[Rec] 2: A Better Film, But Also a Less Scary One

In the early days of The Vault of Horror, Jaume Balaguero and Paco Plaza's [Rec] was the one of the very first new horror films I passionately championed. I wanted to get the word out about this fantastic Spanish zombie film that, unfortunately, was not known to many American fans. It turned out I wasn't the only one, as lots of other writers in the horror blogosphere with which I was just becoming acquainted were also raving about it.

In my opinion, the original [Rec] was the most downright terrifying horror film of the previous decade. It was the kind of a movie that grabs the neckhairs of even a hardened fright film watcher like myself and says: "Be afraid." So it was with great relish that I latched on to the opportunity to experience [Rec] 2, Balaguero and Plaza's continuation of their tale of undead outbreak. And I'm excited to say that it was an intense flick that's almost as much fun as the original, and in some ways, even more interesting.

[Rec] 2 picks up the action right where we left off at the end of the first one--kind of like a Rocky movie, except with dead people instead of boxers. We're right back on the scene of the quarantined apartment building, as a SWAT team and a special government agent infiltrate the structure to figure out just what the hell is going on inside. Matters are further complicated by a group of overly curious teens who sneak into the building as well.

The story is told, once again, in cinema verite style, with all the action depicted via "real life" video recordings. It's the same "found footage" approach taken by cinematographer Pablo Rosso in the original, except this time the film makers kind of riff on that style, giving us several different points of view from a few different camera sources, such as the cams carried by the SWAT members, the camera inevitably carried by one of the teens, etc. It's all edited together to create a real feeling of development from the original; Balaguero and Plaza are consciously exploring and expanding the visual "gimmick" they introduced the first time out.

This time, however--and this felt like an intentional decision--the action is less chaotic, and more coherent. One of the criticisms of the original (thought not by me) was that it was almost too realistic, with a constant stream of panicked yelling and screaming, and stretches of action so muddled by movement and noise as to be overly disorienting. This time, the whole thing feels a bit more dramatized, more traditional in presentation, and I don't mean that necessarily as a negative. Rather, I found it to be a change of pace and just one of the things that make this movie anything but the tired aping of the original that it easily could've been.

Another area in which there is bold and fascinating development going on is the direction taken by Balaguero, Plaza and their scripting collaborator Manu Diex in the actual narrative. Whereas the first time out, we got a straightforward modern, infection-style zombie film, with only some hints at the end of the supernatural, this time things go full-tilt into the realm of the occult. This might put off some who appreciated the more "grounded in reality" approach of the original (whatever that may mean in a movie about the living dead), but I found this to be the most rewarding development of all.

[Spoilerish stuff ahead] What we wind up with is sort of a cross between 28 Days Later and The Exorcist, with our undead turning out to be not quite zombies after all, but closer in species to Sam Raimi's Deadites, or perhaps a whole bunch of very angry Regan MacNeils, if you prefer. It's demonic possession that spreads organically, like a contagion. I was totally enthralled by this concept, and pleasantly surprised that the story went in this direction. Science and religion are blended into the kind of hybrid that takes a little getting used to, but is nevertheless original, engaging stuff.

My biggest gripe would be the one aspect in which this sequel does slavishly attempt to follow its predecessor, which is in the presentation of the monstrous Madeiros girl who is the source of the infection. You can feel the movie building up once again to the big reveal, just as it did the first time, and you get the sense that they were shamelessly trying to reproduce the sheer terror and adrenaline rush of that infamous climactic scene in the original in which main character Angela Vidal first encounters the possessed girl.

Here, the scene feels forced, tacked on, and worst of all, is built on some heavy-handed pseudo-religious/scientific nonsense I just didn't buy, which insisted that the girl could not be seen in the light, since she was shunned by God or something like that. As a result, the only way to see her, conveniently enough, is via the night-vision camera used to see her in the original. Furthermore, this doesn't explain why the creature was unable to interact with them earlier in the film (just because they couldn't see her?) Anyway, not to belabor the point, this is a relatively small problem in an otherwise very enjoyable horror film.

[Rec] 2 also ends with a little twist and some flashback footage that both lets us in on what exactly happened to Angela when she got pulled down that air duct, and also sets us up for a [Rec] 3 which looks like it will go in a far more large-scale, ambitious direction than the previous two. All in all, it's a more traditional horror film than its predecessor, with some intriguing thematic and narrative developments, even if the re-treading of somewhat familiar territory unavoidably ensures that it's not quite the white-knuckle roller coaster of pulse-pounding terror that the original was.

21st Century Terrors, Part 5: 2004

By the middle of the first decade of the century, the horror genre renaissance was in full effect. And perhaps no other single year was more indicative of this than 2004. A few specific movies were at the heart of it, and for various different reasons they all made a major impact on fans and critics alike. To a certain extent, we're still talking about them today as if they just came out, which is more indicative of their influence than anything.

