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?

Ooo-wee, that Uwe makes good copy. Happily, those who have responded to the petition to get Uwe Boll to step away from the camera now have more than one force of opposition: a second petition to keep Dr. Uwe in his current line of work. Cinematical's Erik Davis caught the beleaguered Boll's plea for support on April 9, and yet another fan has responded: Lauren Brenner of Greyface Media is the sponsor behind this noble petition: "after all, he's better than that hack Scorsese." Boll couldn't have said it better. (In case you were wondering, the first pro-Boll petition is here, and so far there are almost 4,000 signatures.)

Oh wait, he did: he's not a bleeping retard like Michael Bay, and he isn't making the same bleeping movie again and again like Eli Roth, as the good doctor was saying ... So far, four cineastes have signed this (hopefully 100% on-the-level) petition. Now, are these four names going to count against the 194,000 so far who who have signed the Stop Dr. Uwe Boll Petition? I know those looking for a 2009 release of In the King's Name Again, Already will want to add their email addresses in hopes of being solicited by hapless Nigerian ex-ministers of finance and providers of natural sex herbs. Thanks to Glenn Creamer for this tip.

Which side are you on: Pro Boll or anti Boll?

I can just see Eli Roth grinning ear to ear about this news (you can too, look at the photo). I've never agreed with claims that violent movies influence violent behavior, but I also don't imagine violent movies are necessarily good for people who already have violent tendencies. Yet a new study argues that violent movies do in fact help to lower crime rates. According to the New York Times, a research paper was just presented to the American Economic Association concluding that "would-be assailants" choose to go see violent movies instead of performing violent acts themselves. That's right, murderers, rapists, muggers and the like apparently get their rocks off by watching actors perform their favorite bad deeds. Then, not only have they been kept out of trouble for two hours; they are also satisfied for days afterward. The reasoning behind this conclusion is based on data that shows crime rates are way down on weekends when a new violent movie is in theaters, and they stay down for a good period of time beyond that opening weekend.

That could be a neat coincidence. But how does the study indicate that the "would-be assailants" are actually part of that movie's audience? It seems a little too easy to think that violent people are pacified by violent movies. Attracted to them? Sure. Influenced by them? It can be argued. Subdued by them? I doubt it. At least not most of them, anyway. One of the economists who wrote the paper, Professor Gordon Dahl, pointed out that young men attending a movie have chosen that activity over drinking alcohol and/or taking drugs, either of which might have led to violent acts. He went on, however, to argue that Hollywood should actually be making less violent movies that still have the same appeal ... such as Adam Sandler movies over gory horror movies. The New York Times makes sure to let us know that Dahl is in fact a Mormon who doesn't allow his kids to watch violent movies; he even just bought one of those DVD players that cuts out offensive content. I have to agree with Melissa Henson of the Parents Television Council and say that this is one of the goofiest studies I've read about in a long time.

[via Fark.com]

Rogue

I don't care how many times they push it back, or how much potential for hackneyed disaster there is in a film about a killer crocodile -- I'm looking forward to Rogue, mostly because there was a lot that impressed me about Greg Mclean's debut film, 2005's Wolf Creek. For one thing, it was bold enough to defy several horror cliches, such as foreshadowing dread in the early scenes -- the first thirty minutes of Wolf Creek could be part of an Aussie road drip dramedy, with three aimless kids taking their rickety car way too far into unsafe areas of the Outback. It's also a film that's completely unrelenting in the psychic trauma it wants to inflict on the audience. By the time the slaughtering starts, we know these characters -- we care about them. Frankly, Mclean seems like he'd be completely bored with making a standard slasher/monster film with paper-thin characters. Therefore, I'm going to be first in line for his killer croc movie, and wait for my enthusiasm to blow up in my face.

Friday the 13th

I have no idea if this will get to theaters by late 2008, but I know that Platinum Dunes does have the gears grinding, so it's a possibility. In fact, a little birdie recently told me something hilarious -- Corey Feldman went in and pitched himself as the star of this thing. For those who don't remember, Feldman played Vorhees foe Tommy Jarvis in two installments of the original series, and he apparently had designs on making the Friday remake his newest comeback vehicle. There's really nothing you can do with Jason at this point other than remake him, but how? Word is that PD wants the remake to feature both Jason and his trademark mask -- two elements that didn't congeal until Part III of the original series, so I'm imagining a smelting together of the first three films, set in modern day and with a lot of in-jokes. I guess it will be a film about a little boy who drowns in a lake and immediately morphs into an overgrown, lumbering killer with a machete. Sounds intriguing.

