cell Tagged Articles at Cinematical

(Remember wayyy back when Eli Roth was attached to direct a film based on Stephen King's Cell? Yeah, well, that obviously didn't happen, and now word has it those Weinstein boys have decided to take the property to the small screen instead. Here's Peter Hall reporting for Horror Squad)

Fangoria got out word today from the Fantasia Film Festival that Stephen King's Cell is no longer destined for the silver screen. Instead the novel will be reborn as a four hour TV mini-series to be scripted by John Harrison. Details are rather sparse at this stage, but Harrison tells Fango his take on the material will be closer to a classic creeper like Village of the Damned (I hope Harrison is referring to the original and not the languid John Carpenter remake) than an all out zombie movie.

If you recall Eli Roth was long attached to a film adaptation of King's novel about a cell phone pulse that scrambles the inner workings of any poor sap that hears it, converting them instantly into a murderous member of a new society.

Read the rest on Horror Squad

That's right; everyone's favorite gore hound, Eli Roth (Hostel), is taking a vacation from blood and guts and trying something just a little different. Roth spoke with journalists backstage at the NME Awards in LA on Wednesday and announced his next project -- a PG-13 'disaster' flick along the lines of Transformers and Cloverfield. Roth told reporters, "This will be my first big-budget, PG-13, mass-destruction movie; I went total chaos and pandemonium." Roth didn't give many more details than that, but ever the self-promoter, he did tell reporters there would be a "big announcement" about the film next month.

So the obvious question is: Why the change of heart? This is the same guy who wanted topless beheaded chicks on his poster art after all. Roth said that, "I feel like I pushed the violence in R movies about as far as I can push it. I feel like I'm bled out. I wanna switch it up, everyone I know has been saying 'When are you gonna do a movie my kids can see?'" -- forget about kids, how about making a movie that doesn't make a fully-grown woman want to upchuck into her popcorn?

If you've ever seen a painting by Margaret Keane, you'll probably agree that Big Eyes is the only logical choice for the title of a biopic about the artist. Variety reports that Scott Alexander and Larry Karaszewski have signed to direct their own script about the relationship between Margaret and her husband Walter. The story will focus on Keane struggling to succeed as an artist while her husband is taking credit for her work.

Walter was a strong businessman with a serious lack of artistic talent. Instead, he took advantage of his wife's abilities and made millions off her paintings of 'large-eyed waif's'. In 1965 the couple divorced and during a dramatic court case, both parties were put in front of an easel to prove who the real artist was -- Walter balked at the challenge and claimed he was suffering from a shoulder injury. After the divorce was granted, Margaret Keane moved to Hawaii where she continues to paint. Alexander told Variety, "Her rebellion coincided with the feminist movement, and when he began calling her his crazy ex-wife, she sued him."

Alexander and Karaszewski brokered the deal for Keane's life story with the artist herself. The filmmakers have been making some inroads into horror flicks lately, but they are probably best known as the writers for Ed Wood, Man on the Moon and The People vs. Larry Flynt. Nightclub mogul-turned producer, Andrew Meieran, told Variety, "We've looked through hundreds of scripts, but this felt like just the right project to launch a brand". Alexander and Karaszewski are already working on another fact based film, Ripley's Believe it or Not with Jim Carrey. They are also still attached to write the screenplay for Eli Roth's big screen version of Stephen King's Cell -- that's if Roth can bring himself to start working again.

Is it just me, or is arguing about 'torture porn' sooo 2006? But, it's not like horror director Eli Roth has ever been one to back away from a fight. Deadline Hollywood Daily tells us about a new post on Roth's personal MySpace page in response to Entertainment Weekly film critic Lisa Schwartzbaum's take on the 'torture porn' genre. Back in July, she had written a film commentary titled 'What I Hate' and as it turns out, the lady hates 'torture porn' -- which is a term that is still not readily accepted in a lot of horror fan circles. You can read Schwartzbaum's entire editorial here, but here are some of the highlights: "It's quite simple: I hate these movies. I won't see these movies" and as if that wasn't inflammatory enough, she went on to say, "I'm not impressed with the ''quality'' of the gore or the ''wit'' of the film making. I'm not enjoyably scared; I'm horrified, and not in the way horror fans get off on, groaning and screaming with pack-mentality excitement. Instead, my horror is one of disturbance and anger: Who makes this vile crap?"

Well, Roth is someone who makes 'this vile crap', and he wasn't exactly thrilled with Schwartzbaum's take on his work. Some of Roth's response: "There is no such thing as "torture porn." It's a made up term, made up by people who don't understand these movies, who are afraid to even watch them, and who feel some bizarre sense of moral obligation to warn the public about them, despite the fact they don't watch them and never would," Then there are people like myself who grew up watching slasher flicks and just don't get what all the fuss is about. Roth will be keeping it relatively PG when he shoots his episode of Heroes: Origins this year. Of course, if you can't wait for the 'goo', Roth is still wrapping up Cabin Fever 2 (which he's producing), and there's still the possibility his big-screen version of Stephen King's Cell will hit theaters at some point in the next five years. Roth wound up his rant with instructions to Schwartzbaum to find a new line of work if she is willing to dismiss films without actually sitting down and watching them. So, as much as I might not personally be a fan of Roth, the man does have a point; don't you think?