Perhaps most ironically of all, the most beloved of these--and perhaps the most beloved horror film of the entire decade--was actually a horror comedy. Birthed from the minds of Edgar Wright and Simon Pegg via their obsessive love of all things Romero, Shaun of the Dead was more than a movie--it was a movement. The zombie fad had been cooking for a couple of years already, but SOTD distilled it into a single, transcendent experience--a film that celebrated not only the zombie genre, but zombie fandom as well.

The misadventures of Shaun and Ed have since become iconic in a relatively short period of time. They were perhaps horror's finest comedy duo since Abbott & Costello tangled with the Frankenstein Monster. And the brilliance of the film was that it managed to be so genuinely funny while still being true to the genre it so blatantly worshiped. The movie works equally well as a zombie picture and as a romantic comedy, hence the now famous subgenre title, "rom-zom-com".

Shaun of the Dead was the kind of film that defines a generation of fandom, and without question represents horror in the 2000s for many people. Yet there is also another film which does that for others, and that's James Wan's Saw, the film that, for all intents and purposes, thrust the "torture porn" subgenre into the limelight (along with Hostel a bit later).

Yet ironically, the film itself doesn't quite conform to the stereotype of that subgenre, not having the trademark explicit depictions of graphic violence and sadism for the ostensible purpose of audience titillation. The original Saw, taken apart from its never-ending stream of sequels, is actually an imaginative, psychologically based thriller, which manages to put a unique spin on the slasher motif and packs one hell of a punch with its rollercoaster of a storyline.

Jigsaw is a character very much of his time, just as Dracula, Norman Bates and Freddy Krueger were of theirs. And his sinister m.o. of byzantine traps and warped morality--inspired strongly by the previous decade's Seven--definitely touched a nerve with audiences. Saw would go on to become one of the most successful franchises of the decade, becoming almost what Friday the 13th was for the 1980s--for better or worse.

The two giants of Shaun of the Dead and Saw gave horror a relatively high profile in 2004, but there was even more going on. For one thing, in addition to the Romero zombie parody, there was also a Romero zombie remake, in Zak Snyder's Dawn of the Dead. For a film that had a lot of ill will pointed toward it, Snyder's film made the most of it, and shut a lot of people's mouths in the process.

James Gunn's script upset many purists with its fast-moving zombies and the ejecting of most of Romero's social commentary, but the finished product can nevertheless stand on its own merits. It's an effective, energetic horror film with characters we can get behind, and quite possibly one of the most impressive opening sequences of all time. For a movie that seemed doomed to fail, Dawn of the Dead stands as one of the decade's triumphs.

Beyond the big triumphs, zombie cinema continued full speed ahead with no end in sight. We got the first sequel to the movie that arguably kicked off the whole craze, with Resident Evil: Apocalypse. And in addition to SOTD, there was another foreign zombie comedy, Night of the Living Dorks, which although far less inspired and extremely overrated, was another testament to the subgenre's worldwide staying power.

Sequels were also in full effect, as they always seem to be in our beloved genre. Yet just as with everything else in 2004, even the sequels seemed to stand out--although not always for the best reasons. Case in point: Aliens vs. Predator, a clunker of a film that managed to murder two adored franchises in one fell swoop. Although long followed enthusiastically by comic book fans, the battle of everyone's two favorite space monsters just didn't add up to cinematic magic.

It seemed like studios were anxious to bring back successful series and characters amidst the burgeoning interest in horror that was going on at the box office. The Child's Play franchise puttered on with Seed of Chucky, a subversive little flick that admittedly went in a completely bizarre and unique direction, delivering laughs as well as scares. Blade hit the wall with Blade: Trinity, a movie that proved that even horror comics aren't immune to the "third movie curse" of comic book franchises. Even the classic Universal monsters got back into the mix with Van Helsing, a poorly received action vehicle from Stephen Sommers, the same guy who resurrected the Mummy in similar fashion the 1990s.

And then there was the infamous Exorcist: The Beginning, the granddaddy of all troubled horror sequel/prequels. Looking to reap more financial rewards from the most successful horror film of all time, Warner Bros. commissioned a new film that would explore the origins of Father Merrin's relationship with the demon. Unfortunately, when Paul Schrader's version was a little too artsy for them, they brought in Hollywood mercenary Renny Harlin and created a whole different picture, which was a notorious disaster. In an unprecedented maneuver, Schrader's version would see the light of day the following year.

Leading the pack of foreign remakes was The Grudge, an American version of the acclaimed J-horror thriller of two years earlier. It seemed like a logical follow-up to the highly successful The Ring, yet failed to similarly capture the power of the original.

Yet don't let that mediocre final note fool you. The year 2004 was a banner one for horror films, and in some ways, it can be argued that it was highpoint of the decade.

