• Whether you watch Entourage or not, you've probably heard that the show's premise is loosely based on Mark Wahlberg's own experiences as he stepped into the movie business. Now he's finally getting into the action. Mixed in with his upcoming work with The Fighter and The Brazilian Job, Ace Showbiz reports that Wahlberg has filmed a scene with Jeremy Piven for the show where they go at it. There's no word on who Wahlberg will play.
  
• Louise Linton, who played a Skin Care Consultant in Lions for Lambs, and Katie in The Echo, is now going sporty. Variety reports that the actress has signed on for a role in the indie comedy The Wiffler: The Ted Whitfield Story. She'll play a woman called Shannon Storm in the film, which focuses on the MLB strike in 1994, that let the nation turn its eyes to wiffle ball.
• Finally, Alex Pettyfer, who you might remember as Alex Rider in Stormbreaker, is getting ready to be Tormented. Variety reports that the actor will topline the horror film, which centers on "a bullied teen who comes back from the dead to take his revenge." And people think they just have to fear karma... He'll be joined by the likes of April Pearson, Larissa Wilson, Mary Nighy, and Dimitri Leonidas.

Ah yes, Sleepaway Camp. That ending still packs one wacky punch, doesn't it? Yeah. So here's a quick history lesson:

1983 -- Robert Hiltzik unleashes Sleepaway Camp unto the world. Ten of thousands of creeped-out teenagers can't stop talking about the ending.

1988 & 1989 -- One Michael A. Simpson delivered a pair of back-to-back video sequels: Sleepaway Camp 2: Unhappy Campers and Sleepaway Camp 3: Teenage Wasteland. Both are notable for their vicious violence, their goofy gore, and their lead actress, who happens to be Bruce Springsteen's little sister. I forget which movie had the "outhouse leeches" murder, but good lord was that scene disgusting.

2002 -- Anchor Bay releases the trilogy in a box set that ends up censored by the Red Cross. Included in the set is footage from an unfinished sequel called Sleepaway Camp 4: The Survivor.

Which bring us up to speed. We've been been hearing word for quite some time now that Hiltzik was working on a Part 4, and now we not only have a release date, but (courtesy of Shock) we also have a DVD cover (and a trailer) to look at. Vincent Pastore and Isaac Hayes star in the inevitably sticky slasher sequel, and the DVD will hit the shelves (on October 14) by way of Magnolia's new Magnet genre division. And you just gotta love that tag-line: "Kids can be so mean!"

Well, since it seems that the very few out there who still respect what I have to say about movies, and horror movies in particular, either didn't read or didn't mind my mild admission that I only like Stanley Kubrick's The Shining, I feel a little bolder about bringing another piece of quasi-blasphemy to light: at this time last year, I hadn't seen Dario Argento's treasured Suspiria, and when I eventually did, I was distinctly underwhelmed. Perhaps it was too dated, perhaps I was too jaded, but I was relegated to sitting back and just plain 'respecting' another classic of the genre.

That makes me no more oblivious to the fact that it's sacred enough that a remake announcement is cause for cringing. Making matters a little less cringe-inducing, though (in my opinion), is Bloody Disgusting's confirmation that Natalie Portman is to star in the 2010 incarnation. She's smart, she's sexy... in short, this Oscar nominee could wander curiously around the halls of my eerie ballet academy any day.

However, I still find the reports that David Gordon Green is attached to direct a little hard to swallow; I'm still coping with the fact that he directed the very funny and relatively mainstream Pineapple Express. Maybe a why-not stance would be most fitting at the moment.

Suspiria remake? Portman starring? What do you think?

Warning: Some spoilers ahead. Though if you've either read the book or seen the movie, you're cool.

Order matters. It's not true what they say: that as between a book and a movie, you inevitably prefer whichever one you read or watch first. But the order you take them in nonetheless profoundly affects the experience. You can try to be objective – claim that each work has to stand or fall on its own merits, other incarnations be damned – but it won't work. You've been tainted.