Now that we know what this whole Hollywood strike is about, a new list has been circulating which details all of the films (and their directors) the various studios and production companies have fast-tracked. Not all of these films will wrap production by June 1, 2008, but it does give us a clear indication as to which movies are taking priority. Interestingly enough, the list also confirms some details that (as far I can recall) weren't previously known -- for example, Guy Ritchie is directing a remake of The Dirty Dozen? For real? Another fascinating tidbit is that Fox lists the A-Team as one of their top priorities, however I thought that flick was stationed way toward the bottom of development hell. Also on that list for Fox is Used Guys, directed by Jay Roach -- although we were told production had stopped due to scheduling problems. Is it back on?

Some other stuff worth pointing out: Dimension lists Eli Roth's Cell as a pre-strike priority, even though Roth has said the script still isn't done and that it may be awhile before the film takes shape. They're also fast-tracking a Porky's remake, with no director currently attached. You superhero fans should be happy to know that both Magneto and Wolverine are on the list, as well as Justice League, Thor and Punisher II. Those that love Martin Lawrence in a fat suit, well, they're fast-tracking a Big Momma's House 3, without a director attached. And hey, Fletch Won is on there too -- with Steve Pink at the helm. Random sequel time: The Birdcage 2? Really? There's a bunch of untitled stuff on there (including one from Cameron Crowe and one from Jon Favreau), so who knows how many of these will manage to get things going in time. Regardless, it's a good chance to see what the next year will look like at the movie theater. I've included the full list after the jump (courtesy of FilmJunk); let us know what you think.

Say what you want about Eli Roth and the vicious, stomach-turning films he puts into theaters, but the guy is one of the most passionate filmmakers working today. This weekend he returns with Hostel: Part II; a sequel to the very successful horror film that had a lot of people buzzing when it first came out back in 2005. Quite simply, he's the kind of guy you'd love to have your back in a fight. He's real, he's raw, he's emotional -- and he's very proud of the work he produces. I recently caught up with Eli to talk up everything Hostel, as well as check the status on some of those other buzzed-about films Roth has planned for us down the line. Where is he at with Cell, the Stephen King adaptation? Will he direct a Grindhouse 2 with Edgar Wright? What's up with this Trailer Trash movie? Or how about an animated horror flick? Oh, and how does Roth really feel about the MPAA? Well, read on and you'll find out ...

Cinematical: Here's what I'm hearing about Eli Roth lately: Eli Roth wants to make a Grindhouse 2 with Edgar Wright, and he also wants to make a Trailer Trash movie. Is all of it true?

Eli Roth: Well, one was that if they were going to do a Grindhouse 2, I was joking with Edgar that he should do Don't and I would do Thanksgiving. And we still might do it. But it would have to be something we did between movies; kind of like a fun side project. But then I also want to do a whole movie of fake trailers -- like Kentucky Fried Movie, Borat or Jackass -- called Trailer Trash. Thanksgiving was the most fun I've ever had shooting anything, and the response to it was the best response to anything I've ever done in my career. And so I have so many more ideas like that that are ready to go that I'd love to start shooting it.

Cinematical: So basically you're going to shoot an entire movie full of three-minute trailers?

ER: Picture Thanksgiving, and now picture an entire movie with trailers like that.

Cinematical: And how far along are you on it; who else is involved?

ER: I'm not saying anything else on it except that I'm writing it with my brother. But I have a story, I have a plot, and I want a make a movie like Monty Python and the Holy Grail -- totally silly, totally absurd -- something like Borat; Borat is a good example.

A few days ago, I had a chance to speak with Eli Roth regarding everything Hostel, as well as his future plans for the Stephen King adaptation Cell, a Grindhouse 2 with Edgar Wright and this Trailer Trash movie we keep hearing so much about. I'll be posting the full interview next week, but in the meantime I managed to snag word from Roth that, as of now, he has no intentions of making a Hostel: Part III. When I asked whether he leaves anything open at the end of Hostel: Part II, Roth said: "No, there's part one and part two. There's Kill Bill I and Kill Bill II. There's Hostel: Part I and Hostel: Part II; no part III. I mean, never say never -- but, no. That's the story; there's part one and part two - it's over, I'm done with it."

Interestingly enough, Roth didn't completely rule out someone else taking over the horror franchise. "Maybe someone else will want to continue it, but I really made Hostel: Part II for myself. You know it's very rare for the original writer/director -- for the original people to come back and do the sequel. That doesn't happen a lot. And I really wanted to raise the bar on how people perceive a horror sequel should be. And unless I felt like I can make a part three that re-defines what a third part is, I wouldn't do it. I don't want there to be Beyond Thunderdome; I just wish there was Mad Max and Road Warrior. I want there to be Spider-Man 1 and Spider-Man 2; I didn't need there to be a Spider-Man 3." Should Hostel: Part II make a crapload of money, we'll see if that doesn't change Roth's mind; but based on our conversation, he seemed really adamant about there only being two films. Chances are, if there is a Hostel: Part III, Eli Roth will be nowhere near the sucker. Hostel: Part II arrives in theaters next Friday, June 8.