Also from 2004:

• Dead and Breakfast
• Ginger Snaps Back
• Ginger Snaps Unleashed
• Satan's Little Helper
• The Village

Part 1: 2000
Part 2: 2001
Part 3: 2002
Part 4: 2003

Hump-Day Harangue: Harold Ramis, I'm Ready to Believe You

The confirmation seems to have finally solidified. Writer/producer/actor Harold Ramis, also known to fans as Dr. Egon Spengler, collector of spores, molds and fungus, has officially declared in an interview this month with Heeb magazine that the third film in the Ghostbusters franchise will lense next summer, with a 2011 release date planned. And I couldn't be happier.

Here's part of what he had to say:

Something's going to happen. Dan [Aykroyd] did write a spec GB3 screenplay a few years ago, but no one was motivated to pursue it. Now, 25 years after the original, there seems to be some willingness to proceed and apparently a substantial public appetite for a sequel. We'll introduce some new young Ghostbusters, and all the old guys will be in it, too. Think Christopher Lloyd in Back to the Future. [not sure what the heck that means]

Granted, I think I have a bit of a sunnier outlook on all these latter-day continuations of '70s/'80s franchises than some. While we can all agree that--with the exception of the second half of Revenge of the Sith--the Star Wars prequels were utter abortions, I wouldn't say the same, for example, about Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crysytal Skull, which, although it was no Raiders by any means, I got a kick out of. I also geeked out hardcore to Bryan Singer's Donner-faithful Superman Returns, and was utterly blown away by Stallone's return in Rocky Balboa.

So, why not the Ghostbusters? As a kid, it was my favorite movie, hands-down. And while the sequel was one of the major letdowns of my young moviegoing years, I've still always held out hope that a superior third installment would happen. I even remember getting excited some years back thanks to rumors of a new GB flick that would include Chris Farley and Chris Rock amongst the new generation. Sadly, that never came to pass.

But now, this. Ghostbusters fever has been growing lately, as the '80s generation is now at the height of its decision-making power in Hollywood (see Transformers and G.I. Joe. Well, on second thought, don't.) We've seen major excitement this year surrounding just a new video game using the original cast members, so it was a no-brainer that interest would resurface in a Ghostbusters 3.

The optimistic part of me believes that with this many people involved--quality individuals mind you, the Murrays, Weavers and Reitmans of the world--it would have to be an impressive project to get them all on board at all (although I can hear the Crystal Skull haters chiming in on that one). Still, I particularly feel this way about Bill Murray. The guy has gone on to be such a bigger deal than he was even then, and has a rep for choosing solid roles. He has nothing to gain by being part of a lackluster sequel, and I'd bet he was the toughest one to convince to take part at all. So it gives me hope that he'd consent to be involved.

What also gives me hope is a very interesting tidbit of information leaked earlier this month. It's divided the fan community, but you can count me among the intrigued. Apparently, while promoting Avatar to the press, Sigourney Weaver let slip that in the new movie, Dr. Peter Venkman will be... a ghost.

If you've been monitoring the news, then that's no news to you, but I have to say that it has me more jazzed than ever. Talk about throwing the status quo out the window and going all-out! With Venkman as a spook, this will definitely be no by-the-numbers nostalgia-driven reunion movie. This is something different, unique, and interesting. This shakes things up.

What will be the dynamic? Will he be at odds with his fellow Busters since crossing over to the other team? Will he still be a part of the team, even in phantasm form? What, if anything, will be his relationship with Dana, and their son Oscar--who, at this point, is rumored to have grown up to be one of the famous paranormal investigators and eliminators?

Add to this the fact that the guys behind the American version of The Office are penning the script (possibly based on Dan Akroyd's older treatment?) and this is shaping up to be something of a potentially highly entertaining nature. It's been two decades since the boys in gray donned their proton packs (unless you count Ray Stantz' 1995 cameo in the Casper movie, which I sure as hell don't), and I'm more than ready to welcome them with open arms.

Back off man, their scientists.

From the Vault archive: My picks for the young Ghostbusters...

The First TV Spot for SAW VI Hits...

Amazing. After dying at the end of the third damn movie, that pesky Jigsaw is still at it. Saw VI is inevitably plodding our way this Halloween, and now, the very first TV commercial for the film has hit the web. I don't know. I really loved the first one. Then it immediately lost me with the very first sequel. Now it's just ridiculous--can anyone tell the difference between the last two movies? They're all starting to blend together for me. I always make a point to see them in the movies out of sheer habit, but I think I'll finally be waiting for DVD on this one.

Anyway, check out the spot below, courtesy of Bloody-Disgusting:

The Tuesday Top 10: Worst Things About Halloween II

I'm an angry blogger tonight, folks. Yes, I'm that guy. I just can't help it. Why? Because I saw Halloween II, that's why. Ever see a movie you hated so much it actually made you angry? Well that would be this disaster for me. I wanted to hold off till tomorrow and make it my Hump-Day Harangue, but I can't wait. I need to get at it tonight. And so, I'm making it the theme of my Tuesday Top 10. So here goes, let's dissect the ten major reasons why a colon irrigation would be preferable to seeing this film again...