I liked The Ruins – the movie. It was tight, brutal, ruthlessly effective; along with The Strangers, one of the year's few R-rated breaths of fresh air. Though it hewed pretty closely to genre conventions, it also recombined them to come up with its own interesting take on survival horror. I appreciated the movie's simplicity (the vines are a pure, almost elemental villain); its gruesomeness that never turned into sadism or needless cruelty; its grim, harsh relentlessness. It was a gripping roller coaster of a movie; a fun ride I enjoyed, praised, and pretty much put out of my mind.

Now that I've read the book, I ask myself: Would I still have liked the movie had I gone to the book first? The answer, I think, is no. It's not that I now think I was wrong about the film; to the contrary. But Scott Smith's novel is so extraordinary a genre achievement that the movie – adapted by Smith himself – can, in retrospect, feel only like a hapless abridgement, a wispy simulacrum of the novel's all-encompassing sense of doom and spiraling psychological terror. Taking the two in reverse order would have made the film feel cheap, impotent, lame; The Ruins for Dummies.

I've always been a sucker for killer croc movies. But, as Scott Weinberg so eloquently wrote in the recent past: "There's maybe one true 'classic' of the sub-genre (that'd be Lewis Teague's and John Sayles' Alligator, of course), and the rest of 'em are pretty much floating crap." Scott was ranting about the limited theatrical release by The Weinstein Co. (actually, their "dumping ground" subsidiary Third Rail Releasing) for Greg McLean's Rogue, which was limited to ten US cities.

So Scott (and most of you reading this) probably didn't get to see Rogue in a theater, but I did -- even if I had to drive 45 minutes to the only multiplex playing the dang thing. Me and the five (!) other people at that Friday night screening enjoyed a good old-fashioned suspense tale that played very well on the big screen. In a review I wrote for another site, I described it as "a taut and thrilling ride ... brimming with well-earned tension." Radha Mitchell stars as a tour boat captain on a river in the remote Northern Territory of Australia. She and a group of tourists end up being stalked by a killer croc "with an exaggerated sense of territorial possessiveness."

Rogue is out today in an unrated version on DVD. Dread Central got an advance peek and agrees with me that it's a good flick. The DVD includes an audio commentary by McLean, a 46-minute "making of" directed by McLean, and a gallery of mini-docs on the effects, the music, and the setting. Let's declare today "Killer Croc Day"!

What is the appropriate reaction to have when a movie you love, adore, and cherish is somehow ... improved? I know, it's a strange feeling. I happen to think my all-time favorite film (A L I E N) is much better in its theatrical version than in its extended -- but where Aliens is concerned, I much prefer the longer version! It's something you have to approach on a case-by-case basis, of course, and it's the sort of movie-nerd activity that should be attempted only by those with a lot of free time -- or someone who gets paid to write about this sort of stuff. (Fortunately I am both.)

So it was with MUCH enthusiasm that I sat down with the brand-new Director's Cut of Dark City, a film that I absolutely love a whole lot -- and I know I'm not nearly alone when I say that. Like many of the finest sci-fi films, Dark City was pretty much overlooked for a good long while -- put once it hit DVD and heavy rotation on the cable channels, the sci-fi freaks found a film worth watching and re-watching, to say nothing of analyzing, deconstructing, and debating. And so I happily continue that trend by explaining what the fans will find in New Line's very impressive new Dark City package...

When was the last time you saw a first-run movie on opening night and paid just $1.75? Hardcore horror flick The Midnight Meat Train has been relegated to second-run theaters in its limited, 100-screen release this weekend, as William Goss nicely detailed for us. (Thanks to commenter Christopher for pointing out that Dread Central compiled a very handy list of theaters.) Let me testify: watching the movie at a theater with cheap seats did not enhance the experience.

Here's why: The Midnight Meat Train is a very good flick -- I agree completely with our own horror hound Scott Weinberg that "it's one of the most effective horror films of the year" -- and horror fans who sought it out deserved to see it in the best possible environment. I was fortunate in that one of the six theaters playing it in the Dallas / Ft. Worth Metroplex is only about 10 miles away, though I had a devil of a time finding it. Unfortunately, the theater has seen better days, the seating layout is not optimal, and the audio equipment is lacking.

