wants to "engage in a town-hall-style debate with detractors." A few women's groups, like the National Organization for Women, have already declined the invitation. Apparently, they're not interested in giving the film more free publicity.

We're not exactly sure how you fans can attend said party; the NYT states that most of the folks in attendance will be fans "who can cycle through the club free in groups of 50, along with an expected army of Web-based video bloggers." I envision it to be some sort of warped Torture Porn Haunted House -- and if Cinematical receives an invite, you bet we'll be sending one of our craziest West Coast correspondents to the event. Stay tuned ...

I'm not sure if Joe Carnahan is the right person to take a strong stance against gratuitous violence in movies, but his arguments are valid and he presents them in a way that just makes you laugh. Over on his blog, Carnahan wrote a little rant on the "torture porn" phenomenon, although he made sure to begin said rant by pointing out the reasoning behind two pretty vicious scenes included in his last flick Smokin' Aces. Once that's out of the way, the dude goes off on the use of females in these types of films, saying it's something he finds "personally f*cking revolting." And I certainly agree with Joe, especially when he begins talking about Saw.

As I've said before, I watched and enjoyed the first Saw film (which I consider more of a psychological thriller than a straight-up horror flick). But the films that followed (which include both Hostel flicks) seemed to drift from that element, only to concentrate on (as Carnahan says): "this overblown, carnage level, blood sodden grand guignol aimed at the most base, depraved parts of the human psyche." Carnahan continues his rant: "I see these ads for Captivity and the wallowing in and fetishism of torture and I want to put my fist through something solid. And I don't think there's some political overtones or some Iraq/Abu Gharib allegories at work here. F*ck that, it's about titillation and ticket sales."

Earlier this afternoon I had a chance to speak with Courtney Solomon from After Dark Films. A filmmaker himself (he directed An American Haunting and the 2000 flick Dungeons & Dragons), Courtney is now a partner over at After Dark Films. A company that has a multi-picture deal with Lionsgate; these are the same folks who were also responsible for marketing the upcoming horror flick Captivity. And we all know what happened there. Back in March, a bunch of controversial billboards for Captivity began popping up all over New York and Los Angeles; billboards, mind you, that were not approved by the MPAA. Hence, the MPAA suspended the film's ratings process and slapped After Dark Films with an unprecedented sanction, forcing the company to clear all venues and locations of its ad buys with the MPAA.

Since then, the film's release date has been pushed back twice (it's now set to be released on July 13), and folks like Eli Roth have called them out basically saying that After Dark Films helped ruin the ratings process for other films, like Hostel: Part II, that were trying to go through the process at the exact same time. Following my interview with Roth (in which the director had some pretty harsh things to say about both Captivity and After Dark), I caught up with Solomon who wanted to set the record straight.

Cinematical: Let me read what Eli Roth said to me regarding Captivity and its controversial ad campaign: "Well ... I mean, everyone hates those guys. And word of mouth is that Captivity sucked. Why would I be jealous of that; I don't give a sh*t. I was pissed actually, because it makes it very difficult for the rest of us. They did not go before the MPAA with those posters. It really puts everyone on edge when that happens. And suddenly, who's the next one up? Oh, thanks, it's me. I'm not doing this for attention, I'm doing this to make good movies. And that decapitated head poster was a European poster; that was in 80% of the countries in Europe. It was not a poster that was intended for American audiences." What's your response to that?

Courtney Solomon: First of all, I've heard this over and over again -- [Eli] has spent most of his publicity tour talking about the Captivity posters and dissing us. I was listening to K-Rock one day, and he spent twenty minutes on there just going on about me -- and I've never even met Eli. As far as what he's saying, there are a couple of things that are completely inaccurate. First of all, nobody has seen Captivity because we re-did a third of the movie and we're just finishing it now. We actually just finished the mix on it two days ago. So he hears word around town that the movie is sh*t, but how can he say that when no one has even seen the movie? We just spent a lot of money and a lot of time to make the movie better, because we cared that the movie was good. In fact, it's got a lot more substance than his movie does -- that's number one. That's just a blatant, stupid, wrong statement. That's someone just spouting out from the mouth without even thinking about what they're saying.

Okay, here's the backstory -- Lionsgate partner After Dark Films has been generating some serious 'word of mouth' advertising for its upcoming film Captivity over the past couple of months by putting up controversial billboards and taxi tops in L.A. and New York, even after they were rejected by the MPAA. The offending ads featured star Elisha Cuthbert being tortured in four-frame storyboards, and each frame had one of the following captions: "abduction," "confinement," "torture," and "termination." Lionsgate was no doubt smiling as people everywhere expressed outrage and sites like ours wrote the word Captivity over and over and over again. Well, now the empire has struck back -- the MPAA has suspended Captivity's ratings process and slapped After Dark Films with a sanction -- something Variety is calling "unprecedented."

Never before has the MPAA done what they've done in this case -- require a film company to clear with the MPAA all venues and locations of its ad buys, but the organization is staunchly defending its action, with an MPAA publicist noting After Dark's "prominent display in both Los Angeles and New York of advertising that the MPAA had explicitly disapproved as inappropriate for general public viewing." The publicist also said this action "marks a rare instance where a company has acted in such a clear and direct violation of our rules. The overwhelming majority of companies and filmmakers understand, support and abide by MPAA rules and procedures. It is now up to After Dark Films to restore good faith with the MPAA."

Lionsgate, which has a production and distribution deal with After Dark but is not overseeing advertising for Captivity, issued a two-handed statement of its own, saying "if" After Dark's violation was really so flagrant, then the MPAA action was warranted. Is there any way Captivity could actually live up to all this controversy? I guess we'll see.