10. Homeless-Looking Heroines
Rob, why must you make every character in your movies look like they've spent the past week hanging out at the Port Authority--especially the girls? The female leads may be OK on the eyes, but it seemed like Zombie did all he could to make them look as skeevy as possible.

9. The Best Part Never Even Happened
Hands down, the movie's best sequence was the opening in the hospital--but guess what? It was just a dream! That's right, the only part of the flick that felt like an actual Halloween movie, wasn't even real. Cause you know, Rob Zombie had to put his "stamp" on things and give us his version of the franchise. Thanks a lot, buddy.

8. That's So Jason
Characters you hate so much you can't wait to see them killed? Isn't that the domain of Friday the 13th? Don't get me wrong, Halloween dabbled in that to a degree as well, but not to the cartoonish level of the Voorhees series. Until now. I don't want to root for Michael Myers. I didn't in the original, and I shouldn't be now.

7. Logic? We Don't Need No Stinking Logic!
Why would Laurie be sharing the same hallucinations as Michael? And don't tell me because they're siblings, that crap might hold water if this was some lame-ass Halloween 6: The Curse of Michael Myers-type supernatural nonsense, but I thought we ejected all that garbage in favor of realism.

6. Not Enough Danielle Harris!
What was the point of letting her character survive the first movie (unlike in the original) only to be rendered pointless in this one? Her presence is a major selling point of the film as far as I'm concerned, yet she was completely wasted.

5. Paging Dr. Frank N. Furter...
What was up with referencing the characters from The Rocky Horror Picture Show, yet vehemently refusing to mention them by name? Even going so far as to repeatedly refer to the good doctor merely as "a dude pretending to be a chick". Mr. Zombie, do you really think we're that dumb? Well, you got my ten bucks, so maybe you're right...

4. You Ma'am, Are No Laurie Strode
The completely annoying and unsympathetic Scout Taylor-Compton is such a far cry from Jamie Lee Curtis' iconic final girl that it's not even funny. Lacking all of the poise, style and acting chops of her predecessor, she turns Laurie into just another run-of-the-mill whining slasher flick chick. If this is the "good girl ideal", then our culture is doomed.

3. Angry Michael Myers
The Shape has no emotions. The Shape feels no pain. The Shape is an automaton. Or at least, he's supposed to be. Every time I heard Michael utter those seething grunts and groans as he murdered his victims, it felt like he was plunging the knife into my own heart. As if the humanization of the character in the first one wasn't bad enough...

2. Sheri Moon Zombie, Will You Please Go Now?
I know she's your wife, Rob, but why oh why did she have to be shoe-horned into this one, too? And as a completely out-of-place supernatural entity on top of it... It's been said before, but Michael isn't supposed to be the movie slasher who hallucinates his dead mommy, remember? Ms. Zombie and her stupid white horse nearly ruined the movie for me single-handedly.

1. The Dr. Loomis Character Assassination
I say nearly, because what really did it for me, what drove me into paroxysms of geek rage, was the cynical, stupid way in which Zombie ham-fistedly raped the character Donald Pleasance made so famous. The doctor is supposed to be a heroic figure--the voice of reason crying out against the madness, the yin to Michael's yang. Instead, Zombie thought it would be cute to make him a sleazy media-whore. So very sad. Not to mention the fact that his character serves absolutely no purpose in the picture whatsoever. Not since Jack Black's Carl Denham has a classic character been so thoroughly FUBARed.

And just so you don't consider me your typical bitter genre blogger... Here are the handful of little things I actually liked about the movie: Some very cool imagery, the nods to Frankenstein, Michael-as-transient, Brad Dourif, the Psycho homage at the end. There, happy?

Two More Reasons to Feel Like a Loser for Not Being at Comic Con...

When it comes to the Saw franchise, it's been a love/hate relationship with me for some time now. Loved the first one to death, but each sequel has been a disappointment to me, with varying degrees of suckitude. However, that said, none of them have been so bad as to completely put me off the series, and so I keep coming back, plunking down my hard-earned cash, like a sad, middle-aged bachelor at a strip club, who knows he's never going to get his money's worth, but keeps finding himself drawn back for more...

And so, today's news that the San Diego Comic Con will be chock-full of Saw-ness has given me just a couple more reasons to be depressed for not being there. Here it is, the center of the geek universe, the nerd equivalent of that Central Park street gang confab at the beginning of The Warriors, and I'm stuck on the other side of the country yet again. Oh well, there's always the New York Comic Con, which I have on good authority is poised to become a bigger deal than the SD one in the next couple years...

Anyway, the news I have to bring to you today is two-fold. Firstly, Horror-Movies.ca is reporting that the much-anticipated Saw video game, which seems to have been in development since forever, will finally be unveiled by Lionsgate this week at Comic Con. You can check it out at the Lionsgate booth (#3729). The game gets its official release on October 6 from Lionsgate and Konami. X Box and PlayStation 3 versions will be available (how did I guess that there's be no Wii version??).

