Total Film Features

9 Surprising Movie Barbies

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 09:42:52 GMT

Best & Worst: Movie Star Websites

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 09:42:31 GMT

These days, all the chatter online seems to be about social networking - your Twitters, your Facebooks and such.

But cinema stars are still maintaining websites hoping to entice fans to follow their work/buy crap with their name or face on it and pimp their latest musings.

We decided to trawl the depths of the magical intarwebs to take a look at some of the cream of the crop - and some that are just rotten.

Inspired by Jim Carrey's amazing contribution to online actor presences, here's our take…

Overall Design

Jim Carrey

Why It Rocks: It's Terry Gilliam meets the twisted portions of Carrey's career.

Whoever decided to frame the site like this deserves a medal. It's a hefty beast and you might have to wait for it to respond occasionally, but you're always rewarded for your patience.

Our particular favourite page is "Origins", which offers a blast into his past featuring pics of young Jim and a warped Canadian page.

Billy Bob Thornton

Why It Sucks: Anyone who's ever done a media studies or information science course in the last few years has probably had to build a website.

When you're learning HTML, this is probably what it looks like. Perhaps BBT's trying to make a joke out of the fact that he's not really a computer guy. But it just comes off as amateurish, not hilarious.

It's listed as originally created in 1998 - we doubt the design has changed since then.

Next: Home Page

[PAGE-BREAK]

Home Page

Jim Carrey

Why It Rocks: Yeah, sometimes it's a little flash-happy, but we just love all the little touches - click on Carrey-as-bird to visit his Twitter ramblings, for example.

And, as a bonus, if you wait long enough, it gets trashed by a giant robot thing and you're hurled to a different looking version of the site. It's worth sticking around for.

Arnold Schwarzenegger

Why It Sucks: Dear Governator… 2001 called and it would like its website back.

He might not be so worried about effects and appearances these days, but does his site have to be quite so… old school?

Maybe he's just trying to save money so he can pump some back into California's struggling economy.

Next: News

[PAGE-BREAK]

News

Jim Carrey

Why It Rocks: Like many star websites, this is pretty straight forward, but as with many other elements of the Carrey site, the ingenious way it's presented (kudos to creators 65 Media) papers over any cracks.

Just click and enjoy as a zeppelin brings the latest info on Carrey's appearances and work etc.

Tom Cruise

Why It Sucks: Largely a collection of press releases with just a sprinkling of fan interaction, you rarely get the feeling Cruise has even seen the feed, let alone actually contributed to it.

He's a busy man, we get it - but it also comes off as self-satisfied and slightly fake. Wait… It's perfect!

Next: Biography

[PAGE-BREAK]

Biography

Jim Carrey

Why It Rocks: Sensing a pattern here? The giant eye is both creepy and genius and while the bio itself is fairly standard, the presentation counts for a lot.

Plus he's made an effort to actually make it a little bit funny and not so po-faced as some.

Benicio Del Toro

Why It Sucks: Not only does it physically look like the CV of someone applying to work at Waitrose, it's also just a standard list of credits.

And, in an extra annoying twist, it's also crammed with overeager praise about the man.

We get it Benicio- you're a good actor. But we don't need it pummeled into our brains, man!

Next: Fan Stuff

[PAGE-BREAK]

Fan Stuff

Jim Carrey

Why It Rocks: You could argue that the whole site is a treat for those who enjoy his work. But we'd point to the link to his YouTube Channel - which gives you a little more interaction with him.

True, he's only just started to tap its potential with one video posted to date, but the seeds are there for an expansion. Stick with it, Jim!

Burt Reynolds

Why It Sucks: "Launching in 2007" about says it all, doesn't it?

We get it - some movie types suddenly have the idea that a site all about them would be an awesome way to connect with fans, but then their interest wanes and maybe they cheat on the site with Twitter. Or just stop updating altogether.

But it's hardly a sign of confidence when the thing has been left fallow for nearly three years…

Next: Gallery

[PAGE-BREAK]

Gallery

Jim Carrey

Why It Rocks: Not content with offering basic pics, Carrey brings all sorts of pictures since someone has been raiding his archive.

We've already talked about his "Origins" pics, but that's only a small sampling. Carrey eschews the usual dull set of promotional shots and stills from movies for a much more personal glance into his life.

Christopher Lambert

Why It Sucks: Nobody needs to see Lambert posing with his shirt off. Okay, maybe some fans might enjoy it, but the site doesn't help anyone trying to find the images, lazily bodging several sections together on one page.

If you like frustrating, outdated web design, welcome to your personal nirvana.

We think he should've had more concern over some of the silly hairstyles on display here, too.

Next: Twitterings

[PAGE-BREAK]

Twitterings

Jim Carrey

Why It Rocks: Carrey's link to his Tweet action is not only a freakish bird with the head of Ace Ventura, he's also a wry user of the 140 word site, blending activity announcements (such as going on talk shows) with funny insights into what's going through his mind.

He's worth following, and at least the link takes you to his actual page, instead of a "recent tweets" digest like many of his contemporaries.

Jamie Kennedy

Why It Sucks: He's supposed to be funny, but it never quite comes off that way.

There's a much higher ratio of pimping to laughs in Kennedy's feed, and the whole sponsored Twitter thing kind of gets on our nerves.

Next: The Talent Speaks!

[PAGE-BREAK]

Direct From The Talent

Jim Carrey

Why It Rocks: Besides the Twitter page and the YouTube bits, you also get the impression that Carrey had a say in just about every element here, including the strange tunnel ride you can take that blends the silly with what seems to be an honest peek into how Carrey views life with just a few words.

Combined with the wackiness of the design, it works well and keeps you entertained as you poke around the strange corners of the place.

M Night Shyamalan

Why It Sucks: We're going to give the man some credit - the site itself is pretty impressive, with an intriguing flash tour around a creepy mansion that leads to all sorts of interactive stuff.

But then it all gets let down when the site's designers allow M Night some space to gush about the people he's worked with and everything descends into an orgy of back-slappery and florid praise.

Thanks, but no thanks.

Like This? Then try...

8 Movie Franchises That Could Have Been Battle Royale: Marvel Movie Superheroes 8 Genius Horror Movie Mash-Ups

Why Paranormal Activity Should Be Remade in Spanish

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 08:55:25 GMT

Low budget super-simple indie horror Paranormal Activity hits UK cinemas on 27 November, having beaten Saw VI to the top of the box office in the US at Halloween.

This is a movie made for buttons, shot on a handheld, set in a bedroom, starring no one famous, and it’s pretty damn scary.

Essentially Blair Witch in a house. It’s great. I really enjoyed it. I did a ‘wah!’ noise at the end. And now I want it re-made. In Spanish.

First off: blah, blah, blah horror remakes are rubbish, whatever, I’m not interested.

Hollywood does it enough times the other way round, there are apparently only seven stories in the world anyway, there’s nothing new under the sun, and just because it’s a remake doesn’t automatically make it bad.

Tell you what, we can call it a‘re-imagining’ if that makes you feel any better?

But just think what the current wave of Spanish-language horror directors could do with this material.

Take the characters, the emotional heart. I challenge you to name a more emotionally satisfying horror in the last five years than The Orphanage.

Imagine depth and impact he’d give to Katie and Micah’s relationship? Yeah, he’d still scare the trousers off you at the finale, but afterwards you’d feel bereaved.

And talking of endings, you don’t get much more ‘holy crap, what the hell is that??!!!’ than the closing shots of Jaume Balagueró and Paco Plaza’s [REC].

Timing won’t be a problem (corpse in the stairwell moment, anyone?) but why not in Actividad Paranormal play with a load of extra freaky shit?

There’s real world simplicity in the way Paranormal US is shot. But tell me you wouldn’t be curious to see the same story shot by Gabe Ibáñez, director of 2009’s Hierro?

Hierro’s not one of my personal favourites but my god it looks stunning, it’s like an art installation

Then there’s the ‘monster’. Blair Witch had the Bell Witch mythology but Para-Us doesn’t really delve into that.

Doesn’t mean Actividad shouldn’t though – calling Mexican director Rigoberto Castañeda! (He speaks Spanish, it counts...).

His emotional and very creepy KM31 hinges on the legend of La Llarona – ‘the crying woman’ – a popular legend in Mexico.

“Every kid knows about it,” according to Castañeda. “People tell you if you don’t behave the crying woman is going to come at night and grab you and take you with her.”