Wow, this is going to be hard for two reasons. On one hand I'll find it tough to rank my very favorite Stephen King movies because the ones I love ... I really love. On the other hand there's been a whole LOT of rotten King flicks churned out over the years -- and I actually like some of those, too! But as a lifelong King kook I think I'm able to separate the wheat from the chaff -- even if, yes it's true, I actually sort of enjoyed Tobe Hooper's The Mangler. (It's just so enjoyably stupid!) So with that I bring you my own personal picks for the best Stephen King adaptations yet (not counting TV shows, mini-series or short films).

Christine (1983) -- Yes, the book is better and sure, a few important things were monkeyed with on the way from page to screen, but there's so much I do like about John Carpenter's adaptation that it makes the speed bumps a lot easier to handle. From the filmmaker's creepy score to an excellent lead performance by Keith Gordon, the flick's just got an admirably bad-ass attitude. Stripped down to its essence, Christine is not much more than another "geek fights back" revenge-centric horror flick, but Carpenter makes the movie his own with a solid production design, a few excellent set pieces and a pace that moves at an appreciable clip. Plus that car is just so damn cool.

Pet Sematary (1989) -- Just about every hardcore horror geek I know holds Pet Sematary in pretty high regard, and just one visit with this bleak and unflinching piece of pulp horror will explain why. It's a remarkably grim and unapologetic tale of dead cats, cute kids and a patch of land that, well, it resurrects dead tissue is what it does. And if you've read even one "back from the dead" story, then you know they never end well. (Pet Sematary, both the book and the movie, packs one doozy of a dark denouement.) OK, so maybe Dale Midkiff and Denise Crosby aren't exactly the rock-solid thespians you'd want for a screenplay this devilishly mean-spirited, but the pair do what they can, plus they've got good ol' Fred Gwynne supplying background color by the bucketful. (And don't forget about poor sickly Zelda! Yuck.)

Carrie (1976) -- The very first (and arguably one of the very best) of the Stephen King movies, Carrie hit the screens courtesy of a young Brian De Palma, and the director pulled out a big bag of Hitchcockian tricks to bring the story to the silver screen. It's about a socially bankrupt young girl who tries to cobble together a normal social life ... much to the chagrin of some snotty she-bullies and a resoundingly devout lunatic of a mother. Some might say the flick takes a long while to get where it's going, but between the prom night finale and the graveside stinger, Carrie more than delivers its share of grisly goods. Sissy Spacek and Piper Laurie make it watchable all by themselves, but De Palma is the real star here. (OK, De Palma and a young, evil John Travolta.)

Now that he's just finishing up with his gruesomely anticipated Hostel: Part 2, professional horror geek Eli Roth is starting to set his sights on that next project we're all so curious about: His adaptation of Stephen King's Cell, which is expected to begin production later this year. He's presently refining the screenplay with the writing team of Scott Alexander and Larry Karaszewski -- plus he just got the blessing from King himself to deviate from the source material if he really wants to.

Sci Fi Wire shares the words from Mr. Roth: "My first question when I adapted it was, 'Can I deviate from the book?'" ... It's Stephen King. Am I going to piss off Stephen King? He was mad at Stanley Kubrick [who adapted King's The Shining], I don't want him mad at me. And, finally, Stephen King was like, 'Do whatever you want.'" (Personal interjection: I think this is pretty great news, because, as much as I enjoyed Cell, I definitely think it runs out of steam and gets a little scattershot during Act III.) Eli seems to agree with me a little bit: "I love the opening [scene] ... But I also want to keep, ... not necessarily that same chaotic tone, but I want to keep the tension of the opening 40 pages of the book going throughout the whole film and introduce other elements." So wait. He's going to take an established story and actually add his own ideas into the mix? It won't be a slavish and paint-by-numbers adaptation like that Da Vinci flick? Well, cool!

On top of all that, the director also wants to shoot the film in Boston and get Mr. King to pop in for a cameo appearance, and we know how much fun those occasions can be. (And for a whole lot more of the Eli guy and H2, Cell and his outrageous Thanksgiving trailer, stop by FirstShowing.net, because they have a 20-minute audio interview with the guy!)

Within less than five minutes of The Signal, you already care about the main characters. They're adulterers, but they're obviously in love, which makes everything that follows a lot more engaging. It's a character-based (and very well-acted) science fiction horror flick that's got a solid sense of humor, an admirable air of dread and a 50-ton vat of ultra-gooey gore: Cool. Admirable enough for simply being a true treat of a genre flick, The Signal is also noteworthy for how it was made. Although it's not an anthology film, The Signal is the work of three different directors: David Bruckner for Act (or "Transmission") One, Jacob Gentry for part two and Dan Bush for the final third. Whether or not this unique approach is actually a good (or necessary) thing is up to you, but I can tell you this: The Signal is one viciously fun little genre flick.