Et de six. L’épisode tant redouté, d’abord au niveau de son titre français (rire assuré du caissier de votre cinéma, au moins les premières fois ; mais la sonorité a le mérite d’annoncer la boucherie visuelle…), ensuite au niveau de son intérêt tout court (franchement : aucun), débarque en ce début novembre comme le marronnier des films d’horreur qu’il est devenu, avec encore plus d’idées tordues, plus d’images gore, plus d’imbrications tarabiscotées entre nouveaux acteurs et victimes des jeux macabres de John Kramer alias Jigsaw, le type qui a décidé de vous punir du fait que vous ne respectiez pas assez la vie. Comme lui s’est mis en tête de bien vous la pourrir (en fait, on le soupçonne d’être jaloux de la bonne santé des autres ; si c’est pas puant, comme leitmotiv, ça…), on se demande si tout cela ne vire pas au paradoxe un peu bête mais enfin, il y a des fans et suffisamment de gens se ruant sur la chose chaque année pour justifier qu’un nouvel opus générateur de beaux dollars voie le jour, hélas.
De deux choses l’une, donc : soit les spectateurs arrêtent de se déplacer en masse pour voir des films de merde (pour mémoire, le réalisateur des quatre épisodes précédents s’appelait « Bousman » ; c’est prophétique, non ?) comme celui-là, soit les producteurs arrêtent de se justifier à la manière autrefois d’un Patrick Lelay déclarant sûr de son argument « les gens aiment, la preuve, ça marche ». Une véritable quadrature du cercle (critique, culturelle) qui ne peut pas nous aider à résoudre cette éternelle question du « pourquoi le public va-t-il voir ça », d’autant qu’au final, les producteurs se fichent bien qu’une partie dudit public et de la critique en pense du mal (et après tout c’est leur droit), et ne se soucient guère du fait que les qualités cinématographiques du film soient inexistantes (ce qui est vrai : techniquement, hormis les effets de maquillage, c’est d’une pauvreté effarante). Pourquoi vont-ils « tous » voir ça, donc ? Parce que c’est violent, exutoire, prétendument subversif ? Parce que c’est imaginatif (sic) dans les meurtres ? Parce c’est tortueux, malsain (très formaté, là, le malsain…) et que la torture parle à chaque bourreau sommeillant en nous ? Parce que c’est fun et trop gore, trop invraisemblable de toute façon pour être pris au sérieux donc pour exercer une mauvaise influence sur les esprits fragiles, déséquilibrés ? Tout cela à la fois sans doute, et chaque argument se tient d’une certaine façon. Pour autant, être amateur du genre horrifique même dans ses représentations les plus basiques, ne signifie pas qu’on doive, côté réalisateur, se passer d’une vraie responsabilité visuelle ; côté spectateur, se satisfaire d’un film qui, dans le fond, n’a aucun respect pour ceux qui le visionnent.

La preuve avec cette histoire multipliant les personnages et enjeux secondaires juste par principe de surenchère et de brouillage narratif (le mot « brouillon » serait plus approprié, même si Kevin Greutert, monteur des précédents, assure un peu plus de stabilité visuelle que Darren Lynn Bousman). Dans Saw VI, le détective Hoffman (l’horrible Costas Mandylor, au jeu au moins aussi gras que son physique), légataire du sanglant héritage de John Kramer (des indices sont laissés ici et là, ou remis à de tierces personnes, bref, c’est toujours le même schéma démultiplicateur de protagonistes liés au tueur), initie un « nouveau jeu » censé révéler, je cite le dossier de presse, « le véritable grand dessein derrière les machinations de Jigsaw »… Le grand dessein, comme toujours dans la saga, consiste en un twist qui n’en est pas vraiment un, une révélation en forme de sortie de secours vers les possibilités d’une séquelle « plus » : brutale, absurde, stupide (ma foi, ça n’est pas censé être à tout prix intelligent), gratuite (toute violence est gratuite mais dans ces cas-là autant ne pas chercher à justifier les enjeux, et balancer directement la sauce – rouge sang, évidemment)., etc. Sans trop révéler les affres d’un film que les plus acharnés seraient prêts à aller voir malgré tout (au prix que coûte le billet, vous n’avez pas honte ?), disons que le seul apport notable du film (au-delà de cette imagination débordante – c’est effarant – pour concevoir les instruments d’une cruauté qui franchement n’amuse pas du tout) reste la critique, simpliste mais « louable » en ces temps de volonté de réforme de Barack Obama sur le sujet, du système étatsunien de l’assurance maladie. Voilà Jigsaw pourfendeur de la politique de « rentabilité » de la sécurité sociale privée, avec douloureuse leçon de vie / de mort prodiguée à un gestionnaire cynique qui ne voudrait « miser » que sur des gens sains, donc économiquement viables. Et le pauvre diable d’être entraîné dans une suite d’épreuves qui lui démontreront (et à nous aussi, les Saw n’étant jamais à une leçon de morale près, avec un premier degré qui laisse pantois), que l’arrivisme et la réduction de l’humain à des formules économiques, mathématiques, des produits calculés sans âme (tiens, comme la saga, non ?), sont néfastes, nihilistes, destructeurs. Cette menue réflexion, pour une fois un tout petit peu ancrée dans la réalité sociale, se trouve vite raillée par une logique certes anti-cinématographique mais réelle : prôner le droit aux soins (donc la bonne santé) pour tous est une bien jolie idée, mais s’il faut que les gens se mutilent ou se coupent un bras pour la faire accepter, alors la morale s’annule.