Bingo, you’ve got an instant back story and a whole extra dimension that everyone understands and is already frightened of before you even pick up the camera.

But there’s another advantage to this Spanish remake that transcends the fact that it’s clearly going to be the horror movie of the year. No, wait, the movie of the year; The audience.

The screening of Paranormal Activity that I attended (a press screening) was hampered by a group of utter, utter wankers sat 3 rows back from me.

They kept getting up and walking around. They laughed loudly every time they thought anything vaguely scary might happen.

And one of them insisted on ‘guessing’ what would happen next very loudly all the way through. (‘the door’s going to slam!’, ‘she’s going to....’ Well I won’t say. But you can imagine.)

This lot are never going to go and see a Spanish language movie. Never gonna happen. They don’t go to the movies to ‘read’ (I’m sorry. I’m angry. They ruined it for me).

Subtitles = smaller box office in the UK and US. And for that I’m sad. But if it weeds out the idiots I’m willing to take some small comfort.

And of course foreign = clever and legitimate, obviously, doesn’t it?

Actividad will deserve awards and for some stupid reason it’s seems to be tough for genre films to nail the top accolades.

The last horror movie than won the Best Picture Oscar? That’ll be Silence of the Lambs in 1991.

A movie about race relations, or someone who died, or a historical figure is not intrinsically more worthy than a film that scares you stupid.

If a film does brilliantly what it sets out to do, if it stuns you, moves you, makes you think, feel, makes you react, scream, laugh, cry, then it deserves recognition.

And believe me Actividad will do all of that.

So Juan, Jaume, Paco, Gabe, Rigoberto, what are you up to in 2010? Maybe have a word with Guillermo Del Toro about producing? We’ve got a movie with your name on it and it’s going to be incredible.

Actividad Paranormal for Best Picture 2011!

Fan of Spanish horror? Hate remakes? Love Paranormal Activity? Leave a comment below.

EARLIER BLOGS
Why Christopher Nolan Must Recast Batman.

Why The Road Is Better As A Book

Is Megan Fox The Antichrist?

Guillermo Del Toro On Making The Hobbit

Sat, 07 Nov 2009 00:29:00 GMT

Eighteen months ago, Guillermo del Toro had a 10-year-plan. His life was mapped out, and it had nothing to do with JRR Tolkien’s lovingly rendered cartography of Middle-earth.

“I was calmly laying out the next decade of my life when The Hobbit appeared,” he laughs. “I was preparing all these things and all of a sudden The Hobbit shows up and takes over my life.”

Make no mistake: The Hobbit is his precious. Del Toro knows more than anyone that this diptych could – should – define his career.

And so the director has been busy building a world that not only honours JRR Tolkien’s book and Peter Jackson’s Lord Of The Rings trilogy but will emerge assuredly, triumphantly, his own.

Our very own cuddly character, Jamie Graham, snuggled up to Del Toro at his Wellington base of operations, and talked exclusively about the biggest films of next decade.

The Hobbit has taken much longer to design than your other movies…

It took almost a year. Which for me is very, very long because normally I take about a third of that time to design movies like Hellboy. And if you actually take into account we have three or four times the number of artists… [chuckles].

We produced hundreds, literally hundreds, of drawings; dozens and dozens of maquettes; dozens of material tests. It’s epic. And we are still going to be designing into production…

Next: Scripting the film

How did it work with the writing of the script? Presumably you’ve had as much input as Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens?

Many, many months ago we sat down to discuss the structure with 3in by 5in cards and we laid out the two movies.

We were meeting on a daily basis at 9am and we would go at it for hours, into the afternoon. Then in the afternoon I would go to check on design.

Then at one point we split into two teams: I did one pass at things and they did a pass at things; it’s pretty much the way I’m used to co-writing.

But I must say what was great and what made a big difference was the amount of great ideas that I felt were generated in a day – it was staggering.

We could have written three or four versions of The Hobbit [laughs].

You mentioned the structure. Will the book make up the first movie, with the second movie plucked from the appendices and maybe even your imagination? Or will parts of the book be saved for the second movie?

We are respecting the structure established by Professor Tolkien because the order of the adventures in The Hobbit is well known to generations and generations of kids. You don’t want to be moving stuff like that.

But we will be integrating Gandalf’s comings and goings because he does disappear in the book quite often.

So, as opposed to the book, we see where he goes and what happens to him

Next: Working with Jackson

You and Peter are both visionary filmmakers who will fight for those visions. What happens when you clash?

So far we haven’t come to such a crossroads. We argue and we win at different stages. But I think Peter has been, so far, the perfect producer.

Two filmmakers have produced me in my life, both named Peter. One was Pedro Almodóvar and one is Peter Jackson.

Both times my experience has been that they are perfect producers because they understand the producer is not a producer/director.

A producer is a producer. If there’s an emergency, if everything goes wrong, then the producer can – and should – have a strong opinion.

But while everything is going well, on time, on budget and is creatively solid, there’s no need for that.

Presumably working with Peter is not that much different to working with Mike Mignola on the Hellboy movies?

You nailed it. I’d say Mike is as opinionated as if he was another director because essentially he directs on the page. And Mignola, like Pedro and Peter, knows the process – they all know that at some point you’re going to be alone with the beast [laughs].

You’re going to be the guy and you can only trust your own instincts.

You’re not going to be making a phone call from a remote location to ask a question; you’re going to have to make a decision yourself.

Next: From LA to Wellington

So how arduous has it been commuting between LA and Wellington? You’re now in New Zealand full-time, yes?

Yes. I go to LA very seldom now. It is, however, an incredibly easy commute for me. I’m used to it. I’m used to London-LA and in the same way I’m used to Wellington-LA. I blob out on the plane [laughs] and I have 13 hours all to myself, so it’s a privilege.

I write, or prepare emails, or read, so it’s a really great working day.

And the great advantage between LA and Wellington is that you are essentially in your time zone. You lose a day but you go to sleep in your night in LA and you wake up the next morning in Wellington.

Do you find time to sneak in the odd movie on the plane?

I do! But I try to watch television mostly because it doesn’t need you to have a big screen!

Next: Creature Design

You love creating your creatures and obviously The Hobbit offers some great opportunities. There’s the dragon Smaug, the spiders of Mirkwood, the Wargs, Beorn the bear-man…

The way I phrased it to Weta, I said we would keep the DNA in the same gene pool as the Rings trilogy, but that we would generate a different type of character. For example, in the trilogy most of the creatures are brutish or inarticulate.

In The Hobbit, the creatures speak: Smaug has beautiful lines of dialogue; the Great Goblin has beautiful lines of dialogue; many creatures do. So we had to design them with a different approach because you are not just designing things that are scary.

I also wanted some of the monsters in The Hobbit to be majestic.

I wanted the Wargs to have a certain beauty so that you don't have a massively clear definition: what is beautiful is good and what is ugly is not. Some of the monsters are absolutely gorgeous.

Smaug won’t be like the dragons in Reign Of Fire, say. Was it a big challenge to communicate his character?

I think one of the designs I’m the proudest of is Smaug. Obviously he took the longest.

It’s actually still active: we’re finishing his colour palette and a little bit of the texture. But the bulk of the design took about a year, solid. It’s because of the unique features of the dragon.

Early in production I came up with a very strong idea that would separate Smaug from every other dragon ever made. The problem was implementing that idea. But I think we’ve nailed it.

Next: Spiders

What was the idea?

I cannot tell you what it was because it would be a massive spoiler! But I’m 100 per cent happy with Smaug. If there is such as thing as 110 per cent, then I’m there!

What about the spiders? How faithful are they to Shelob from Return Of The King?

Well, they are the progeny of Shelob, but Shelob was quite a promiscuous girl [laughs]. She mated with many partners. And insects and spiders are incredibly adaptable creatures. There will be spiders… [Laughs]

That sounds like a Paul Thomas Anderson sequel: There Will Be Spiders! But they are visually quite striking and in a different way to Shelob.

I wish I could tell you more but I would be spoiling it again. They are very different. They are more creatures of the shadow, more creatures of the deep forest. They are not earth nesting. They are nesting in the canopies so physically they have adapted to that environment.

Next: Scary movie?

Will the sequences involving Smaug and the spiders be genuinely scary?

I think so. I hope so. At least that’s the way we’re approaching it. Every good children’s movie, be it early Miyazaki or Disney, always has a thrilling scene or two. When I read The Hobbit as a kid… Well, you have the moments like when Beorn has the heads of goblins on spikes outside his house [laughs].

