"One night in Bangkok and the tough guys tumble..."
-Murray Head

Don't ask me what happened to the real Nicolas Cage, because I don't know where he is.

I don't know what happened to the man who left Las Vegas, or the man who made Donald Kaufman into such an endearing figment of imagination, or the man who stole diapers as he stole hearts. All I've seen of late is a face, a name, a profile, a character, the artist formerly known as Nic Cage, an entity on auto-pilot and damn near self-parody that knows what he looks like and sounds like and makes do with that alone.

In Bangkok Dangerous, a remake by the Pang Brothers of their own 1999 thriller, Cage-Or-Something-Like-Him plays an assassin, perhaps the most laconic one this side of Forest Whitaker in '99's Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai, and he is so reliably aloof throughout, so divorced from the proceedings that it almost becomes its own form of entertainment... which is certainly helpful once genuine entertainment refuses to show up to any other degree.

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

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

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

In advance of its release last week, Disaster Movie was slammed for the insensitivy of its release date -- on the third anniversary of one of the worst natural disasters in history. (Hurricane Gustav narrowly avoided adding injury to insult.) Probably for a variety of reasons, audiences stayed away in droves, as Eugene noted. Now Bangkok Dangerous, the only wide release scheduled for this week, finds itself overtaken by current events. What else do the two apparent stinkers have in common? Lionsgate, their US distributor.

Lionsgate must pride itself on its highly-targeted slate being critic-proof, since it maximizes profits by skipping most advance screenings for critics and relying entirely on a blitkreig of advertising to fill theaters on opening weekend before word of mouth can spread. In fact, they informed publications some time ago that no advance press screenings for Bangkok Dangerous would be held. As Josh Tyler of Cinema Blend commented when reporting on the notice: "Not screened for the press almost always means the movie is so bad even the people who made it know the film is awful."

Cinematical will post a review later this week, after it opens. But advance word -- and current events -- make the movie sound like another disaster for Lionsgate.

You may recall that on the very weekend of its theatrical release, The Dark Knight rocketed to the top of the Internet Movie Database's user-voted Top 250 movies, with an average rating of 9.5 out of 10 after more than 47,000 votes. Observers marveled at how quickly this happened, noting that the previous #1 film, The Godfather, had held its spot for a decade.

Now an event nearly as miraculous has occurred: After only a day and a half in theaters, Disaster Movie (reviewed for Cinematical by Sir William of Goss) has already climbed to the top of IMDb's Bottom 100 list, with an average score of 1.3 out of 10. It has received more than 4,000 votes so far, 3,500 of those (including my own) being 1's, which is as low as the scale goes. About 280 people have given it a perfect 10, too, but those must be studio shills and pranksters. You get some of those in every crowd.

IMDb's Bottom 100 changes more often than the Top 250 does. Paris Hilton's The Hottie and the Nottie was #1 for a while earlier this year, and Bratz, Who's Your Caddy?, and something called Ben & Arthur (now the #2 film) have all been champions at various times. While the Top 250 only counts scores from "regular voters" (still not sure what that means) and requires that at least 1,300 votes be cast, the Bottom 100 takes all scores from everyone, and there's no minimum vote requirement. Many of the titles on the Bottom 100 are obscure, foreign, and/or straight-to-video features. I guess ranking terrible movies isn't quite as scientific or important as ranking great ones.

"What fresh hell is this?"
-Dorothy Parker, reportedly as she cast her first glance upon a poster for Disaster Movie

Let's get this out of the way: Disaster Movie is indeed a disaster first, and a movie barely, pure pop culture pablum for da masses (say it aloud, there you go) as can only be expected from the likes of Aaron Seltzer and Jason Friedberg. It's another opus that, despite opening titles done in the style of Armageddon's and a feeble thru-line borrowed from Cloverfield (mixed with some of The Day After Tomorrow), is as much a send-up of disaster-related films as Epic Movie was a spoof of actual epic movies.

It takes two minutes for the first crotch shot, four minutes for the first belch gag, thirty for someone to get breast milk on their face, forty-five for someone to get feces on their face, and about sixty for a record scratch to tell us that something peculiar just happened. In between, the characters relentlessly name-check movies and celebrities and websites and any other manner of the vaguely familiar, the bulk of which I've taken to listing below (because if you're still going to see this willingly, I still doubt that you care much for reading at all).

(As for the rest of you: You're welcome.)

Usually when an original creator walks away from a sequel, it is a good sign that maybe a sequel isn't the best idea to begin with. Well, that's exactly what happened with the follow-up to Neil Marshall's 2005 horror-hit, The Descent. But it is not all bad news because Shock Till You Drop got the chance for a set-visit, and by the sounds of things it's looking pretty good for our group of traumatized spelunkers. (You can read the about the full visit over at Shock.)

The sequel picks up where the first film left off (that is if you are following the events of the North American release of the original film). The story follows the return of a mute and unbalanced Sarah as she heads back down to the caves with a rescue party to locate the rest of her group. Of course, this being the ricketiest cave on earth, the group is soon trapped and left to deal with the nasties down below.