Also, and even more importantly, the very first teaser trailer for Saw 857, er, I mean, Saw VI, will be introduced by none other than Jigsaw himself, Mr. Tobin Bell. Shock Till You Drop reported yesterday that the world's creepiest actor will be premiering the trailer to fans on Thursday as part of an autograph signing. Talk about sweet deals--that guy somehow continues to be involved in this franchise, despite the fact that his character has been dead for, what, the last two installments in the series??

The Saw series may not be my favorite, but it always manages to somehow keep me mildly interested. I don't know, maybe it's Mrs. B-Sol's continued, inexplicable enthusiasm for it. Anyway, I hope all you lucky bastids enjoy your Comic Con weekend! Anyone itching to do an official Vault of Horror Comic Con report, feel free to hit me up!

* * * * * * * * * *

For those of you wondering what's been going on over at Day of the Woman, rest assured that BJ-C is alive and well. The online Mistress of the Macabre, as most of you know, is a champion baton twirler, and it just so happens that at the moment, her team is competing at Notre Dame University for the National Championship once again. It's a week-long event, hence the relative quiet on the DotW front. But rest assured, BJ has some cool things in store once she returns in triumph. In the meantime, the Vault's best wishes go out to Zion, Illinois' Razzle Dazzles, who have even cooked up a suitably horror-themed twirling routine. Good luck, ladies--show those prehistoric bitches how they do things downtown...

A Quarter-Century of Krueger: Following in Craven's Footsteps

"I never set out to be Wes Craven, I set out to be Jean Renoir." - Jack Sholder

After the initial smash success of A Nightmare on Elm Street in 1984, it was easy to predict that New Line Cinema would be looking for a sequel. After all, the slasher hit had put the independent studio on the map after a decade of struggles. Yet once Wes Craven bowed out, citing lack of interest and also focusing on the sequel to his earlier classic The Hills Have Eyes, it became clear that the sequel would be a little more uncertain than had originally been imagined.

A new director was going to be required, and for a spot that would not be a very enviable one. After all, Craven was already a major luminary in the business, who had knocked the ball out of the park with the most successful horror film of the decade. But New Line soldiered on, with a screenplay called Freddy's Revenge, from rookie scripter David Chaskin.

The man New Line found for the job was Jack Sholder. Although Sholder had only one feature film to his credit, it had been a decent little horror/thriller called Alone in the Dark, which Sholder had also written and which had starred Jack Palance, Donald Pleasance and Martin Landau.

The film Sholder delivered to New Line, A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge, was nowhere near the success the original had been, and was rejected by many of the fans the original film had gathered. In fact, it even led New Line to get Craven back on board for the third one, and to return somewhat to the formula that had worked so well in the original.

The reputation of Freddy's Revenge continues somewhat to this day, and in my opinion, it is unwarranted. I've personally always found it to be one of the best in the series, and certainly superior to any of the other sequels that came after it, with the exception of Part 3.

Sholder's film retains much of the grimness and dark tone of the original film, which would begin to be dismantled in the third picture, despite its superior quality. Freddy Krueger is still the terrifying, nightmarish creation of Wes Craven here, and not yet the Borscht Belt comedian he would later become.

Not only that, but Chaskin's script is more daring than pretty much any of the other sequels, taking the franchise in an entirely different direction. This film puts a Jekyll & Hyde spin on the NOES theme. Instead of Freddy so much haunting the dreams of teens, he is literally sharing a body with one of them, threatening the real world to a degree not seen in any other of the films. Perhaps fans don't like it as much because it's short on a lot of the more imaginative kills and effects seen in the others. This one is grittier, more reality-based--in fact, it might even be a darker film than the Craven original.

It's also rich with symbolic overtones, as many others before me have pointed out how Jesse's struggles with the creature within him bear some resemblance to a young male's struggles with sexuality. And plus, we get the classic line, "You've got the body, and I've got the brain..." Gotta love that one.

The tepid reception of the film didn't open nearly as many doors for Sholder as the rampant success of the first film had done for Craven. He went on to direct The Hidden, an enjoyable piece of sci-fi horror starring Kyle MacLachlan and Clu Gulager, immediately after. But following that, his biggest claims to fame have been a 1990 episode of Tales from the Crypt, and Wishmaster 2, which he also wrote.

A shame really, as he did quite well under the circumstances with his NOES sequel, as far as I'm concerned. Unfortunately, he suffered from being put into a position in which virtually any result would've been deemed a let-down.

So I'll go on the record as having enjoyed Freddy's Dead. It manages to really take chances, while still holding true to the spirit of the original, something that none of the other sequels did quite as well. So thank you, Jack Sholder, for giving us one of the most underrated slasher sequels of the 1980s!

Eli Roth Opts Out of Hostel 3

I'm not at all a fan of the Hostel films, but someone out there obviously supported them, so this news will no doubt be of interest to some of you out there. Shock Till You Drop is reporting that Eli Roth, the Splat Pack auteur who gave us Cabin Fever and both Hostel flicks, will have nothing to do with the upcoming direct-to-DVD Hostel 3.