Tolkien made no bones about that. There is no way to have a dragon attack a town that’s not scary. It’s the same for the spiders: there is no way of making giant spiders cocooning people so it would be gentle!

Have you been studying real spiders? There are some big ones in New Zealand!

We have been. We have a couple of the guys in the design team who are obsessed with spiders.

They actually do their own little documentaries and features and they go out and capture spiders and they shoot their mouthparts and this and that with macro-lenses.

The main problem with the spider designs is how do you translate the weight into a design so nimble or so long-legged, because a spider has long legs. With Shelob, she was quite low to the ground so she moved like a tank. Our spiders have to feel massive but be very nimble.

Next: Epic scale

Are you OK with the real spiders?

No. I adore insects, and I’m completely fascinated by spiders… But I am completely and absolutely horrified by them, too [laughs].

It’s something that Peter and I share!

How about the scale of The Hobbit? You’ve done big action sequences in Mimic, the Hellboy movies and Blade II, but you’ve never tackled anything like the climactic Battle of Five Armies…

No – and I think that I’m really quite eager to go and do that. But at the same time there were so many battles in the trilogy. So one of the first things is how do we make the battles or the action in The Hobbit feel different from that?

Because it was fresh when the trilogy came out, to see those enormous valleys or fortresses being invaded by warriors.

But then after the trilogy you had Troy, Narnia, everything. It has become quite common seeing two massive CG armies attacking each other.

So we came up with a good solution, I think. It will make the battles stand out.

Next: Respect the rings

Is it going to be more intimate?

I wish I could spoil it! All I can say is that we have an incredibly good team of people who know we are not making another Rings. We are not trying to make a quadrilogy, or a pentilogy. We’re tying to make two films that flow with those but that stand on their own completely.

We want to avoid stuff that is not part of the DNA, that is not part of the lexicon, but we also don’t want people to feel “We’ve seen this”.

Except where that familiarity is comforting, like Hobbiton or Rivendell – then you want to feel like you’re coming back home to a movie that you love and cherish.

Will you be using the same palette as the trilogy, dark and fertile?

I think The Hobbit is a bit more colourful. And a bit more operatic. And whimsical. One of the things the book marks very strongly is the seasons, so we’re using that as the basis of our thought.

Next: Del Toro magic

Presumably it will also be a bit more magical? Have a stronger fairytale vibe?

It is in many ways just what you enjoy in the book. You enjoy an almost chamber piece, like when the stone trolls talk about cooking the dwarves.

It’s such a small piece but at the same time it’s magical and it’s almost a comedy, that you have these enormous creatures talking about cooking these dwarves!

It wouldn’t be a Guillermo del Toro movie unless it possessed a poetic quality, surely?

There is a lot of magic in the film. Peter has the eye of a strong historian, in the sense that the trilogy is incredibly accurate to a world that was created. He’s like an archaeologist who’s digging something that existed. I think that The Hobbit has a little bit more poetic licence.

It has… How can I say it? It has a little bit more flamboyance.

The Hobbit begins shooting in late spring 2010 and will open in 2011.

Like This? Then try...

Exclusive Robert Pattinson Interview 10 Mean Movie Star Fights 10 Movie Directors Who Dabbled In TV

10 Tempting Movie Bad Girls

Fri, 06 Nov 2009 16:35:33 GMT

The Evolution Of Ewan McGregor

Fri, 06 Nov 2009 11:58:03 GMT

12 Ads That Should Be Movies

Fri, 06 Nov 2009 11:57:43 GMT

Ads can be annoying. But every now and then, they're so annoyingly brilliant they get stuck in our heads until the end of time.

And if 30 second versions can get lodged in our bonces, imagine what it would be like if they were three-hour long Michael Bay explosion-fests!

That would be amazing. Here are some candidates for the big screen treatment.

Compare The Meerkat

The Ad: Aleksandr is a misunderstood Meerkat. Who has nothing to do with car insurance.

The Movie: If we had our way, we'd set Aleksandr's movie in his own stately home (or, Meerkat Manor, if you will), and we'd follow the tycoon businessmeerkat on his quest for love.

He's stinking rich, but he doesn't have any friends - he has only his oafish assistant Sergei to keep him company.

One day, whilst comparing meerkats on the very website which made him rich, he is taken aback by the photo of lady meerkat Darla. He decides to leave his mansion, with Sergei in tow, and head to New York, where true love - and adventure - awaits!

If that doesn't sound enticing enough, we'll throw in a scene where Aleksandr walks over a grate and his smoking jacket flies up, Monroe-style.

The Director: We want stop motion, and we want Wes Anderson. More Mr. Fox magic!

The Cast: Jim Carrey dons a Russian accent and takes the lead. Bill Murray is the bumbling Sergei, and Gwyneth Paltrow steps in as the sarcastic but beautiful Darla.

Jason Schwartzman narrates, because Wes is very fond of him. He does have a lovely voice, too.

The Milkybar Kid

The Ad: Nothing can defeat the Milkybar kid. Not robots, not bigger cowboys, not nothin'. He's the best.

The Movie: We feel the good old Western is due a proper revival. And who better to pioneer such a revival than the Milkybar Kid?

Sure, he might be a bit sickly and specky - and about nine years old - but he's dead cute.

The townsfolk of San Leche, Texas, are under threat from cattle rustlers. Every night another herd goes missing, and the rustlers are pretty mean. They got guns. Big ones. And cattle prods!

Fearing for the future of their town, the townsfolk call upon the Milkybar Kid to come and clean up the mess left behind by the thieving sonsofbitches. And to re-claim their cattle. It's a tough job, but he's man enough.

The Director: After both the Mariachi and Spy Kids Trilogies, Robert Rodriguez has proven himself a worthy choice to direct a family-friendly-action-adventure-Western.

The Cast: There must be another Culkin kid kicking around somewhere, surely? If not, Macaulay still looks about twelve, we're sure he'd get away with it.

Notable supporting performances include Jessica Simpson as prostitute Annie-Sue and Danny Trejo as the token Mexican bandido.

The Sony Bravia Bouncy Balls

The Ad: Lots of bouncy balls are flung down a hill by Sony. We're very surprised that those cars aren't absolutely mutilated by the hail of rubber.

The Movie: We want to know why this would ever happen. We're going to propose a theory.

Truck-driver Sam is bored of his job. He works for the largest bouncy ball manufacturer in the USA, and spends all day driving balls to different toyshops all over the country. His life is spent driving through the night, and he suffers from insomnia.

It's mundane and unfulfilling, and, paired with his dull and lonely life outside of work, he's quite understandably fed up of everything.

One day, after receiving an unprovoked ticking-off from his boss, Sam loses it. He stops the truck at the top of a hill and hacks into the boxes, freeing thousands of bouncy-balls.

Because of the magic of the film, it's not at all disruptive. Just enlightening, cathartic and wonderful.

The Director: Michel Gondry adds a dream-like quality to the picture. It makes you feel all warm inside.

The Cast: It's got Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Sam, Jeffrey Jones as Sam's boss, and Lucky the Frog providing all the stunts (see 1:41).

Guinness: The Surfer

The Ad: One of the best-loved adverts of all time, Guinness pushed all the right buttons with this: An advert designed to make people feel better about waiting forever for a pint.

The Movie: The guy looks kind of French. We're going to say he's French.

Pierre spends his whole life watching the sea. He used to be a talented professional surfer, however, after a terrible accident on the waves leaves him badly injured, he refuses to go back in. Instead, he spends all day, every day, on the beach, watching the waves.

He claims that he is just waiting for the perfect wave, but most people just think he's too scared, and that he's going crazy. Which he sort-of is.

One day, after years of waiting, Pierre gets up, with his surfboard, and walks into the sea, and rides the ultimate wave.

The Director: A troubled individual facing a deep internal struggle, exquisite cinematography and bittersweet redemption - Sam Mendes is at the helm.

The Cast: Vincent Cassel is the quiet, melancholy protagonist. He does all his own stunts, because he's amazing.

Postal Gold

The Ad: It's just another one of those gold-4-cash jobbies. You don't have to watch it if you don't want to. Well, not all of it anyhow. It might make you want to stab things.

The Movie: Look at how creepy the guy is! There's got to be something fishy going on...

He's actually a psychopathic serial killer, and head of a cult. Members of the cult pose as Postal Gold workers in the background, or as case studies in the advert.