It felt surreal to watch the far inferior The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor at a Cinemark complex with great sound and a huge screen and then travel 10 miles to see The Midnight Meat Train at another Cinemark complex with sound that lacked any oomph and a much smaller screen. Nonetheless, the 9:25 p.m. show drew a mixed crowd of 60-70 people, despite zero advertising in the local newspapers, and folks seemed satisfied with what they saw.

If, like me, you were awake in the wee hours of the morning, sifting through movie news, you might have spotted the above video, courtesy of JoBlo/Arrow in the Head. Pre-update, it was said to be a teaser for The Host 2 -- and a particularly awesome teaser at that. Unfortunately, the site has since updated the news piece, and the clip isn't actually a teaser, but rather a French advertisement for an electric company.

It's a bummer that this isn't actually the teaser, because it really zapped right into my huge fangirl love of the film, which had a great balance of comedic, total weirdness, chills, and surprises, all set on a giant killer tadpole. The ad seemed like the perfect way to introduce #2 -- the big creature seemed to have taken a long journey out of city limits, heading for the nice, peaceful countryside.

According to Arrow, the second installment will be a prequel about "a calamity caused when people ignore a monster due to their desire for money." So we'll probably not have a teaser with ominous rippling water moving through a myriad of settings, but one can hope for something equally cool.

At last, there's a delightful cast addition to The Picture of Dorian Gray. In all the excitement of summer, this film undoubtedly dropped off your radar. But back in May, Ben Barnes (otherwise known as Prince Caspian) was cast as the eternally beautiful lead. (I know some of you haven't forgotten, I get comments praising Barnes about once a week. He's got quite a following!)

Now, the god of lushly wet shirts (otherwise known as Colin Firth ) has joined the cast. According to The Hollywood Reporter, he'll be playing the witty Lord Henry Wotton, the aristocrat who corrupts young Gray with his hedonistic pursuits and outlook. And yes, there's a good dash of homoeroticism inherent in their relationship as well. It has the potential to be deliciously dark and twisted onscreen.

Firth is, obviously, no stranger to costume pieces or Oscar Wilde. He co-starred in the delightful The Importance of Being Earnest, which was also directed by Wilde aficionado Oliver Parker. As they're selling this as a "visceral, dark horror story," I'm really excited to see Firth in it. He seems to be the go-to guy for American romantic comedies lately, and it will be fun to see him be villainous again. Filming begins this week, and I bet there will be photos of both men in cravats and poet shirts in London's Metro paper by the end of August.

In a development noted on several horror sites, not the least of which are Shock and BD.com, it appears that Lionsgate is indeed opening the oft-shuffled adaptation of Clive Barker's The Midnight Meat Train on roughly 100 screens this Friday. However, all currently-posted showtimes are at second-run theaters -- otherwise known as dollar theaters, although it never seems to be that cheap anymore, not even on Tuesdays.

In my neck of the woods, one theater has it booked for two evening shows a day, for an engagement that I'm willing to bet will last only one week. The last time I remember a first-run film being shown at this theater, it was the Weinsteins' Feast, although that usually neglectful studio did so as part of a clear strategy to boost general awareness of that movie before its DVD release a month later (and wouldn't you know it, that wasn't a bad flick at all).

Despite all the fuss between Barker and the studio and the frequent release date changes, Scott saw it at Comic-Con and really dug it, and he doesn't seem to be alone among the genre gurus, which leads one to wonder just why Lionsgate would go to such curious lengths to so poorly fulfill a contractual obligation when it seems that fans might, y'know, actually turn out and pay full price to get the grisly goods. (On the flip side, at least it'll hit more cities than Pathology or Rogue did when they were similarly dumped.)

What do you guys think? Are you still interested in catching the film, and if so, do you find yourself inconvenienced by this odd distribution tactic?

When the brilliant French horror flick Inside went straight to DVD, I thought "Well, yeah. It's hardcore horror and it's in French. It probably scared the arthouses and it would never play multiplexes. Bring on the DVD already." When I heard that the very awesome [REC] was going directly to home video, I thought "Yeah, Sony did an English-language remake, so no big shock there." But when I heard that Gregg Bishop's Dance of the Dead was not only going straight to video -- but it was also being released alongside seven other horror titles on the same damn day -- I got just a little bit irritated.