Said Roth to STYD:

“I’m just not involved in any way. I just said, ‘I put everything in my life for three years into these movies. I’ve said everything I have to say with it. I feel very lucky I got to make them and the fans responded the way they did, and if you guys want to continue it, great, go ahead.'”

This would be a similar move to what Roth did with Cabin Fever 2, the follow-up to the film that first put him on the horror map in 2002. The director--soon to be seen in front of the camera in Quentin Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds--will instead be working on Endangered Species and Thanksgiving (an expansion of his hilarious Grindhouse faux trailer) as his next two projects.

Dream Casting the New Ghostbusters

It's pretty much a foregone conclusion now that Ghostbusters III is definitely going to happen. And the casting rumors have been flying fast and furious ever since news broke that the plot would revolve around the original boys in gray turning over the proton packs to a team of five newcomers.

Word on the street was that the Apatow players would be taking on the roles, meaning people like Jonah Hill, Seth Rogen and Paul Rudd. However, in an interview today with Ain't It Cool News, co-writer Egon Spengler himself, Mr. Harold Ramis, denied any and all casting rumors, saying, "No, none of that’s real. There will be young ghostbusters, but no specific casting is real."

With that mind, I thought I'd engage in a little mental masturbation and try and come up with my own ideal team of new ghostbusters--ruling out any of the Apatow crew or anyone else previously rumored. So here's who would be cleanin' up the town in Ghostbusters III if B-Sol had his way:

Vince Vaughn
In my mind, the star of Wedding Crashers would be the perfect successor to the "Peter Venkman" archetype, in that he can play goofball, but also has that quirky leading man quality to him. Close your eyes, and you can totally picture him in the jumpsuit, can't you?

Louis C.K.
I've been touting this guy as one of the most brilliant comic minds today, an inheritor to the George Carlin throne, if you ask me. His short-lived HBO series Lucky Louie wasn't given the chance it deserved, but proved that he is as funny a comic actor as he is a standup comic.

Andy Samberg
The young upstart of the group, who manages to somehow combine complete ridiculousness with a certain vibe of weird coolness in a way that none of the original ghostbusters quite did. He's today's "it" comedian, and would bring mucho bankability to the 25-year-old franchise. Hopefully, he'd find himself on a haunted boat, as well.

Adam Goldberg
And another very Jewish comic actor, in the grand tradition of the original lineup of clipped comedians. Goldberg would fit very nicely into the Ramis-esque brainy straight man role--and I'm not just saying that because we had lunch in the same Brooklyn deli the afternoon of my daughter's baby-naming luncheon.

Patrice O'Neal
In my estimation, the funniest damn comedian you've never heard of. And if you have, my apologies, you're a lot cooler than I gave you credit for. O'Neal brings a razor-sharp, infectious wit that would make him a whole lot more than "the token black ghostbuster".

That's five right there, but to address the suggestions made by Dan Akroyd that at least one of the new members would be female, I wracked my brain to select an additional member should they indeed choose to go that route....

Anna Faris
I've caught a lot of heat in the past because for the most part, I don't often find female comedians funny. Boo, hisss, I know. I think comedy is much stronger in the male genome. But my ingrained chauvinism aside, I will say that the single funniest comic actress working today is Ms. Faris, who has the potential to be this generation's Lucille Ball.

So... anyone important listening out there? Let's make it happen, people!

Night of the Creeps, Part 2?

Just a quick, yet interesting tidbit to report tonight. Austin's awesome Alamo Drafthouse hosted a screening of the 1986 cult classic Night of the Creeps on Saturday, and Ain't It Cool News is reporting something very intriguing in an offhand remark. Apparently, during the post-movie Q&A with fan fave writer/director Fred Dekker, an intrepid audience member boldly asked if a sequel would ever be possible. And the answer was better than he probably expected to hear.

According to AICN, Dekker polled the enthusiastic crowd as to whether they would like to see a sequel, with the original cast returning. Naturally, a round of raucous applause ensued. He then dropped the little chestnut that he has in fact been working on some concepts for a possible sequel.

This would certainly be great news for lovers of one of the '80s most beloved horror comedies. Let's all keep our fingers crossed on this one. It may be a longshot, but you never know. Let's hope Dekker will eventually get the opportunity to "Thrill Me!"

VAULT VLOG: The Boys in Gray Are Back!

Female Ghostbusters in the New Sequel?

Dan Akroyd set fanboys' hearts aflutter earlier this week when he confirmed that a third Ghostbusters movie is, indeed, in the works, with a possible winter starting date for filming.

All the original cast members are set to return, but the story will apparently center on a "passing-of-the-torch" scenario, in which himself, Bill Murray, Harold Ramis and Ernie Hudson hand over the proton packs to a younger generation of paranormal investigators.