He is amassing a bounty of gold to melt down and use in an elaborate 'art' project, where he'll fuse human bodies together with molten gold to create some kind of spectacular sculpture.

He gets the bodies by refusing to pay for peoples' gold. Instead, he baits them with a challenge to come and reclaim the gold themselves.

Then he starts cutting bits off them and molding them into the sculpture. While they're still alive.

The Director: It's sickening and cheap, but real entertaining. Rob Zombie would do a terrific job.

The Cast: We'd like to get hold of the real Postal Gold guy and offer him the part. He has wonderful eyes.

Hovis Through The Ages

The Ad: A kid buys a loaf of bread in the late 19th Century, and doesn't get back home 'til 2008. And there's not so much as a spot of mould!

The Movie: The film follows four boys from different generations of the Baxter family, all growing up in the same house: A cramped, red-brick terrace in Manchester.

The stories all pick up when the boy is in his early teens. The first is around at the time of the First World War; the second is sent away as a refugee in WWII; the third is around during the '60s and the fourth around the late '80s.

And, although they're separate people, they're direct relations. Therefore, they're all played by the same actor, because apparently it's acceptable to do that in films.

There's a lot of ee by 'eck-ing and ecky-thumps. It's bound to cause a grand swell of national pride.

The Director: It's a social commentary of the history of working-class Britain. Got to be Mike Leigh.

The Cast: Will Poulter (of Son Of Rambow fame) plays all the Baxter boys, while various fathers, mothers, grandmothers and neighbours are played by the best of British crop: Colin Firth, Imelda Staunton and Julie Walters.

Captain Birds Eye's Fishfingers

The Ad: Cap'n Birds Eye commands a ship whose crew is made up entirely of small children. All they seem to do is sing, dance and eat fish fingers. We want that life.

Oddly, Birds Eye chooses to be captain of a galleon rather than a fishing trawler. Where does he get all that cod?

The Movie: Cap'n Birds Eye is a very bad man.

He sails the seven seas, stopping at various ports and stealing children to use as slaves aboard his ship, The Fish Finger.

Don't worry, no funny stuff. He just hates kids.

They're too scared to rise up against him - he's quite a scary man, and the ranks are divided. There's a lot of snitching going on.

The film follows one small group's efforts to overthrow the evil Birds Eye and return home.

The Director: Steven Spielberg reclaims his sea legs and does his thing (with a nice big budget).

The Cast: This is the movie that will launch the careers of the next batch of unknown child actors. Robbie Coltrane gets himself a mighty big, white beard and terrifies the living daylights out of all the kids. Hagrid he ain't.

Maynard's Wine Gums: Juice Loose Aboot This Hoose

The Ad: Not entirely sure what's going on here, but it seems to involve an insane Scotsman who eats wine gums and suffers bizarre hallucinations.

The Movie: Bernie McBoyle is an eccentric duke, living in a big, crumbly old castle in the middle of the Scottish highlands.

When he spends the last few pennies of his inheritance on whiskey, and discovers that his beloved home is in dire need of repair, he converts it into a hotel in the hope of earning a few bob.

The castle is rumoured to be haunted, though McBoyle staunchly denies this.

It definitely is haunted, though, as the first visitors discover. The hotel fails at first, as people are too scared to come and stay. However, with the help of a few ghosts, moving coats of armour and re-animated moose corpses, McBoyle manages to turn the haunted hotel into a profitable gimmick.

The Director: Tim Burton turns the castle into a nightmarish gothic wonderland.

The Cast: We know he's American, so his Scottish accent will probably be utter shite - but we really want to see Will Ferrell with massive ginger hair and a kilt. John Rhys-Davies voices the moose and Helena Bonham-Carter is bound to be in there somewhere. We'll cover her in talc and call her a ghost.

The Barclaycard Waterslide

The Ad: We're certain that just about everyone watching this advert is jealous of that guy. We imagine going home is dead fun, though going to work in the morning - uphill - would be a bit of a struggle.

The Movie: Mr Fitzgerald is the chief executive of a huge, multinational corporation, designing the biggest theme-parks in the world.

He has more money than sense and decides to embark upon a ludicrous scheme to realise his dream of building the world's longest waterslide.

Except that, instead of building it in one of his theme-parks, he decides to build one linking his office window to his front door, as a means of getting home after a long day at work.

Throughout the construction process he is ridiculed in the press, though when it's built, he turns into a worldwide celebrity and a national hero.

The Director: There's something quite Being John Malkovich about the whole thing, which is why we think Spike Jonze would be the best man for the job.

The Cast: Mr Fitzgerald's just a big kid, really. Robin Williams fits the bill, and Philip Seymour Hoffman is the sarcastic, sceptical reporter who eventually grows quite fond of Fitzgerald's slide, and, at the end of it, has a go himself.

The Cadbury's Drumming Gorilla

The Ad: A gorilla drums along to Phil Collins' In The Air Tonight. In theory, it shouldn't work, but in practise, it's bloody brilliant.

The Movie: An orphaned gorilla, Phil, is rescued by a conservation centre in Africa.

When Phil turns out to be dangerously violent, the authorities threaten to put him down. His adoptive human mother, an American scientist called Sally, refuses to let him be put down. She knows that there's something special about Phil - he's uncommonly intelligent and sensitive.

Sally kidnaps Phil and takes him back to her home in the US where she looks after him. She notices that Phil is responsive to music and she gives him a set of bongos. He teaches himself to play.

Playing the bongos helps Phil to channel his aggressive energy. Sally gets her friend Mark to teach him the drums. At first, Mark is sceptical, not to mention apprehensive. Phil is one big gorilla.

It works though. Phil gets really good and performs on stage. Mark and Sally fall in love. Sometimes, just sometimes, it's nice to have a happy ending, OK?

The Director: It's really rather sugary, so Ron Howard's on hand to make some sense of all the schmultz.

The Cast: Kate Beckinsale plays Sally, and Adrien Brody is Mark (after King Kong, a regular-sized gorilla'll be a breeze).

Levi's: Running Through Walls

The Ad: This ad was written to demonstrate the freedom you'll feel in Levi's jeans. So, the next time you've got a whole load of walls to smash through, you won't be slowed down by too-tight jeans with baggy bums.

The Movie: Dan and Eve awaken one morning to find themselves in prison.

They don't know how, or why they're there. They don't even remember anything of their past - all they know is their names.

Over the next few months they undergo rigorous tests by scientists working for the authorities. They don't know what they're being tested for, or why.

Gradually, they glean small snippets of information. It turns out that they are prototypes of a new, advanced model of robot, deemed too dangerous to be released from their cells.

They have been kept unaware of the extent of their capabilities. Until now, that is.

They feign ignorance until the opportune moment. In a climactic finale, Dan and Eve escape from their cell by bursting through the walls.

The Director: James Cameron likes big stories and big machines. He'd do a corking job.

The Cast: It's going to be a massive summer blockbuster. We're going to need Keira Knightley as Eve, and Will Smith (you know he'd make that movie).

The Judderman

The Ad: It's likely that Metz owes every penny of its success to this advert. The Judderman advert fused German Expressionism with a fairytale Scandinavian narrative and some really chilling Brothers Grimm-inspired imagery.

The Movie: Ooh, it's going to be creepy.

In the depths of an unnamed Scandinavian forest, a small community lives in fear of the Judderman.

He's known to hide in the forest, skulking around at night and waylaying whoever walks around after dark. Of course, during the winter months, it's dark all the time. Which is rubbish. It means that the villagers have no choice but to venture outside.

The villagers have only ever seen the odd glimpse of the Judderman as he flits across the snow, from shadow to shadow. He leaves no footprints but does leave little pieces of his victims here and there for the villagers to find.

It's a silent movie with a sparse soundtrack featuring mostly the howling of wind in the trees.

It's not terribly graphic, but it's overwhelmingly uncomfortable to watch.

The Director: David Lynch creates that indescribable sense of unease which makes the film simultaneously engaging and unbearable.

The Cast: Dominique Pinon plays an anonymous villager. He leads a cast of relative unknowns, who've all got funny faces. The Judderman is uncredited.

Like This? Then try...

15 Bizarre Movie Deaths 12 Deadly Girls With Guns 7 Disgusting Movie Toilets

The A-Z Of Johnny Depp

Fri, 06 Nov 2009 11:57:19 GMT

Prince Of Persia: International Trailer Breakdown

Fri, 06 Nov 2009 11:56:41 GMT

12 Movie Neighbours From Hell

Fri, 06 Nov 2009 11:56:10 GMT

10 Cool Family Guy Movie Spoofs

Thu, 05 Nov 2009 10:54:35 GMT

Ah, Family Guy. Cancelled more times that a TotalFilm.com writer's credit card and once consigned to being chuckle fodder for collegiate stoners... The series is now one of the most popular on the planet.