If you hear the name Eli Roth and you immediately think of "horror," well, that only makes sense. The guy's only made three movies, and they're all of the icky variety. His next project, however, will be a comedy ... but there'll probably be a good deal of graphic violence, anyway. According to Bloody-Disgusting.com, August 28 is when MGM will be releasing Mr. Roth's Trailer Trash. Yep, that "collection of fake trailers" project that Eli mentioned a while back. Looks like that will be the filmmaker's next (and immediate) gig.

Says Roth: " I want to make a film like Monty Python and the Holy Grail, which I consider to be the greatest achievement in the history of cinema." Way to aim high, Eli! And before all you anonymous bashers start trashing this concept, keep in mind that there are quite a few laughs to be found in flicks like Kentucky Fried Movie and Amazon Women on the Moon -- and Trailer Trash seems to fall right inside that "sketch-comedy" sub-genre -- only for movie nerds. All I know is that if Trailer Trash is as amusing for 80-some minutes as Roth's Thanksgiving trailer was for three minutes, then that will make for one funny film.

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?

While you might expect to see Heroes coverage over at our sister site TV Squad, this falls into Cinematical's zone of influence because Eli Roth -- director of Cabin Fever, both of the Hostel movies and the fake trailer for Thanksgiving from Grindhouse -- is making a presumably temporary jump to the small screen. Heroes, of course, is the hit NBC series set in a world in which a handful of people suddenly find themselves gifted (or cursed) with super human abilities like flight, telepathy, mind control, etc. The spin-off series Heroes: Origins is a vehicle for introducing new characters as they discover their powers.

Roth will both write and direct an episode of Origins. The more I think about this, the more I think that if Roth had been brought on board for Heroes the first season, he would have been a natural for the episode in which Claire Bennett, the cheerleader with healing powers played by Hayden Panetierre, wakes up in the middle of her own autopsy and has to manually close the incision in her chest. Sounds like a classic Roth moment to me.

The show seems to be on a quest to put some big names behind the camera. Quentin Tarantino stated recently that he wasn't interested in directing an episode of the regular series, but Kevin Smith is on board to direct and Michael Dougherty, screenwriter for X2: X-Men United and Superman Returns will be penning an episode of Origins as well. I got hooked on Heroes right at the beginning and I'm curious to see what Roth and these others bring to the show. What about you?

I'm starting to feel a bit bad for Eli Roth, because I don't think he deserves all the negative vibes being thrown his way. Granted, I haven't seen any of his films, but I respect the fact that he's clawed his way to the top and, at the same time, managed to make films his way. He understands the business better than anyone (having worked practically every Hollywood job there is), knows which battles to fight ... and almost always wins. Unfortunately for him, Hostel: Part II arrived at a time when R-rated horror films (specifically those in the "torture porn" genre) were beginning to cool off. Add to that the fact that they took a huge chance releasing it right smack in the thick of summer blockbuster season -- coupled with a ton of illegal downloads -- and it was simply destined to fail. But taking a hit and moving on to bigger and better things was not in the cards for Roth, as a number of film personalities have taken cheap shots at the guy for no apparent reason.

The latest in a long line of folks eager to say something bad about Roth is 28 Days Later director Danny Boyle. Out promoting his latest flick Sunshine, Boyle told The NY Daily News that he isn't too fond of Roth's films. "His movies aren't even particularly well done," he says. "They're not even scary. They're horrible, but that's not scary. It's not suspense. And if you watch my films in detail, there's actually not a lot of violence in them. You get numb with violence very quickly." Of course, The Daily News does not provide the question which led to this answer -- I can't imagine the guy just began ripping Roth a new one out of the blue. But I am surprised to hear Boyle (a director I admire, and one who also happens to be a very nice guy) blatantly knock a fellow director. It makes me wonder whether there was ever any bad blood between the two.