Au-delà de cette considération décadrée, Saw VI déconcerte dans sa culture vivace du « torture flick », un genre devenu tendance, donc débarrassé de sa capacité à déranger (puisqu’il rameute et avec consensus). Comme le déclare l’un des personnages estropiés : « regardez mon bras, je suis censée tirer quelle leçon ? ». Voilà une réplique qui veut tout dire ; même sans céder aux sirènes de la bienséance tronquée (le cinéma n’a pas inventé la barbarie, c’est l’homme et lui seul, donc avant d’éradiquer les films « barbares », éradiquons les barbares eux-mêmes), il faut bien considérer que cette marchandisation poussive de la violence graphique, ce gore ultra lucratif, sont aussi déplaisants qu’artistiquement condamnables. Le cinéma n’y gagne rien sauf des éclaboussures de sang qui n’entâchent aucune manière de faire du système (capitalisme, libéralisme et tout ce qu’on veut), et ne font bien au contraire que lui cirer les pompes ostentatoires. Quant on pense que Jigsaw / Kramer reproche à ses victimes d’instrumentaliser le monde et leur entourage. Quel sort réserverait-il aux producteurs de ses « aventures » dispensables ?

Stéphane Ledien

> sortie le 4 novembre 2009

Saw IV (dir: Darren Lynn Bousman, 2007)

La saga de “Saw” necesita una transfusión urgente. Sangre nueva. Bueno, de sangre la verdad es que anda sobrada. Basta con ver el prólogo de “Saw IV“, durante el cual asistimos a la autopsia de Jigsaw con todo lujo de detalles, y digo yo “¿para qué coño practicarle la autopsia a un asesino en serie que ha sido brutalmente degollado?“.

Autopsia de Jigsaw

Éste es sólo uno de los muchos ejemplos de la suerte de despropósitos que constituyen esta cuarta entrega, más cercana ya a una serie de televisión que a una película propiamente dicha, cuyo único interés se basa en un final cada vez más rebuscado y menos original. Sin ir más lejos, en este caso se trata de un pastiche compuesto a base de retazos de las dos primeras partes. Me pregunto si el bueno de James Wan (responsable de la original y director de “Silencio desde el mal“) será consciente del chiste privado al que se ha visto reducida su obra. Un chiste incomprensible para el espectador medio, dado que hay que tener muy reciente “Saw III” si queremos pillar la mitad de las cosas de su continuación.

El juego de Jigsaw...

Conste que, hasta ahora, a mí esta trilogía me parecía decente e incluso entretenida pero, si bien la muerte de Jigsaw a priori suponía un agravante, aquí se nos confirma que no hay nada que hacer sin el carismático personaje interpretado por Tobin Bell. En realidad, lo mejor de la cinta son los flashbacks (hay tantos…) protagonizados por él. El resto de personajes, a cada cual más estereotipado, son peones mal definidos y peor conducidos que entran y salen de la trama como Pedro por su casa, a merced de una narración caótica. El tal Darren Lynn Bousman debía estar medicándose cuando la dirigió.

Al final uno no sabe si lo que está viendo es pasado, presente, futuro o un flashback del flashback. Un puzzle, a fin de cuentas, mal construido que deja más cabos sueltos de los que ata y poca o ninguna gana de ver “Saw V”.

19ª Participación para el concurso de la mano de… Manu!

Saw IV è un film horror del 2007 diretto da Darren Lynn Bousman. Il film ha debuttato il 26 ottobre 2007 negli USA, mentre in Italia è uscito il 30 aprile 2008.

Leggi altre notizie su: | Horror | Thriller | Darren Lynn Bousman | Tobin Bell | Shawnee Smith | Donnie Wahlberg

Saw III – L’enigma senza fine è un film horror/thriller del 2006 diretto da Darren Lynn Bousman e costituisce il terzo capitolo della saga iniziata nel 2004 con Saw – L’enigmista.
Il film è centrato su l’enigmista (Jigsaw), l’antagonista dei due precedenti film, che insieme ad Amanda lavora alla prova finale. Il film contiene alcune spiegazioni e chiarimenti a dei punti lasciati in sospeso nei precedenti film della saga.