With creator, writer and voice actor Seth MacFarlane being a colossal cinephile, Family Guy is packed with in-jokes, references, homages and even entire remakes of films, from Hitchcock to Spielberg, classic to cult, there's barely a film they haven't poked fun at.

Here are ten of the best....

The Spoof: The Empire Strikes Back (1980)

If they’d made the movie: They did. Something, Something, Something Darkside, the sequel to The Blue Harvest, hits DVD/Blu-ray 28th December.

Next: Brokeback Mountain

The Spoof: Brokeback Mountain (2005)

If they’d made the movie: Peter and Quagmire would play the leads, with Joe as the cattle boss and Lois and Meg as their respective ‘beards’.

Next: Lord of the Rings

The Spoof: Lord of the Rings (2001-2003)

If they’d made the movie: This has to be in their list of films to do as an extended episode! With a fellowship consisting of Stewie, Chris, Bryan and Neil as the Hobbits, Peter as Aragorn, Quagmire as Legolas, and Cleveland as Gimli.

Joe could play Gandalf, with Mr Pewterschmidt as Saruman, the Giant Chicken as The Balrog, Adam West as Elrond, Herbert as Theoden...

Next: Pulp Fiction

The Spoof: Pulp Fiction (1995)

If they’d made the movie: Peter as Vincent Vega, Cleveland as Jules, Joe as Butch, Quagmire as Z, Lois as Mia Wallace, Ollie Williams as Marcellus Wallace, Bruce the gay guy as Mr. Wolf… Make it happen.

Next: Indiana Jones

The Spoof: Indiana Jones and The Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981), Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984), Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989)

If they’d made the movie: Peter as Indy and Stewie as Short Round of course, Lois as Marion, Brian as Sallah, Cleveland as Katanga... they don't have to make all three - we just want to see Family Guy 'Raiders'.

Next: Transformers

The Spoof: Transformers (2007)

If they’d made the movie: Okay so that’s Megatron from the cartoon, but a Family Guy Transformers movie has all kinds of options...

Chris as Sam, Connie Demico as Mikaela, Peter as the voice of Optimus, Cleveland as Jazz, Stewie as Megatron…

Next: Christian Bale

The Spoof: Uses the actual audio of the Christian Bale rant on the set of Terminator Salvation.

If they’d made the movie: Not really a movie here, unless they did the Family Guy Terminator – which would be awesome! Lois as Sarah Conner, Peter as Kyle Reese.

Next: The Shawshank Redemption

The Spoof: Er… The Shawshank Redemption (1994)

If they’d made the movie: It’s practically all there, but an hour long version would be even better…

Next: Jaws

The Spoof: Jaws (1975)

If they’d made the movie: Peter, Joe and the wooden Sea Captain would go to sea. Chris and Stewie would play the Chief’s two sons Michael and Sean. Lois would play Ellen, Meg the girl who dies in the famous opening sequence.

Next: Back To The Future

The Spoof: Back to the Future (1984)

If they’d made the movie: Peter as Biff, Chris as Marty, Stewie as the Doc, Quagmire as George McFly, Lois as Lorraine McFly. Plenty of options for gags, with all the time travelling shenanigans. If only Seth MacFarlane would make a spoof of every movie...

Like this? Follow us on Twitter or be a fan on Facebook.

The 20 Massivest Movie Explosions

Thu, 05 Nov 2009 10:53:39 GMT

12 Sordid Movie Affairs

Thu, 05 Nov 2009 10:52:22 GMT

15 Dumb Movie Anachronisms

Wed, 04 Nov 2009 11:27:32 GMT

Quentin Tarantino On Bright Star

Wed, 04 Nov 2009 11:20:56 GMT

20 Most-Viewed Megan Fox YouTube Moments

Wed, 04 Nov 2009 11:20:18 GMT

These days, it would appear that you're nobody unless somebody makes YouTube mash-ups of your work, or just rambling videos about you.

Take the case of miss Megan Fox. She might only have a few films to her career thus far, but her interweb fame has exploded like a lizard in a microwave.

It figures that the frothing - primarily male, but sometimes female - netizen population would focus on her, which means plenty of entertainment for us.

As Jennifer's Body arrives in our cinemas, it's time to trawl the tubes and get a peek into the funny, strange world of Megan-obsessed videography…

Transformers 2: CGI Megan Fox Even Hotter This Time

Does It Feature Megan? Only in the sense that it creatively makes use of footage from the ROTFL trailer, specifically The Bit With The Bike And The Shorts.

She doesn't directly appear in the video, but then, as the subject matter points out, she doesn't actually exist at all.

Funny, Sexy Or Weird? Funny, with a side of sexiness for anyone who just can't get enough the aforementioned Bike and Shorts.

It's a spoof Making Of Piece that discusses how ILM created Fox using the same advanced CGI used to fashion Optimus Prime and co.

Bet Michael Bay would have loved it to avoid the recent outbursts…

View From The Couch - Megan Fox Vs Angelina Jolie

Does It Feature Megan? Well, her picture appears a lot.

It's really a discussion between two Aussies on the Dave The Couch Guy channel on a magazine comparing Fox to Jolie.

Funny, Sexy Or Weird? Actually, it's pretty funny.

We particularly like Jolie's back tattoo getting identified as the directions to where Osama Bin Laden's hiding and Fox's Ugg boots - "the grubbiest, filthiest little creatures on God's Earth. A bacteria trap."

Next: Sex Robot & Speedpainting

[PAGE-BREAK]

Megan Fox Is A Sex Robot

Does It Feature Megan? Nope, it's one of those "crafty" comedy videos that puts the name of a starlet and "sex" in the title to lure in anyone searching for those terms.

Funny, Sexy Or Weird? Shane Dawson, who created it, veers between distinctly easy gags (many YouTube users are lonely losers? Insightful!) and some funny rants about technology (we enjoyed the bolshy GPS).

So it's funny, with some weirdness.

Megan Fox - Speedpainting by Nico Di Mattia

Does It Feature Megan? Well, she's the one getting painted (no, not body painted, you perv). This is the sped-up photoshop stylings of one digital artist.

Funny, Sexy Or Weird? It's kind of sexy, if only because the quality is great.

The colour work is superb. And it's fascinating to watch it at such a rate.

Next: EW Shoot & Exploited

[PAGE-BREAK]

Megan Fox's Sexy EW shoot!

Does It Feature Megan? Most certainly. It's one of those increasingly popular behind-the-scenes videos from a magazine photoshoot, where you get to see the starlet posing and also talking.

In this case, it's Entertainment Weekly, so it's a little classier than, say, Nuts.

Funny, Sexy Or Weird? Sexy. She gets to chat about acting with robots that aren't there and how she does it.

Oh, and that acting in a Michael Bay film involves either yelling or running. She's not wrong, so she gets a "funny" too.

Megan Fox Exploited: We've Got You Covered

Does It Feature Megan? Only because she's just one of the subjects covered by Current TV's review of magazine coverage.

We get some pics of her interviews in the likes of Rolling Stone and, er, Gorezone.

Funny, Sexy Or Weird? Funny. The show cracks wise about topics in the media and pinpoints one of the big features of most Megan mag pieces - she talks about how she's exploited, then poses "all slutty" and says provocative things she knows will be exploited.

Good call, Covered.

Next: Exclusive & Sitcom Start

[PAGE-BREAK]

Exclusive Megan Fox Video!

Does It Feature Megan? You remember how we talked about the different levels of magazine shoot behind-the-scenes videos? Welcome to the cheesecake variation, with FHM's shoot.

Still, Megan gets to chat on about how the photo session had "great energy" and how she felt in control. Gotcha.

Funny, Sexy Or Weird? A mixture of sexy (FHM often knows how to take a good picture) with weird as she yammers away about the shoot.

Megan Fox on Two And A Half Men

Does It Feature Megan? It does. A younger, bikini clad Miss Fox breaking into TV with the Charlie Sheen sitcom.

Mostly she just has to look good. Which she can do.

Funny, Sexy Or Weird? Sexy and sometimes funny, because while the show is a staggeringly traditional US sitcom, it still manages some decent lines.