Following the Hostel: Part II box office meltdown, Roth has decided to take a breather, recently saying that he won't be directing Cell (the Steven King adaptation reportedly scheduled to begin shooting later this summer) anytime soon. He added: "... I most likely will take the rest of the year to write my other projects. Which means I wouldn't shoot until the spring and you wouldn't see a film directed by me in the cinemas until at least next fall." What say you -- does Boyle have a point? Or is it unfair for all these people to knock a guy who's just trying to give fans what they want?

It's coming a little late today, but on the west coast it's technically still morning. Over the past week, I've been reading tons of articles on movie piracy -- but more specifically, how copies of both Hostel: Part II and Sicko have already leaked online. With regards to the Hostel sequel, director Eli Roth has already gone on record saying that those early leaks greatly contributed to his film failing at the box office. Since it's a smaller film, a few thousand downloads could very well hurt the pic's overall gross ... or so he says. We'll have to wait a couple weeks to see if Michael Moore's latest documentary suffers the same fate; Sicko isn't scheduled to hit theaters until June 29. But if both films wind up doing poorly when it's all said and done, is piracy really to blame?

For example, take a film like Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer. Here's a movie that's primarily geared toward a generation that's very knowledgeable when it comes to finding movies online for free. A very quick search lead me to a crystal clear version of the film online (and, trust me, I'm an idiot when it comes to this kind of stuff), yet it still opened this week at number one with roughly $57 million. Is it just a question of certain films being piracy proof? Or did Hostel: Part II fail for different reasons? And what if Sicko opens to great numbers -- will that mean Hostel II failed because of piracy and because it didn't feature a big fat guy talking about health care? Is it just me, or is movie piracy now becoming the go-to reason for a film's failure? If that were the case, then wouldn't more films this summer be suffering from piracy? Although I haven't downloaded any (because I absolutely refuse to do so), I've noticed almost all of the big films available for free online. And yet none of them seem to be playing the piracy card as much as Eli Roth has. Why? Because they're all making lots of money.

So, I ask you: Is piracy really to blame for the failure of a film like Hostel: Part II? And, in your opinion, is it really having that much of an impact to warrant us constantly talking about it?

Director Eli Roth is speaking out about the lackluster box-office for his latest film, Hostel: Part II, and he's blaming everyone but himself. Roth puts piracy front and center as the reason for the film's performance. "Piracy has become worse than ever now, and a stolen workprint (with unfinished music, no sound effects, and no VFX) leaked out on online before the release, and is really hurting us, especially internationally," he says, before going on to specifically tear into critics who reviewed a leaked copy of the film. "Critics have actually been reviewing the film based off the pirated copy, which is inexcusable," he says. "Some of these critics I have actually known for a few years, and while I wouldn't dignify them by mentioning them by name, I know who they are, as do the studios, and other filmmakers, and they will no longer have any access to any of my films." Roth also advises fans of his that haven't seen Hostel: Part II to "go now, because after next weekend the film will be gone from theaters."

As for the future, Roth says "I am not directing Cell any time soon, and I most likely will take the rest of the year to write my other projects. Which means I wouldn't shoot until the spring and you wouldn't see a film directed by me in the cinemas until at least next fall." He goes on to say that in Hollywood, "the R-rated horror film is in serious jeopardy. Studios feel the public doesn't want them anymore, and so they are only putting PG-13 films into production. The only way to counter this perception is to get out there and support R-rated horror."

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.

I like Eli Roth. He's very entertaining in interviews, and his movies are a lot of fun -- although I didn't think Hostel: Part 2 was half the wonderfully disgusting blast that the original was. I also like Richard Roeper. I don't find him to be a particularly insightful or mind-blowing film critic, but he's a likable and funny man, and he's held up Not Siskel and Not Ebert a lot better than I expected him to in Ebert's unfortunate absence. My appreciation of both men makes it difficult for me to choose sides in today's "Minor Celebrity Feud of the Day." In a recent interview, Eli Roth expressed annoyance that critics won't admit to liking his movies. Sayeth Roth: "Someone told me in Chicago last night that they sat next to Richard Roeper during the screening of Cabin Fever, and he was jumping, screaming, squealing, and going crazy during the whole movie. He then trashed it in his review. I think that's just how it is with a lot of these critics. They almost feel guilty giving it a positive review."