Leggi altre notizie su: | Horror | Thriller | Darren Lynn Bousman | Tobin Bell | Angus Macfadyen | Shawnee Smith

Saw II – La soluzione dell’enigma è un film thriller-horror statunitense del 2005, diretto da Darren Lynn Bousman, sequel, ad un anno di distanza, del fortunato Saw – L’enigmista.

Leggi altre notizie su: | Horror | Thriller | Darren Lynn Bousman | Donnie Wahlberg | Shawnee Smith | Tobin Bell

Originally published in Rip-In Magazine, Issue 044, 2007.

Genre: Thriller, Crime
Actors: Tobin Bell, Costas Mandylor, Scott Patterson, Betsy Russell, Athena Karkanis
Director: Darren Lynn Bousman

Distinguishing moments in horror/thriller films often cause long-term psychological traumas and are (in my opinion) the primary causes of paranoia, psychosis, and the occasional turret syndrome. For example, puking girls, foul language and revolving heads from The Exorcist (1973) added innovativeness to Punk culture and their paranoid fear of fashionable people. And what about Stephen King´s IT (1990)? The clowning industry took a dramatic decline due to anonymous death-threats and hit-and-run incidents by clownophones (or technically called coulrophobes) who just couldn’t face the fact that clowns generally don’t eat children.

Saw IV is honoured with a prestigious place within the pantheon of horror/thriller ´distinguishing moments´. In other words, audiences tend to get a bit twitchy after watching the film and stay twitchy for a few more days. The brilliant direction of Bousman has defined cinerobics (my neologism for cinema aerobics) and securely established itself as a popular cult film of the 21st Century. Of course, Patrick Melton and Marcus Dunstan, the successor of writers Leigh Wannell and James Wan, are equally as sick and perversely twisted in their concoction of tortures.

The fourth series of Saw films adds complexity and density to both its narrative and plot. This year we are treated to the unveiling of Jigsaw´s (Bell) genius and the context of his madness. The detective game that is played in Saw IV is complicated so I do not advice anyone to watch this unless they have prior knowledge of Saw II and Saw III.

Two FBI profilers, Agent Strahm (Patterson) and Agent Perez (Karkanis), were called to help Detective Hoffman (Mandylor) uncover the macabre of Jigsaw murders. While they sift through voluminous information, SWAT Commander Rigg (Patterson) is introduced as the last officer untouched by Jigsaw´s harrowing games. Rigg is later abducted for the mistreatment of his own life and family and goes through a series of ´lessons’ devised by the puppet master. Interconnecting the plot of the film are intermediate flashbacks of John´s life told through his wife Jill (Russell). She chronologically details how he came to be the unstoppable Nietzschean philosopher with a lethal streak.

My only criticism of Saw IV is that the ending is too condensed. The most impressionable moment of all Saw films are the twists and unexpected conclusions that cause perceptible oohs and aahs from the audience. This time, however, there is also an unexpected interjection of eh? from the viewers. The sudden influx of information at the end sent the audience into an arduous reflective mood and affected the overall satisfaction of the film.

But one can still claim a delectable psychosis from the finale of Saw IV. An observing viewer will notice twitching eyes and spasming fingers of those who leave the cinema.

A scene from Bousman's 'Mother's Day.' No wonder the Winnipeg constabulary came a runnin'.

Marketing is a very tricky business, especially when it comes to movies. While Paranormal Activity has pretty much won the Most Effective Meme-Passing Award for this year, it’s not the only movie making headlines.

As mentioned a few weeks back, director Darren Bousman (Saw II-IV, Repo) has been pimping the hell out of his remake of Mother’s Day, and doing a pretty impressive job of keeping that flick from slipping head first into the I-Could-Give-a-Rat’s-Ass pit reserved for most remakes. Despite a hectic schedule and countless details to pore over with the production, the dude’s been keeping the Twitter faithful apprised of everything that happens on set, working Facebook like a pro, and now…

Now we’re all a little red faced after the “balloon boy” fiasco of last week. It turns out that, after a long diet of reality TV, we’ll pretty much believe anything at this point. So it’s perfectly natural to question whether Bousman has the ability to pull off a fake police raid on his own movie production in Winnipeg. Personally, I would think even more of him if he did actually manage to make this happen.

What’s that? How did I find out about the police raid, you ask? Why from his Facebook page of course.

To better understand Darren Bousman and how he got his start in this business, check out the chapter on Bousman in The New Horror Handbook.

Crítica de Cinema – Texto publicado originalmente em A ARCA, em 28/10/2005.

Esqueça Seven. O cartaz publicitário brazuca de Jogos Mortais trazia esta tagline em letras garrafais. Digo tranqüilamente que fazer esta comparação é um exagero sem tamanho. Sim, Jogos Mortais é um filmaço como não se via há um bom tempo: com um roteiro original e personagens carismáticos, a película deu uma bela renovada no gênero de suspense, que não via uma grande produção há exatos dez anos, desde o lançamento do próprio Seven – Os Sete Crimes Capitais, em 1995 – pessoalmente, sou fã devotado das duas fitas. Mas também sou ponderado e bem pé-no-chão; portanto, digo que, independente de suas muitas qualidades, Jogos Mortais não é poderoso o suficiente para chegar ao nível de Seven, indiscutivelmente uma das grandes surpresas do cinema de horror contemporâneo.