I mean no disrespect to the fine folks at Lionsgate, because they spend a lot more money on horror movies than I do (and I spend a lot), but Dance of the Dead is a whole lot better than just another "DVD drop" flick -- and it sure as hell doesn't deserve to be released buried next to seven other titles. The flick's all but guaranteed to earn a cult following in only a few years time (trust me, it will) -- so why shouldn't Lionsgate get the ball rolling now and give it some sort of miniature theatrical push? You market this movie to the teenagers well enough, and I'd bet it turns a tidy profit. You can thank me later.

One would think that Guillermo del Toro would be crazy busy with moving to New Zealand and gearing up for The Hobbit, but he has enough time to also be afraid of the dark. Yahoo/Reuters reports the director is teaming up with Miramax to produce a remake of the 1973 television movie Don't Be Afraid of the Dark -- which tells the story of a young girl who goes to live with her dad and his new girlfriend, and finds creepy creatures under the stairs (and table). You can check out a clip above -- there's something darned creepy about a napkin getting pulled off your lap, into the dark, under-table depths.

Troy Nixey, a comic book artist and writer, will get his feature directorial debut with the film, which del Toro is currently adapting with Matthew Robbins (who worked with him on Mimic). New monsters will be created for the film, which should be pretty wild with del Toro's involvement, but development on that aspect hasn't begun yet.

You know how all the horror geeks get extra-nervous when someone starts talking about a remake of John Carpenter's The Thing -- despite the fact that (as awesome as it is, and boy is it awesome) it itself is a remake! Doesn't that create some sort of retroactive mega-paradox: That if a REMAKE is that damn good, doesn't it stand as final proof that remakes ARE good?? In theory, anyway. I'm not talking about freakin' Prom Night here.

Anyway, it looks like some loyal monster fans took the job into their own hands, and have thus created their own rendition of The Thing ... using only G.I. Joe action figures. It's really nifty, and the music is pretty cool too.



[ Thanks to CHUD.com for the heads-up. ]

According to a report conducted by Nielsen PreView published today in The Hollywood Reporter, R-rated comedies don't do so hot at the box office. The timing of these findings seems odd, considering that Step Brothers made a solid $30 million last weekend, while analysts are predicting that another summer comedy slapped with the restricted label, Tropic Thunder, will collect at least that much. Right in the middle of those two releases comes Pineapple Express, which, like Step Brothers and Tropic Thunder, has a built-in core audience interested in raunchy masculine humor. The findings of this report suggest that larger audiences don't want to attend R-rated movies, but it's sort of a pointless observation because R-rated comedies are only made for people who want to see them. Everyone else can check out You Don't Mess with the Zohan.

Of course, there is the occasional R-rated comedy with cross-over appeal, such as Knocked Up, but studios are probably hesitant to make many of those when a safely PG-13 Juno will suffice. Anyway, it's usually not difficult for Hollywood movies to trim a few vulgarities or the fleeting shot of exposed skin in order to knock down the rating a notch and maximize turnout. Horror films are a different story: They usually make bank with the R-rating intact.

Speaking to the 18 and over audience here: Do ratings play any role in the movies you choose to see?

Monster movie fans may remember Ryan Schifrin from that Abominable flick he made a few years back. (That's not me knocking the film. It's really called Abominable. And it's pretty good, actually.) But while the wheels continue to turn (fairly slowly) on a sequel to that movie, Schifrin has been busy (with collaborator Larry Hama) on a comic book series called Spooks.

Perhaps aptly described as "Hellboy vs. The Monster Squad meets G.I. Joe," Spooks deals with an elite squad of government soldiers who are called in to battle against the underworld's darkest foes. (And by underworld, I don't mean mafia. I mean hell.) The squad's toughness is put to the test when a super-nasty vampire teams up with a mega-powerful witch -- and they promptly unleash monumental mayhem on Washington D.C.

Producer Barry Josephson has taken a liking to the property, and it looks like he's about to head out and talk to a few screenwriters. Sounds like the Spooks flick might be a little ways off, so feel free to spend some of that free time perusing the source material. And check out Shock for a few more of the early details.