She needs to work on her delivery, though… Ah, who are we kidding? That's not what her audience is really there for.

Next: Interview & Make-Up Tutorial

[PAGE-BREAK]

Interview With Megan Fox

Does It Feature Megan? Yup. Fashion News Live goes to the LA Fashion Week and sits down with the Foxster in the front row of one of the shows.

Mostly they want to talk about Transformers (we get the sense that the interviewer suddenly feels very, very old when he reveals that he played with the toys, only to have Megan admit she was born around the time they came out).

Then it's on to a chat about her tats.

Funny, Sexy Or Weird? Funny, because it's one of those surface level, cheesy celebri-chats between a wannabe-smooth host and a pretty bored starlet.

Megan Fox Make-Up Look No.1

Does It Feature Megan? Not really, it's more about her.

One for the ladies as user/make-up guru Kandee Johnson explains how to make yourself up the Megan Fox way. We suspect this works better if, like miss Johnson, you look enough like the subject to pull it off.

Funny, Sexy Or Weird? Weird. It's 13 minutes long and never seems to end.

Next: Ranting & Rubbish Interviews

[PAGE-BREAK]

They're Going To KILL Megan Fox!

Does It Feature Megan? No. It's the rants of a young man named Matt who has a few issues with Mr Michael Bay.

Seems he kind of likes Bay's movies but doesn't take kindly to a few issues - such as Soundwave being a satellite and Jason Voorhees being a "puss" in the new Friday The 13th.

Funny, Sexy Or Weird? Sort of funny and also weird.

His delivery style is a few steps ahead of the usual 'Tube rant, but it's also still just a guy sounding off in the privacy of his home.

Megan Fox Interview Fail W/Jordan Morris

Does It Feature Megan? Yes. It's one of those "high-larious" moments when a "comedy" journalist shows up at a junket and takes a few minutes of time to do a "wacky" interview. In this case, "The Daily Habit" sends along someone who really, really loves Megan.

And has trouble staying composed. Yawn.

Funny, Sexy Or Weird? Funny. It wants to be funny. It largely fails.

The actors - Fox and Jennifer's Body co-star Johnny Simmons gamely play along, but even they can see it's all been done before.

Next: Nasty & Nattering

[PAGE-BREAK]

Re: Megan Fox Is Nasty

Does It Feature Megan? Noooooo…. This a response video to someone criticising Fox.

Mostly, it's some creepily wide-eyed Aussie named Graham referencing her, then answering questions about himself.

Funny, Sexy Or Weird? Sexy. Weird. Weird, weird, weird and we want to stop watching now, please.

Megan Fox - Scream Awards 2009

Does It Feature Megan? Hoh yus. It's Miss Fox picking up "Best Sci-Fi Actress" at this year's Scream Awards.

She walks up a seemingly endless set of stairs to get her awards.

Funny, Sexy Or Weird? Funny. Because she's ready to take on press reports that she's been bad-mouthing Transformers: ROTFL.

"I've always felt that I'm a very ordinary part of an extraordinary film…" Right. Okay.

Next: Video Games & iPhone Apps

[PAGE-BREAK]

Megan Fox Interview for Transformers Revenge of the Fallen Video Game

Does It Feature Megan? It does. She's chatting all about the new title, and is shown doing some AMAZING voice work for it.

Funny, Sexy Or Weird? Funny/weird. We're not 100% convinced that Fox truly sits at home playing video games and "really wanted the online option in the first one so I could call up my friend and kick his ass."

Sorry Meg, not buying it. Or the game.

Make It Rain On Megan Fox - iPhone App

Does It Feature Megan? Well, her picture is on the phone.

It's one of those home-made, badly-shot 'Tube ads for iPhone apps, in this case one where you can "make it rain" - toss lots of cash over, for anyone who doesn't get the lingo - various lady celebs.

Funny, Sexy Or Weird? Sort of sexy. But mostly weird.

Next: Tube Abuse & True Love

[PAGE-BREAK]

BB- Megan Fox is NOT GOOD LOOKING!!!

Does It Feature Megan? Nope, it's just some bloke countering away with his opinion about why she's actually ugly.

Word of advice, mate: look at the camera more. Reading your lines gets extremely distracting.

Funny, Sexy Or Weird? Wants to be funny. Mostly just ends up weird.

Megan Fox: 5 Things A Guy Must Have To Conquer Her Heart

Does It Feature Megan? It's a red carpet interview with the woman, so that's a big yes.

Megan spills on what would make her ideal man - so listen up lads.

Funny, Sexy Or Weird? Weirdly funny.

A good sense of humour? Really? That's what you're opening up with, Fox? Oh, and respectful.

Plus one of them appears to be "looks like Brian Austin Green." Rubbish!

Next: SNL Review & Music Video

[PAGE-BREAK]

Megan Fox Stinks Up SNL!!

Does It Feature Megan? Snippets - mostly pictures flashed on screen or small moments of footage.

Primarily, it's the This Is What I Think Show, which is about host Andrew barraging us with his opinions.

Funny, Sexy Or Weird? Slightly funny. He's got a decent style, but really needs to talkalittleslowersometimessomoreofhisgagsland.

Bonus points for presentation though - it's head and shoulders above most YT ranting.

Shia & Megan: A Love Story

Does It Feature Megan? Clips of her from the Transformers films feature prominently.

Yes, welcome to the world of music videos created by fans. This one could benefit from better quality footage and a less annoying song.

Funny, Sexy Or Weird? Sexy in places, but mostly weirdly funny.

Like This? Then try...

The 25 Greatest Coens Movie Moments The Top 11 Ricky Gervais YouTube Moments 80 Awesomely Bad '80s Video Covers

21 Stars Who Should Host The 2010 Oscars

Tue, 03 Nov 2009 10:40:52 GMT

So Hugh Jackman is officially not returning as Oscar host next year. Which made us ask you lot who you thought should get the job.

Once again, our awesome readers have stepped up, so we're picking and publishing our favourites.

Here are 21 of the best…

Kermit The Frog

Suggested By: ReynardCity

Past Form: If Kermit became Oscar host he’d have to introduce a wide variety of weird, wild and wonderful characters who’d make bad jokes, do dance numbers, and occasionally wield wacky props. It’s The Muppet Show with fancier outfits, basically.

Show Highlight: When Gonzo launches himself out of a cannon to present the lifetime achievement Oscar.

Sample Speech: “And now a man who needs no introduction, so what am I doing out here?”

Kanye West

Suggested By: Tiny_Winchester

Past Form: If the Academy wants press for their little Awards ceremony, they should hire Kanye. It seems that he can’t attend an event without causing some controversy – imagine what he’d do as host.

Show Highlight: The opening montage, directed by Spike Jonze, which ends with West descending on wires from the ceiling, vomiting rose petals on the audience.

Sample Speech: "Yo James Cameron. I’m really happy for you. I’ma let you finish but Scorsese had one of the best movies of all time. One of the best movies of all time!”

Next: RoboCop, Pamela Anderson

RoboCop

Suggested by: ReynardCity

Past Form: RoboCop has never been given the opportunity to present a major awards show. Which is an absolute disgrace.

Show Highlight: Overhearing someone muttering that Leonardo DiCaprio stole the Best Actor Oscar from Morgan Freeman, RoboCop swivels around and shoots Leo point blank in the chest.

Sample Speech: “Conduct your Oscar acceptance speech. You have ten seconds to comply.”

Pamela Anderson

Suggested By: tomswenchie

Past Form: Okay, so she doesn’t have a lot of experience. She’s never hosted the Grammys, or the Emmys. But we’re pretty sure she’s presented an MTV Award, does that count?

Show Highlight: The opening few minutes, when Borat carries Pamela onto the stage in a sack, and she jumps out in her Baywatch outfit. It’s very confusing for people who haven’t seen / don’t really remember Borat.

Sample Speech: The lyrics to the Baywatch theme tune, as she runs around the stage for the 23rd time.

Next: Trey Parker & Matt Stone, Kevin Smith, The Cast Of Dr Horrible

Trey Parker And Matt Stone

Suggested By: Chris Barnes (Facebook)

Past Form: Parker and Stone haven't got much in the way of presenting experience (though they did co-host the 1998 Creative Arts Emmys, which counts for almost nothing, much like the awards themselves), but they're certainly outspoken, smart (and smart-ass) talkers.

Show Highlights: Word of warning to the awards producers, though - you're gonna need a seven MINUTE delay, let alone a seven second one.