Falemos agora de Jogos Mortais 2 (Saw 2, 2005). Como todos sabem, o inesperado sucesso da primeira fita impulsionou sua distribuidora, a Lions Gate, a viabilizar uma continuação. E como era de se esperar, este que vos escreve aguardou cada notícia acerca da produção com muito amor, carinho e ansiedade. Até que, finalmente, o trailer oficial foi divulgado. Não é segredo pra ninguém que não gostei nada do que vi – vamos concordar: o negócio ficou com uma cara horrorosa de “terror-teen-descartável”. Pra completar o caldo, só faltou mesmo a presença do tosco Freddie Prinze Jr. e da infame Sarah Michelle Gellar. Creeeeda!

Felizmente, tenho uma ótima notícia: esta continuação não é, de jeito nenhum, algo no estilo Amaldiçoados ou A Casa de Cera (sinal da cruz). Aliás, a produção é bem melhor do que eu esperava, fazendo jus ao valor do ingresso. Mas um ponto crucial deve ser frisado, marcado, destacado, colocado em negrito, itálico e sublinhado: Jogos Mortais 2 definitivamente NÃO É melhor que o primeiro, como muitos veículos de imprensa gringos e brazucas andam divulgando por aí, nem pensar. Não vamos exagerar, não é pessoal?

Antes que fale (ops, escreva) qualquer coisa sobre a fita, comento logo: Jogos Mortais 2 segue o mesmo padrão de filmes como Plano de Vôo e a própria primeira parte das desventuras do nosso amiguinho Jigsaw, aquele que não sabe brincar (!). Ou seja: se você não souber absolutamente NADA sobre a película, a sessão será indubitavelmente mais divertida. Enfim, não entregarei nenhum segredo vital do longa, restringindo-me apenas à sinopse divulgada pelo estúdio, mas se você preferir descobrir as coisas por si só… PARE DE LER ESTE TEXTO AGORA! Aproveita e dá uma passeadinha pelo site, que tem matérias bem bacaninhas para você. Clique no logo do site, lá em cima, volte à página principal e seja feliz!

Então, voltemos à nossa programação normal.

Primeiro, um aviso importante: se você ainda não assistiu a Jogos Mortais, não adianta nem pensar em ir ao cinema. Alugue o primeiro, antes de qualquer coisa. O fato é que Jogos Mortais 2 não é, digamos, uma aventura paralela. Há uma infinidade de ligações com o longa original, que deixarão um belíssimo ponto de interrogação no cérebro de quem chegou agora. Há, inclusive, uma série de referências desta produção em sua antecessora – o roteirista, Leigh Whannel (o mesmo que deu vida ao misterioso fotógrafo Adam, um dos personagens centrais do original), certamente deveria ter tudo esquematizado ao desenvolver os dois roteiros. Pelo menos é o que imagino.

Para quem está com preguiça de ir até a locadora, eu dou uma palhinha rápida do que foi Jogos Mortais: Jigsaw, ou O Assassino do Quebra-Cabeça (vivido por Tobin Bell, um sujeito que dá muito medo), citado em um dos parágrafos acima, é um serial killer que escolhe uma pessoa e arma uma espécie de “jogo” com ela. Se a pessoa não concluir o jogo, morre. Simples assim. O problema é que o próprio desenrolar da “brincadeira” oferece momentos bastante aflitivos, para dizer o mínimo… Enfim, o cara nunca foi capturado pois teoricamente não pode ser considerado um assassino, já que nunca mata suas vítimas com as próprias mãos: apenas dá todas as peças para que elas façam isto por si só. Vixe!

Em Jogos Mortais 2, escrito por Whannel em parceria com o semi-estreante Darren Lynn Bousman (o diretor do filme), o meliante está de volta, e desta vez concentra-se no detetive Eric Matthews (Donnie Wahlberg), que anda levando na cabeça por conta de seu filho rebelde, Daniel (o mala Erik Knudsen). Como se não bastasse ter que buscar o moleque na delegacia vez por outra, o policial ainda é forçado a investigar uma série de mortes atribuídas ao perigoso assassino – o primeiro bastardo infeliz que cai nas garras do serial killer, aliás, rende uma seqüência de abertura visualmente perturbadora.