Akroyd discussed wanting to assemble a new five-person Ghostbusters team, with two members being women. Specifically, he mentioned Eliza Dushku and Alyssa Milano as being two actresses he is particularly interested in getting to play parts.

No stranger to genre entertainment, Dushku (pictured here--thanks, BJ-C) is of course a Buffy alum who is currently on the new Joss Whedon series Dollhouse. Milano was a regular cast member of Charmed, and even lent her voice to the new Ghostbusters video game. With any luck, these two lovely ladies might be crossing the streams very, very soon.

The Descent 2 Teaser Trailer!!

Has kind of an "Aliens" vibe to it. Could be intriguing... Check it out now, before Lions Gate catches up to me:

Repo! Sequel Still a Possibility?

Repo! The Genetic Opera has proven to be one of the most divisive genre films of recent years, with some flocking to it as a cult classic, and many others calling it one of the worst movies ever made. However you feel about it, there may be more of it on the horizon.

In an interview with Moviehole.net promoting the movie's DVD release, star Alexa Vega hinted that prequel/sequel talks are still alive despite the film's limited release and lackluster box office:

"[F]rom the very, very beginning, we always talked about a prequel or a sequel to this movie. And it’s hard, because as of right now, we all want to do it, but... it didn’t really do as we hoped. And we didn’t really have a lot of support. But we’re hoping that the fans will come back, and it will be an underground cult classic that will grow, and that will eventually spark us to do either the prequel or the sequel to this film.

"The story’s not yet finished. There’s so much left... to wonder. 'Okay, what happens to GeneCo?' Or, 'How did they get here?'... there’s so many questions that still need to be answered."

Director Darren Lynn Bousman's grassroots "Repo tour" has done a lot to drum up support for the flick, and indeed, a kind of "Rocky Horror" buzz has slowly built around it since its release last year, so a limited-release or direct-to-video sequel is certainly well within the realm of possibility.

Will Smith on Future of I Am Legend Franchise

There's been a lot of speculation and rumors flying around lately as to whether there will be a follow-up to Will Smith's smash hit I Am Legend. Most recently, an unconfirmed rumor had it that a direct sequel was in the works. However, Smith himself recently spoke out at a press conference for his new movie Seven Pounds, and here's what he had to say on the matter:

"We have a fantastic prequel idea…we’re still trying to work through a couple of bumps in the story. It’s essentially the fall of the last city – the last stand of Manhattan. The movie would be…within the body of the movie D.C. and then Manhattan would fall as the last city. It’s a really cool idea trying to figure it out…there’s a reason why we have to take a small band and we have to get into D.C. So we have to make our way from New York to D.C. and then back to New York."

So it looks like it will, in fact, be a prequel, which, I have to admit, makes a lot more sense, and has a little more appeal to it. While I wasn't the biggest fan of the first one (I much prefer the Vincent Price version), I'm a bit intrigued at exploring territory that was previously only hinted at in Richard Matheson's novel and previous film incarnations.

* * * * * * * * * *

I'd also like to report that my interview with Victor Miller, screenwriter of the original Friday the 13th, went extremely well yesterday, and you can look forward to it in the very near future (most likely in blogcast form). Miller talks about everything from admittedly ripping off Halloween, the origin of the name Jason Voorhees, and Friday the 13th's indebtedness to Psycho, to his refusal to watch any of the sequels, his falling out with Sean Cunningham, and his thoughts on the upcoming remake. Very interesting stuff. Stay tuned.

X-Files Producer Blames The Dark Knight

I feel bad for X-Files fans. I really do. Having never been a follower of the show, I can't say I was very emotionally invested when the sequel no one was asking for, The X-Files: I Want to Believe, pulled a Hindenberg at the box office last summer, raking in a meager $21 million domestic against a $30 million budget. In fact, I would've been surprised by any other outcome.

But this week, Chris Carter's co-producer and co-writer Frank Spotnitz added salt to the wound by going on a delusional rant in an interview with the Toronto Sun. See, it wasn't X-Files' fault that no one came out to see the flick. Whose fault was it? Why, Batman's, of course:

"Our theatrical performance this past summer notwithstanding, I think The X-Files is still a natural for theatrical release. We just opened the wrong week. The week after The Dark Knight, I think, was just not the right week for us.

"I think it was especially brutal to us because we weren't counter-programming. We weren't Mamma Mia! or Step Brothers. We were a little dark scary movie coming in the fumes, in the exhaust, of this mammoth machine that was The Dark Knight. And I don't think we had a chance!"

See, kids? It had nothing to do with the ill will generated among the fan base by a disastrous final season on television. Or with the ten year gap since the last X-Files movie, which made almost ten times as much. Or with the X-Files' almost complete disappearance from the popular consciousness since the series ended. Or with the decision not to make the film about the main storyline that the fans actually cared about. Or with the fact that The Dark Knight was one of the best-reviewed movies of the year, and I Want to Believe...wasn't.

No, they just picked the wrong weekend. I'm sure X-Files 3: The Search for an Audience will do much better.