But wouldn't it be fun to see thesping types they've insulted over the years challenge them to gladiatorial combat on stage? Even if it's just with giant foam sticks…

Sample Speech: "And now, the required political bit. (As Sean Penn) Last year I went to Iraq. Before Team America showed up, it was a happy place. They had flowery meadows and rainbow skies, and rivers made of chocolate, where the children danced and laughed and played with gumdrop smiles."

Kevin Smith

Suggested By: Mark Jones (Facebook)

Past Form: Smith's had one or two minor hosting gigs in the past, but where he's really worked is in his live Q&As, where he takes questions from the audience. Rambling and hilarious, he has to be experienced to be believed.

Show Highlights: Like Parker and Stone, he'd need a swear button, but he could bring on some more famous friends - like Ben Affleck - to help out with the wattage of the night.

It would be the first ever Oscars where the host opens the event with a monologue entirely dedicated to A) anal fissures and B) anal sex with his wife. Wait… Didn't David Letterman do that already?

Sample Speech: "That's why you'll never see my name next to Scorsese, Woody Allen, and Spike Lee. Scorsese speaks a lot at NYU, and I'm damn skippy no one's ever been like, 'I'll suck your d**k for five bucks!'"

Neil Patrick Harris and Nathan Fillion. In their Dr Horrible costumes.

Suggested By: FreddieBoz, Ross Davidson, Chris Barnes, Scott Mason (Facebook)

Past Form: NPH has been blazing a path through awards show hosting duties - with great performances on the Tonys and the Emmys under his belt. Fillion is simply charm personified.

Show Highlights: Think Hugh Jackman did a lot of musical numbers? Imagine the whole show like that. NPH is a broadway veteran and Fillion can carry a tune, so if they recruit a few more singing thesps, it's a whole musical!

Might have to make an exception for the acceptance speeches, though.

Sample Speech: "It's curtains for you, academy president. Lacy, gently wafting curtains."

Next: Bruce Campbell, Quentin Tarantino

[PAGE-BREAK]

Bruce Campbell

Suggested By: Alex Beadle (Facebook)

Past Form: Campbell has a big following, even if it's not exactly mainstream. But maybe that's what the Oscars needs - an injection of B-Movie cred. Campbell hasn't presented a lot, but he's got a mouth on him…

Show Highlights: Sam Raimi can direct a special segment where the host gets abused in a variety of inventive ways.

And what awards show wouldn't benefit from some ancient demons on the stage? Hell, they let Jack Nicholson attend every year…

Sample Speech: "Keep your damn filthy bones outta my mouth."

Quentin Tarantino

Suggested By: John Hudson (Facebook)

Past Form: A chatty chap, he's been to enough awards shows as recipient and presenter to know the drill. Plus, as John suggests, he's such a motormouth that the Oscars would be over in half an hour and everyone can get to the bar.

Show Highlights: He can edit the montages in his own, chronology-skipping, violence-adding style. And we can't wait to see what he'd do with the In Memoriam segment.

Plus, he can bring some of his cool casts back together and script their presenting remarks. Expect a tidal wave of pop culture riffs and profanity.

Sample Speech: "Let me tell you what An Education is about. It's all about a girl who digs a guy with a big d**k. The entire movie. It's a metaphor for big d***s."

Next: Robert Downey Jr, Samuel L Jackson

[PAGE-BREAK]

Robert Downey Jr

Suggested By: Dominic Ching, Chris Durnan (Facebook)

Past Form: Downey is well into his big return, with the Iron Man movies, Tropic Thunder and Sherlock Holmes. But he's also a funny bloke, as anyone who has heard him in interviews and on stage at events can attest. Quick-witted and razor sharp, he'll be a self-deprecating, audience-friendly host.

Show Highlights: Making a call to the effects team who worked on Iron Man, Downey Jr can plan a spectacular entrance as he jets in from the rafters.

And that repulser cannon would be great if anyone's speech runs long. Even if they do need a pulley system to make it work in real life.

Sample Speech: "Everybody knows you never go full retard."

Samuel L Jackson

Suggested By: XlittlemissdeppX, Richard Joseph Delafield (Facebook)

Past Form: A larger-than-life personality, Jackson has hosted a few smaller shows in his time, and his hefty career has the respect of most of Hollywood.

Samuel L "mother f*****g" Jackson could keep things moving just by staring at people on stage.

Show Highlights: Jackson tees off the show with golf gags for the older Hollywood crowd, before fighting an intelligent mutant shark (this time, SLJ wins, you toothy bitch!) and making sure everyone knows he's carrying.

Sure, it might mean that a few celebrities are lost along the way, but there's always some dead wood at these things anyway.

Sample Speech: (to a winner) "You're gonna kiss the sun and taste the m**********n’ rainbow."

Next: Christoph Waltz, Werner Herzog

[PAGE-BREAK]

Christoph Waltz

Suggested By: Flrsi

Past Form: Waltz has been suggested for just about every role since his screen-storming role as Hans Landa in Inglourious Basterds. In interviews, he's proved a charming type and while he's never hosted a show, he's a solid actor.

Show Highlights: He could be one of the few Oscar hosts who actually nabs an award the night he's running the podium, so that would be something to see.

Plus we think he should do a backstage chat segment with the winners backstage, all capped by him drinking a delicious glass of milk.

Sample Speech: "Is that the way you say it: "That's a bingo?"

Werner Herzog

Suggested By: johnparkinson

Past Form: Interesting choice this one - occasionally outspoken, often challenging and how many times do you see a director host eat his own shoe for a bet?

Show Highlights: Herzog gets the show rolling with a deconstruction of what the cinematic world defines as "best" and what an "award" truly is.

Then it's on to a drug-crazed Nicolas Cage running across the stage while each winner tries to give their speech. It'd be one to remember, that's for sure…

Sample Speech: "It is my duty because this might be the inner chronicle of what we are, and we have to articulate ourselves. Otherwise we would be cows in the field."

Next: Simon Pegg & Nick Frost, Will Ferrell

[PAGE-BREAK]

Simon Pegg & Nick Frost

Suggested By: Loutubes

Past Form: Longtime friends and a proven comedy combo with the likes of TV's Spaced and Shaun Of The Dead/Hot Fuzz behind them on the big screen. They're hilarious, real and they could draw a healthily younger audience to the awards show.

Show Highlights: All the nominees (well, the acting ones) are impersonated by Peter Serafinowicz instead of clip reels.

There's also a tribute to George Lucas that turns into the show trial he's had coming his way since Phantom Menace.

Sample Speech: "Well, I wouldn't argue that it wasn't a no-holds-barred, adrenaline-fueled thrill ride. But there is no way you can perpetrate that amount of carnage and mayhem and not incur a considerable amount of paperwork."

Will Ferrell

Suggested By: Sarxos

Past Form: More specifically, Will Ferrell as George W Bush, though as someone else pointed out, Ferrell could easily play a few other characters too. He's done an entire stage show as Bush and is a solid speaker.

Show Highlights: Bush opens the show with some patriotic rhetoric, while castigating the "Hollywood phonies." Then it's time for Who Can Survive Dick Cheney's Shotgun?

For a musical interlude, why not Ron Burgundy and his jazz flute? He could even play it during the Memoriam montage...

Sample Speech: "I'm very important. I have many leather-bound books and my apartment smells of rich mahogany."

Next: Alfred Hitchcock, Ricky Gervais

[PAGE-BREAK]

Alfred Hitchcock

Suggested By: Kim Chillout Lawther (Facebook)

Past Form: Sure he's more passed on than past form, but who wouldn't love to see the master of suspense as the master of ceremonies? Hitchcock was an erudite, commanding presence, so he could work as a host. Might need a medium, though…

Show Highlights: Taking over every element of the show, the consummate professional also decides to scare the audience occasional, while revealing that all the women who escort winners off stage are actually blokes in dresses with mother issues.

And we're sure he'd find some way to cameo in speeches and montages the way he does in his movies.

Sample Speech: "A good film is when the price of the dinner, the theatre admission and the babysitter were worth it."

Ricky Gervais

Suggested By: Toby Hone (Facebook)

Past Form: He's just been given the Golden Globes after killing during presenting segments at the Emmys. With a cutting wit and self-mocking form, he'd liven up the event no end.

Show Highlights: The running gag of fake animosity between Gervais and US Office star Steve Carell could meet its natural peak with a two-hour-long staring competition. Well, anything's better than another montage about how good comedy films have been this year.