O jogo muda (perdoem o trocadilho) quando um pista leva Matthews e sua ex-parceira Kerry (Dina Meyer, uma “sobra” bem interessante do original) direto ao esconderijo do Assassino do Quebra-Cabeça; lá, o detetive descobre que o lunático pôs em prática mais uma traquinagem, envolvendo nada menos que OITO pessoas (!) trancafiadas num casarão abandonado, que ninguém sabe onde fica, e respirando algo que poderá matá-las em duas horas caso não consigam achar a saída. Uma destas pessoas é Daniel. As outras seis são pessoas desconhecidas que possuem alguma ligação entre si. A oitava vítima é uma velha conhecida do psicopata e também da galera fã da série: Amanda (Shawnee Smith), a viciada em heroína que quase se estrepou na “armadilha de urso ao contrário”… Para salvar seu filho, Matthews precisa apenas manter a calma e ouvir o que Jigsaw tem a dizer.

E é isso. Falar mais estraga a surpresa. Sim, há surpresas, muitas surpresas! O troço não é tão simples quanto parece. A história mescla a luta dos indivíduos para sobreviver, o embate psicológico entre Eric Matthews e o Jigsaw, e vários flashbacks que recontam o passado do maluco e dão algumas pistas dos motivos que levaram o cara a praticar os tais joguinhos bizarros.

O bacana é que a história de Jogos Mortais 2 acaba entrelaçando-se com alguns eventos do primeiro longa, o que amarra algumas pontas abertas. E quem ficou encucado com a conclusão do original, ficará muito contente em saber que esta segunda parte finalmente revela o que diabos aconteceu com Adam e o Dr. Lawrence Gordon (Cary Elwes), os “bonequinhos” preferidos do Jigsaw no passado. E por falar em conclusão, prepare-se para ficar com aquela cara de “meu Deus, por que não pensei nisto antes?” ao sair do cinema. É, o final é mais surpreendente que o outro!

Maaaaaas… nem tudo são flores. Jogos Mortais 2 não é perfeito, e peca num aspecto fundamental: empatia. O que acontece é que o antecessor apóia-se bastante na construção dos personagens centrais, Adam e Gordon. O espectador convive com os dois praticamente o filme inteiro, o que ajuda a criar um elo. O fotógrafo e o médico são personagens tridimensionais, muito bem construídos psicologicamente. Logo, o espectador automaticamente identifica-se com eles. E como conseqüência, torce pela sua sobrevivência.

Infelizmente, não é o que acontece aqui: é tanta gente pra cuidar, tanta gente pra dar atenção, que o tratamento dispensado pelo roteiro a cada um é ultra-superficial. E não é só isso: os personagens são pouco interessantes e os atores escolhidos para vivê-los são insuportavelmente antipáticos. Enquanto no primeiro era fácil sofrer a cada sinal de aproximação do Jigsaw, aqui você realmente torce para que todos batam logo a caçuleta – e quando finalmente alguns partem desta para uma melhor, ninguém sente falta. Bem que os roteiristas poderiam ter perdido mais um tempinho reescrevendo um ou outro personagem. Não custaria nada, seria totalmente “di grátis”!

Este pequeno detalhe influi diretamente na construção do script: enquanto o horror era extraído da tensão entre Adam, Gordon e o próprio assassino serial no longa original, nesta seqüência só o que temos é uma sucessão de mortes nojentas e bizarras. O lado psicológico do “jogo” armado pelo Jigsaw é simplesmente ignorada a favor de cenas gore – o que, diga-se de passagem, não é a proposta do Jogos Mortais original de jeito algum, visto que seus piores momentos ficaram na sugestão. Mas fazer o quê? O estúdio mandou assim, então é assim que deve ser!

Nada disso, entretanto, compromete a película, que continua sendo uma ótima diversão, daquelas que vale o preço do ingresso tranqüilamente. Só não vá ao cinema esperando conferir um clássico da indústria cinematográfica ou uma fita melhor que o primeiro Saw, pois você correrá o risco de se decepcionar feio! Assista, sinta nojo e surpreenda-se com o final bem-bolado. Depois, vá para casa e emende uma sessão do longa original com bastante pipoca, pizza e guaraná. E em seguida, apague as luzes e assista Seven com o seu esfíncter na mão – só para ter a certeza de quem é que realmente manda na área.

CURIOSIDADES:

• Donnie Wahlberg, que vive o detetive Eric Matthews, é irmão de ninguém menos que o ultralegal Mark Wahlberg (de Quatro Irmãos). Donnie também foi integrante da finada boy band New Kids On The Block (sinal da cruz e uma oração), e é mais conhecido no cinema por conta de seu papel em O Sexto Sentido, como o louco suicida de cuecas que invade a casa de Bruce Willis na seqüência inicial.

• Jogos Mortais 2 foi rodado em apenas 25 dias.

• O primeiro cartaz de Jogos Mortais 2 foi censurado pela hipócrita MPAA, mais conhecida como Motion Picture Association of America, por escancarar dois dedinhos amputados formando o número 2 em algarismos romanos. Para driblar a censura, os produtores confeccionaram um novo pôster com os mesmos dedos, mas omitindo o pedaço amputado. O mesmo aconteceu com os maravilhosos cartazes do primeiro Saw (que revelavam um pé e uma mão amputados). Eu nem falo nada. Pôster com a cara feiosa do Tom Hanks eles não proíbem, né?