During the visit, Shock spoke with writer James Watkins (My Little Eye) as well as the production designer Simon Bowles. Watkins told Shock that they went to Marshall to "get his feedback and discuss which direction he wanted the story to go, what he thought was good, how we should develop the characters" -- not to mention there was the promise of plenty of more gore this time around, and in the end isn't that what we're paying for? Scott told us back in 2007 that Marshall hadn't completely washed his hands of the whole thing, and would still produce the flick. Well, I guess he's a little more hands-on than expected -- which is probably a very good thing, don't you think?

The Descent 2 will arrive in theaters in 2009.

I'm glad to have seen The Midnight Meat Train in a theater earlier this month, even if it was a run-down dollar theater. But Lionsgate certainly made it difficult for horror fans, booking the film into only about 100 locations and carefully avoiding theaters anywhere near the city centers of New York, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Portland, etc.

When the limited release strategy became known, Clive Barker, who wrote the story upon which Ryuhei Kitamura's film is based, expressed his support for a fan-made viral campaign to get a wider release. Now that the limited release has come and gone, he told MTV News of his displeasure toward "small-minded" Lionsgate president Joe Drake. Barker believes that Drake shortchanged MMT to avoid competition with The Strangers, on which Drake had a producing credit. "You don't have to sh-- on somebody else's work to advance your own material," Barker said.

Barker feels that Kitamura made "a beautifully stylish, scary movie." He's convinced that "people will find it, and whether they find it in midnight shows or they find it on DVD, they'll find it, and in the end the Joe Drakes of the world will disappear."

In his review from Comic-Con, Scott Weinberg opined that The Midnight Meat Train would be a tough sell on 1,200 screens because it's such a dark, "horror fans only" experience. On the other hand, the apparently inferior Mirrors (as per William Goss' review) opened on 2,664 screens and made $11 million in its opening weekend. But Lionsgate took that decision out of (most of) our hands. The DVD should be out Real Soon Now.

"Rules Remain The Same, Except Some Changes."

I recall first seeing that tagline attached to a billboard touting The Transporter 3 at Cannes last May (whether or not I actually saw the picture at JoBlo.com then, all that matters is they still have it now) and dismissed it as a clumsy phrase with something perhaps lost in the translation from the European investors into big, fat, shiny English.

And yet IGN has the first domestic teaser up for the film, and that tagline appears nearly verbatim. I probably shouldn't care, and you probably don't, but it's just a further indication that even the filmmakers -- well, their marketing team -- have barely half a heart in this puppy.

As was the case with HBO's Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, Lionsgate has very discreetly opened Bill Maher's Religulous in two theaters -- one in New York, the other in Los Angeles -- in an qualifying run for next year's Academy Awards.

As pointed out by Jeff Wells over at Hollywood Elsewhere, the Academy's Rule 12 states that any documentary hoping to qualify must open in both Los Angeles Country and the borough of Manhattan for at least one week prior to the end of August. Having already premiered at the Traverse City Film Festival, the doc will then formally show at the Toronto International Film Festival next month, before opening proper on October 3rd.

However, I'm not sure that I entirely understand agree with the logic that any damage would be done should any enterprising critic (like this guy) head out to one of these wholly public showings and subsequently write up a review. Sure, I'm speaking as a guy who lives in the O.C. of Fla., but seriously: What harm? What foul?

The silliness continues! Vic Holtreman at ScreenRant has passed along a post (sent to them by a poster who's been a steady presence in the comment field on every Punisher: War Zone story -- hi, Nomad) that cinematographer Steve Gainer made on The Raw Board. Gainer is pretty fed up with all the rumors circulating, and insists that Lexi Alexander is not off the film, she's very much involved in the editing process, the film will not be PG-13, and that she did get married. Gainer writes, "When I hear vicious unfounded troll rumors like the "film was unwatchable" or "a total mess" it makes my blood boil. I want to punish the corrupt. People sit on their fat asses trolling the internet, people that have never even looked through a motion picture camera, and make judgements [sic] on a work of art that they've never seen, it's like saying a baby will be ugly before it is born, I can't freaking wait for this film to come out and prove the nay-sayers wrong."

While it's nice to have a rebuttal from someone legitimately associated with the film, none of it makes any sense -- except that someone seems to be fueling, and believing, the "any publicity is good publicity" angle. I still don't understand why, if everything is hunky dory behind the scenes, Alexander scrubbed all mention of the film from her blog, and has been cryptic ever since. Why haven't we had an official statement from her or anyone at Lionsgate? It seems to me that claims that you dumped your director warrant a "No, that's absolutely unfounded!"

I'm still rooting for the film, but I won't be helping to fuel the rumor machine any longer. I won't write another word on Punisher until it comes directly from Lionsgate or Alexander.

[via Ain't It Cool News]