Not so, sayeth Roeper, who was appalled at the suggestion, writing: "Dear Mr. Roth: Someone is lying to you. The only time I have ever jumped, screamed and squealed at a screening was when Dann Gire came in late and accidentally sat on my lap. But that's another story. Honestly, though, if Cabin Fever had me going crazy, I would have given it a thumbs up, or even the "severed thumbs up" I once gave to The Devil's Rejects. I would never finesse my reaction to a film out of some bull&!#@ concern that it wouldn't mirror the conventional critical wisdom or be politically correct." We're taking both men at their word here, but I've seen Roeper give positive reviews to some widely hated movies in the past. Like Ebert, he's not an elitist critic, so I'm tempted to give him the benefit of the doubt here. However, I do wonder how many (obviously weak) critics gush praise all over highly regarded films just because they don't want to seem out of touch. Or how many critics laugh their heads off at dumb comedies only to trash them in their reviews. I sat next to a pretty reputable critic at a screening for Memoirs of a Geisha, and he fell asleep at several points in the film, snoring loudly each time. His review of the film? Positive.

Although it opened pretty wide, on over 2,300 screens, Hostel: Part II failed to connect with audiences on its opening weekend, pulling in only $8.7 million for a sixth place finish, behind the box-office leader Ocean's 13, the second place finisher, Knocked Up, and three other films. There's no danger of the film not making its budget back, which was pretty small, but it seems that unless the film has some serious legs, it won't be considered a worthy follow-up to its predecessor when the final numbers are tallied. (The first Hostel raked in $47 million at the domestic box office, despite a budget of only $5 million.) If that proves to be the case, this will be the second film in two months -- the first being Grindhouse -- to be smacked down by a national audience in spite of seeming like a home run.

Whether or not Hostel: Part II underperforms, it probably won't affect Eli Roth's immediate plans -- he apparently has no interest in returning to the well for a third Hostel. Instead, he's going to be mounting an adaptation of Stephen King's Cell and putting out a movie made up entirely of trailers, called Trailer Trash. At a Q&A last week, he told the crowd he was even including Howard Stern in the trailer movie -- they're going to make a trailer for his never-made project, Fartman. Roth also said he didn't yet know which project he'd shoot first -- Trailer Trash or Cell. We'll be posting a full report on the talk soon.

The premise of Hostel: Part II is that life isn't cheap -- it's worth at least as much as a luxury vacation or a new sailboat. Early on, the film introduces us to two American men, both late 30s to early 40s with the look of wealthy dot.com entrepreneurs, and reveals that they are both clients of the sinister network we learned about in the first Hostel. That is to say, along with other successful sociopaths, they take part in secret online auctions where the prize is a captured holidaymaker that they can torture to death at a private facility in Slovakia. Once the credit card clears -- I wonder what it says on the billing statement? -- the client is invited to come to the facility and experience the thrill of unleashing their inner sadist on an innocent. Much like a brothel might try to sell you sex toys while you're there, the Hostel facility is fully stocked with a large array of torture instruments to choose from. You can imagine Aaron Eckhart's character from In the Company of Men loving this place.

The victims this time around are Beth (Lauren German), Whitney (Bijou Phillips) and Lorna (harlequin-faced actress Heather Matarazzo) all of them riding around on a Eurail pass for one reason or another. Although director Eli Roth is mature enough not to clog up the early portions of the film with pointless 'boo' moments, he does give us enough reaction shots from creepy-looking Europeans on the train and around the town square to make it seem like all of Slovakia is in on the scheme to capture these American babes and pack them off to the slaughterhouse. By the time they are finally betrayed by the one person who was nice to them -- a Slovak beauty played by Vera Jordanova -- it's hardly a surprise. Still, the early scenes of Hostel: Part II are sufficiently atmospheric and tense, and there's never a question that you're in the hands of a capable director. Even the slobbering gore-hounds in the first row should be entertained enough during the lengthy set-up to not be checking their watches.

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.