SAW 2 • EUA • 2005
Direção de Darren Lynn Bousman • Roteiro de Leigh Whannel e Darren Lynn Bousman
Elenco: Donnie Wahlberg, Tobin Bell, Shawnee Smith, Franky G, Glenn Plummer, Dina Meyer, Emmanuelle Vaugier, Beverley Mitchell, Erik Knudsen, Tim Burd.
93 min. • Distribuição: Lions Gate Films.

Darren Bousman is one of the first directors to aggressively use social media to build excitement in his projects.

What you are about to read is a historical blog post, so gather the kiddies around the computer screen and bless this occasion with the solemnity it deserves. We are going to mention a horror movie remake without digressing into a bitter harumph about the sad nature of remakes.

This week, Darren Bousman, director of Repo! The Genetic Opera and Saw II-IV, began shooting a remake of the 1980 flick Mothers Day. How do I know this? Because Bousman has been tweeting about it and posting updates on his Facebook page.

For all I know, there may be many directors out there promoting their movie projects online in various ways. However, I’m not sure anybody (with the possible exception of Eli Roth) would be doing so with the same level of enthusiasm as Bousman.

For months, he has been giving fans a blow-by-blow, day-by-day account of his Mothers Day project, covering everything from casting to location scouting, and now, finally, actual shooting. The result is a fascinating bit of marketing that can do the seemingly impossible — make you give a rat’s buttock about a movie you might otherwise have had no interest in.

In short, Bousman is building interest in a movie that, on the face of it, would garner only token attention in the horror press otherwise.

In this, the director has some considerable practice. He spent much of 2008 and 2009 building momentum for Repo, a movie born of fringe theater and payed for by a studio that thought it was getting another easily-marketable horror flick, rather than a high-concept rock opera that has divided audiences like no other. The fact that Repo has a passionate following of people who’ve been holding Repo events and dressing up as the characters is as much down to Bousman’s infectious enthusiasm for the project as it is to the quality of the finished product.

So, what will this mean for Mothers Day? One thing’s for sure: Bousman has set a new benchmark for directors in the horror realm and beyond. If your next flick bombs utterly at the box office or on DVD, and you haven‘t been working the social media networks every spare moment, don’t expect any sympathy from horror fans, or your investors.

“Well, what if I just can’t work up the enthusiasm for my project like Bousman does for his,” a director might ask. If that’s the case, maybe it’s a project you should walk away from.

You will find an in-depth chapter about Bousman’s film work based on exclusive interviews in The New Horror Handbook.

Sequels
What a not-so fantastic coincidence. Hot on Disney’s announcement that it intends to buy Marvel for $4 billion comes word that Fox is sending the Fantastic Four on another mission, according to Variety. Sorry to be cynical about this, but Fox only plans to give us a third Fantastic Four in order to prevent Disney from doing so. Variety asserts that Fox “controls Fantastic Four in perpetuity—as long as it continues making the films.” The same applies to the X-Men, Daredevil, and Silver Surfer, so we can expect from Fox more mediocre superhero adventures until we stop paying to see them. Whether the next Fantastic Four is a threequel or a reboot remains to be seen, but the hiring of Akiva Goldsman as producer doesn’t inspire much confidence. Goldsman may have won an Oscar for writing A Beautiful Mind, but he also was partly responsible for the campy embarrassments that were Batman Forever and Batman & Robin. Until I see next year’s adaptations of D.C.’s The Losers (April 9) and Jonah Hex (June 18), I’ll always believe Goldsman’s the kind of producer you take franchises away from, not give to launch or reboot. Regardless, Fox needs to cut loose Fantastic Four director Tim Story—and even consider ditching the current cast led by Jessica Alba—and find someone who has a feel for the material and wants to reclaim the franchise from the Spy Kids crowd. Otherwise, I’ll be rooting for Mr. Fantastic, the Invisible Woman, the Human Torch and the Thing to all perish at the hands of Dr. Doom.

Are we really up to the fifth Bring It On? The latest sequel to Kristen Dunst’s cheerleading classic tumbles onto DVD today. The only recognizable name in Fight to the Finish is Christina Milian, whom you may remember from Be Cool and the Can’t Buy Me Love remake, Love Don’t Cost a Thing.

Remakes
I’ve not seen the original Mother’s Day, but I do know that Rebecca De Mornay can pass herself off as one crazy bitch when necessary. So The Hand That Rocks the Cradle’s nanny from hell is more than capable of portraying a mentally deranged mom whose two sons terrorize the current owners of their old family home. De Mornay joins a cast that already includes Sin City’s Jamie King and Step Up 2: The Streets’ Briana Evigan, per The Hollywood Reporter. Charles Kaufman of Troma infamy directed the 1980 chiller; Darren Lynn Bousman, who cut his teeth on the first three Saw sequels, presides over the remake. Hands up every daughter who plans to take her mom to see this next Mother’s Day.