* * * * * * * * * *

For those who may not yet be aware, the Vault is now firmly entrenched in both of those modern bastions of vain frivolity, MySpace and Facebook. So, should you be so inclined, feel free to stop by and feed my ravenous ego by adding the VoH as a close and personal friend. Take care now!

Bill Murray Ready for Ghostbusters 3

Happy Monday, Vault Dwellers! And a happy Monday it certainly is, especially for all you fans of everything ectoplasm out there. For months now, ever since the announcement of that new Ghostbusters video game with the voices of all the original actors, rumors of a new GB sequel have been swirling about like so many free-floating, full-torso vaporous apparitions.

And according to SciFiWire, on Friday, the one and only Dr. Peter Venkman himself, Bill Murray, stated in no uncertain terms during a press conference for his new movie City of Ember that he is completely open to donning the proton pack another time for the new flick, currently being scripted by Lee Eisenberg and Gene Stupnitsky of NBC's The Office.

"It's a great idea that they hired these two guys to do it," Murray said. "It could be a fresh look at it. And it could be funny."

Murray, like most fans, was let down by Ghostbusters 2 (1989), and it left a bad taste in his mouth as far as the franchise was concerned. I know I can remember walking out of the theater from it feeling like I had been mugged, and I know I'm not the only one:

They had this idea [for Ghostbusters 2], but it didn't turn out to be the [same] idea when I arrived on the set. They'd written a whole different movie than the one [initially discussed]. And the special effects guys... got their hands on it. And it was just not the same movie. There were a few great scenes in it, but it wasn't the same movie. So there's never been an interest in a third Ghostbusters because the second one was kind of disappointing... for me, anyway.

Will There Be a Hellboy 3?

For the time being, all thought of a third installment in the fan-favorite Hellboy series from Universal seems to have been put on hold. For a couple of reasons.

Although just as well-done as the original, and a box office improvement, Hellboy 2 still fell a bit short of studio expectations. Also, director Guillermo del Toro recently made headlines by announcing that he is now completely booked for the next nine years. As of now, Hellboy 3 is not included amongst his upcoming projects, which means that if he ever returns to complete what he has described as a trilogy--which he has said he wants to eventually do--it will not be for another decade, at which point star Ron Perlman would be nearly 60. Indiana Hellboy, anyone?

At the m0ment, Del Toro is totally immersed in working on The Hobbit with producer Peter Jackson, as well as a follow-up to chronicle the events between that film and The Lord of the Rings trilogy. That's expected to occupy him for the next five years. After that, he turns his sights to some classic monster revamping--namely a long-discussed Frankenstein film and a new take on Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde. Then comes a new, "more faithful" (don't they always say that?) version of Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse-Five, and an adaptation of the forthcoming historical novel Drood by the superb Dan Simmons. And finally, Del Toro's own pet project, an adaptation of At the Mountains of Madness, a seminal work by H.P. Lovecraft.

All exciting projects, to be sure, and Del Toro looks to be positioned as the next Lucas/Speilberg by the end of it. But no HB in sight. Oh, crap.

Groovy! Sam Raimi to Start Work on Evil Dead IV

Yes, the nuggets of Comic-Con goodness just keep rolling in.

It's all in the super-preliminary stages right now, but Sam Raimi made some very interesting comments last night at the panel for his upcoming project, Drag Me to Hell, with regards to the future of his most beloved franchise. And if you think I'm talking about Spider-Man, then you're reading the wrong blog, pally.

According to the Geeks of Doom, Raimi stated that he planned to begin work on the script for a fourth Evil Dead film next week, along with his brother Ivan (who collaborated on the previous three pictures.) He also said he'd love to work with Bruce Campbell again, which sounds like he hasn't officially got him on board yet. But, come on now, how could you do an Evil Dead movie without him? I mean, it's not like he hasn't appeared in every single movie Raimi has ever made, anyway.

That said, Raimi is also involved with Spider-Man 4, although it's not known yet if he will direct. Should that happen, Evil Dead IV will no doubt slip down the list of priorities. Also, where does this leave the announced Evil Dead remake that Raimi is producing?

I'd be tempted to think the director was simply waxing nostalgic, but his comment about starting work next week seems awfully specific and premeditated. Let's hope he really is returning to his roots. Then we can start praying for Peter Jackson to get to work on Dead Alive II...

Billy Connolly Talks X-Files

There's a great interview up at the UK's Independent with Scottish comedian and sometimes-dramatic-actor Billy Connolly, who talks at length about his role in The X-Files: I Want to Believe, coming to theaters next month.

The usually hysterical Connolly plays it straight this time around, taking on the part of a disturbed Catholic priest--despite his real-life atheism. Incidentally, Connolly also played the title role in Fido, in case you didn't recognize him under all that makeup (and yes, he was also Howard Hesseman's replacement on Head of the Class.)

According to The Independent, the part of Father Joe was specifically written by Chris Carter with Connolly in mind. Check out the interview here.