Rebecca De Mornay is heading back to The Hand that Rocks the Cradle territory as she will be the big bad psycho mother in the the remake of cult 1980 horror pic Mother’s Day according to Variety. Shooting to start next week in Winnipeg.

The remake also stars Jamie King, Shawn Ashmore, Briana Evigan and Deborah Ann Woll.

Darren Lynn Bousman is directing from Scott Milam’s script, which follows a family of villains, led by a sadistic mother, who return to their former home and terrorize the new owners and their guests. The filmmakers are aiming for a release in April, timed to take advantage of Mother’s Day on 9th May.

There’s really no kind way to put this. You usually don’t get a lot of buzz about haunted house movies today. (Apologies to Tony at the HorrorEtc podcast…The Changeling is still a good film!)

Which is why it was so odd when horror audiences — hell, horror directors — were telling me about this intense little ghost flick that was was making the festival rounds back in 2007: Paranormal Activity.

But as quickly as it appeared, it promptly disappeared down that cinematic chasm of which we do not speak. Paramount had bought it, reportedly to remake the relatively low-budget flick, and that was that.

Now ShockTillYouDrop.com (via Examiner.com) is reporting that the original is probably going to be enjoying a limited theatrical release next month, albeit with a different ending.

I’ve never been one for ghost movies, but when you have the likes of Darren Lynn Bousman telling you that it made an impression on him, you really have to give it a chance.

Speaking of DLB, he’s set to begin shooting his Mother’s Day remake next week. Bug him on Facebook here. And if you do get through to him, would you please ask him where I should send his copy of The New Horror Handbook?

Addendum: After an amazing, viral PR push, Paranormal Activity is now opening across the country on 10/16/09. Click here to find a theater near you.

When I first heard about Repo! The Genetic Opera, it was premiering at the Fantasia Film Festival in Montreal. It seemed to be everything I hated: pointless gore, forced cult appeal and a Hot Topic aesthetic all wrapped up in a rock opera I figured I’d dislike as much as its predecessor, Rocky Horror. So when I caught myself tapping along to one of the pre-released tracks (“Zydrate Anatomy”), I was already surprised. And downright shocked when I watched the movie and actually enjoyed it.

The film tells the story of a dystopian future in which organ failure has crippled the globe and the market for replacement organs is monopolized by GeneCo, a company as necessary as it is corrupt. But what happens when a patient can’t pay the debt they owe? The Repo Man comes calling. The story itself is the tale of this Repo Man, who is by night a cruel killer but by day a single father trying to protect his ailing daughter from the darkness of the world. Throw in a drug-dealing graverobber, a vapid junkie socialite played by Paris Hilton, a blind opera singer and a cast of other strange characters and you get something truly unique–even if that uniqueness isn’t come by naturally.

Perhaps appropriately for a film that demands to be a cult classic, the studios weren’t big on it and it never got a proper release, languishing at little festivals until it hit DVD a few months ago. But now there’s a new movie coming out and it seems just a bit…strange. Here’s the word from The Examiner…

I am a fan of the rock/horror opera film, Repo! The Genetic Opera. I liked the originality and despite some tacky song numbers it was a very entertaining movie. Lately I’ve been reading teasers and rumors about a Universal Studios picture in the works with a similar title and a near mirror of the storyline. Repo! Wasn’t a mainstream movie and it didn’t make as big as impact as it should have, but it has its followers and had enough success for the sequel rumors to begin circulating. However, I want to make it very clear right now that this Repo Men! film is not, I repeat, not the sequel to the Genetic Opera. To be perfectly honest I can’t figure out this Repo Men! movie, I just don’t see the point in making a film so similar.

Repo Men! Centers on Remy, played by Jude Law, a repo man made up of artificial organs, who receives a heart transplant. When he struggles to make the payments, he must go on the run from his former partner, played by Forest Whitaker. Beth, played by Alice Braga, married but lost touch with Remy while he was serving in the Army. Ten years later, Beth, down on her luck and retrofitted with artificial organs, is reunited with Remy as they seek to run. For Genetic Opera fans this will sound very familiar.

I’m not against this film; I just don’t understand why a studio like Universal would go through the process of making a film that is so very similar to another. I realize that some of you are wondering why I would question the integrity of the film, but the sequel fad is roaring strong and I’m afraid that this may turn out to be another slip in the wrong direction. I certainly hope that this doesn’t mean that other studios will begin ripping off plotlines from less successful films. I’ll keep watching for updates and we’ll just have to wait and see where this film ends up.

* * *

Now, some might call this a misunderstanding, a case of accidental similarity. But a look at this interview with the writer, director and actress Alexa Vega tells a different story.

Fantômas se déchaîne (André Hunebelle)

Fantômas contre Scotland Yard (André Hunebelle)

Ma dernière balle sera pour toi (Aldo Florio)

Magnum Force (Ted Post)

La Maison des spectres (Kevin Connor)

The Beatles Anthology (Bob Smeaton & Geoff Wonfor)

Rob Roy (Michael Caton-Jones)

Star Wars, épisode 2 : L’Attaque des clones (George Lucas)

Saw III (Darren Lynn Bousman)

Ong-Bak 2, la naissance du dragon (Tony Jaa & Panna Rittikrai)

Deborah Ann Woll

Borys Kit – HollywoodReporter.com

Deborah Ann Woll has flowers ready for “Mother’s Day,” the remake of Charles Kaufman’s 1980 Troma cult classic being directed by Darren Lynn Bousman.

The original “Mother’s Day” revolved around three female friends who, while camping, run afoul of two brothers who engage in murder and rape to impress their deranged mother.

The remake sees the villainous family, slightly expanded to include a daughter (Woll), return to the house where they grew up and terrorize the new owners and their guests.

Twisted Pictures, the Genre Co., Rat Entertainment and LightTower Entertainment are behind the remake.

The makers are eyeing a spring release timed for Mother’s Day with a shoot to begin in the fall in Manitoba.

Woll, repped by Stone Manners and Marshak/Zachary Co., is best known for playing teen vampire Jessica Hamby on HBO’s “True Blood.” She next shoots the indie drama “Highland Park.”

In a bleak future, organs are given out through loan programs. If your payment isn’t made it’s up to the Repo man to get the organs back and that’s never pleasent.

Directed by – Darren Lynn Bousman

Written by – Darren Smith, Terrance Zdunich

Starring – Alexa Vega, Paul Sorvino, Anthony Head, Sarah Brightman, Paris Hilton, Bill Moseley, Nivek Ogre, Terrance Zdunich, Sarah Power, Jessica Horn, Branko Lebar, Brianna Buckmaster, Anna Kostan, Brad Austin, Marty Adams

I was alone in my love for this movie amongst my friends. Nobody else seemed to enjoy it but it was pure cheesy joy for me. Obviously it gets the Rocky Horror Picture Show comparison but Repo isn’t anywhere near that level of greatness.

Honestly, the songs are bad in this. The singing is done well enough with Sarah Brightman being the one truly great voice, but the lyrics are just terrible. There’s no fun there like Rocky Horror but there is plenty of blood. There’s just something about the flick as a whole that had me entertained. It really is pure cheese but it somehow worked for me. I see it’s gotten plenty of fans and attention so I must not be too alone in my fondness for this flick, my friends will still roll their eyes at me anytime I mention it though.

Blind Mag is the highlight of the movie.

The movie did start to drag in the middle but I really started enjoying it as the film began to wrap up. Sarah Brightman as Blind Mag was beautiful to see and hear and the final scenes were amazing. I also had some great pleasure in Paris Hilton’s fate in the film. Man I hate her and she was perfectly typecast in this one! HAHA!

It’s no Rocky Horror, but I can see the midnight screenings of this one happening for years with everyone showing up in full gear. Hell, I’d never even heard of the movie and there were people there that night dressed up. Let the cult following begin!

Under the marquee – Will

Len Wiseman

Jay A. Fernandez and Borys Kit – The Hollywood Reporter

Len Wiseman has signed to develop and direct a film adaptation of the graphic novel “Shrapnel” for Radical Pictures.
Wiseman said was browsing comic-book stores with his 10-year-old daughter, Lily, when he happened upon the comic the day it hit shelves. He quickly had his agent at ICM scout the rights.
The graphic novel, which Radical Publishing teased at last year’s Comic-Con, describes a sci-fi future where humans have colonized the solar system and formed a Solar Alliance to govern the planets. The story focuses on Venus, the last rebellious holdout, and a self-exiled former Marine who teaches the colonists how to fight back.
“I am really drawn to the reluctant-hero story,” said Wiseman, who noted that the last hero he directed — John McClane in “Live Free or Die Hard” — fit that archetypal mold.
Nick Sagan and Zombie Studios chief Mark Long created the property. Radical principal Barry Levine will produce with Wiseman and Mark Gordon.
Josh McLaughlin of the Gordon Co. brought the project in and will oversee “Shrapnel” for the company. Long and Radical’s Jesse Berger will exec produce.
Being developed as a live-action pic, a 3D approach is considered possible. A video game is planned with Zombie Studios.
ICM-repped Wiseman is attached to direct “Motorcade” at DreamWorks from a Billy Ray screenplay and also will helm DreamWorks’ adaptation of the comic book “Atlantis Rising,” penned by Joby Harold, for a summer 2011 release.
Wiseman also plans to direct the video game adaptation “Gears of War” for Legendary Pictures and Warner Bros. and is producing the original sci-fi action thriller “Nonstop” for DreamWorks.
Radical has several of its comic properties in development, including “Abattoir,” to be written and directed by Darren Lynn Bousman; “Freedom Formula,” which Bryan Singer is producing for New Regency; and “Hercules: The Thracian Wars,” which Peter Berg is producing for Spyglass/Universal.