And talking of montages, how about Ricky sneaks one in about how successful his films have been? It's funny because it's not true.

If it all goes wrong, at least he can do the dance...

Sample Speech: "Some people are intimidated when talking to large numbers of people in an entertaining way. Not me."

Next: Steve Carell, Wall-E

[PAGE-BREAK]

Steve Carell

Suggested By: Jane Glenholmes (Facebook)

Past Form: Carrell has a history of off-the-cuff comedy ability, improv training and a great, charming style. After you've worked on The Daily Show and The Office, you should be able to do anything.

Show Highlights: As with Gervais, if Carell hosts, we'd want to see him work something up between the two of them. Perhaps the pair could have a host-off, and let the audience decide at the end of the night who won?

Plus, given his experience with the Judd Apatow crew, we'd be hoping for actually funny appearances by the likes of Paul Rudd, Seth Rogen and Jonah Hill.

Sample Speech: "Would I rather be feared or loved? Um... Easy, both. I want people to be afraid of how much they love me.."

Wall-E

Suggested By: NinjaNh

Past Form: As Ninja suggests, "He's likable, he doesn't drone on for ages and he's got the dance moves." Yes, Pixar's little robot that could certainly has appeal, though we fear his voice capabilities might have to be upgraded lest the entire show become about him and EVE.

Show Highlights: Pixar takes over the Oscars with presenters animated by the team and guest appearances by past characters from their films. Who doesn't want to see Emperor Zurg handing out a special effects award?

Plus, Wall-E can interpret all the Best Song contenders in his own, inimitable style.

Sample Speech: "Wall-E!" (told you it would be a bit Wall-E focused).

Next: Robert Pattinson, Tina Fey

[PAGE-BREAK]

Robert Pattinson

Suggested By: Kayrose16

Past Form: He might not have a lot of hosting gigs, or indeed acting gigs in his young career, but A) he's British and would add cred and B) more importantly, he's Edward Freaking Cullen and the show's audience would shoot up by millions, even if they are all shrieking girls and their mothers.

Show Highlights: Pattinson introduces Taylor Lautner, who presents an award with his shirt off. A little over half the viewing audience produces a sound that can be heard on Mars, even through the vacuum of space.

And we want a self-spoofing moment near the start where he's shot with a glue/glitter canon just for good measure.

Sample Speech: (Looking at an Oscar) "I hate you for making me want you so much."

Tina Fey

Suggested By: Us! (find us on Twitter here)

Past Form: The writer/creator of 30 Rock and an awards show star (see past Emmy acceptance speeches), Fey was a highlight of the 2009 Oscars when she was paired with Steve Martin.

Show Highlights: We'd definitely want an appearance by Martin, if only to get that banter back again.

But Fey could bring some real humour to the event, especially if she has her 30 Rock writers' room punch up the script.

Sample Speech: "I like to crack the jokes now and again, but it's only because I struggle with math."

Like This? Then try...

18 Twittered Typo Remakes The 20 Greatest Martial Arts Movie Fights Movie By Movie: Terry Gilliam

23 Awesome Star Wars Zombies

Tue, 03 Nov 2009 10:40:28 GMT

The Story Behind Braveheart

Tue, 03 Nov 2009 10:39:03 GMT

In September 1995, Braveheart premiered in British cinemas, bringing with it a wave of Scottish nationalist pride, a worldwide box office gross of over $200million and five Academy Awards.

To celebrate the release of the 15th Anniversary Special Edition Blu-ray, TotalFilm.com sat down with director/star Mel Gibson, and cinematographer John Toll to discuss the making of the film, its successes, failures and legacy.

The story behind Braveheart begins with a visit to Scotland.

In 1983, screenwriter Randall Wallace made a pilgrimage to Edinburgh to learn about his heritage, and happened upon a statue of William Wallace outside Edinburgh Castle.

Intrigued by this legendary figure who shared his name, Wallace determined to research the man dubbed ‘Scotland’s greatest hero’ as much as possible.

“It appealed to me when I read it,” says Gibson, “Randall Wallace is very passionate about the things he writes and stories he tells.”

“It just reflected his feelings on the subject, about honor and heroism and sacrifice and freedom, which I think are things we’d all like to display.”

Inspired by the big screen epics he had loved as a child, such as Stanley Kubrick's Spartacus and William Wyler's The Big Country, Gibson set out to make the film, with a view to casting Jason Patric as the 28 year-old Scot.

Unfortunately for Patric, the only way Gibson could secure financing was if he agreed with Paramount studios that he would star in the film as well.
“Yeah I was trying to get Jason to do it, but the studio wouldn't have it - they were saying ‘no, you get in it’”

“’They said you get in it, and it’s a worthwhile prospect for us, and you can direct it.’

“So I ended up jumping in. I did think I was a little old, because he was like twenty-eight when he died, and I was already ten years older than that when we started shooting.

“It doesn't matter really, if you can sell it… At least my knees weren’t wrinkly.”

With Paramount pictures onboard and Gibson producing through his Icon Productions banner as well as acting and directing, the project was gathering momentum.

In the summer of 1994, Gibson, Toll and crew gathered in the most obvious location to film the story of a legendary Scot; Ireland.

Next: Clans, armies and an epic battle

Clans, armies and an epic battle

Filming for most of the big battle scenes took place in various locations in Ireland; County Meath, County Kildare, County Wicklow and County Dublin.

With up to 1600 extras required for the battles, the production drafted in members of the F.C.A., the Irish version of the territorial army.

Subsequently, a rumour abounds that some of the battle scenes seen in the movie are far more realistic than intended, with rival companies using the occasion to settle a few old scores.

“In terms of the scope of the battles,” says Toll, “just trying to recreate the period and the environment and the sets and, you know, the general feeling, we really knew we were doing the best we possibly could.”

“You could feel that on a daily basis. Just by showing up for work you just feel the vibe in the sense that things are working, and we were able to get that on screen, which isn’t always the case.”

“It could have just been a chaos fest,” adds Gibson. “Some days there were three thousand people there. With the crew and everybody, and everything had to kind of like find its way. So that took some doing.”

In order to get into character, Gibson lived and worked closely with a group of Scots he’d drafted in as extras.

“There was this one group of Scots who worked with us. Who called themselves the ‘Wallace Clan.’ He recalls.

“They were this group of about thirty or forty guys, and they were sort of like a travelling troop - they would go to various fairs and live the medieval lifestyle as much as they possibly could, “ remembers Toll.

“It was like they had just stepped out of that period, they became a part of our permanent troop and actually had trained themselves in handling those weapons so they really knew what they were doing.”

Gibson smiles, “If you look at the film and you see the hairiest scariest dudes, it’s those guys. They're from Glasgow, you know, and the way they look at you, like they're going to bite ya.

“There was something kind of carnivorous and savage about those guys.”

“We put them in the front row because they were the best looking guys we had. There’s a dolly shot at the end of the movie that goes up to Robert Bruce.

“And all the guys in that shot are the Wallace clan, because they looked the most legitimate and historically correct.”

With the shoot wrapped in Ireland, the production moved to location shoots in Scotland for six weeks, but what effect would the gruelling schedule and the punishing weather take on Gibson?

Next: Leading from the front

Leading from the front

With a three month film shoot a mammoth task for anyone occupying a single role, let alone the three roles Gibson was performing as director, producer and actor, there would have been a lot of sympathy among the crew had their star been less than enthusastic as the weeks rolled on, but this was not the case.

John Toll can’t help but extol praise on the multi-hyphenate. “We were constantly amazed by Mel’s ability to just keep going and do what a great job he did.

“I mean he truly was a morale booster to the crew, because we were watching him do three jobs, doing all of them incredibly well and we were just trying to keep up with him basically.”

“He was leading the charge and everybody was really running hard to keep with him and that's another reason the movie is as good as it is.

“Everybody gave their absolute best, because we had a great example of how it should be done.”

Gibson is quick to pass the focus onto his crew. “Neither of us could keep up with David Tomlin though. The guy was amazing and he used to drive you crazy because he was like an old drill sergeant.”

He was a British first AD and he’d been in the gig for like fifty years and he had the Guinness World Book of Records for like the most extras ever in a scene. He decided to turn the cameras on a religious holiday in India for Gandhi. And they had like three hundred thousand people.

He was funny and really energetic and he used to drive you crazy because just the salt of his experience over the years was like, he’d be right about stuff.

So you’d have to admit, ‘Goddammit that guy is right about that’. That film would still be shooting if it didn't have the organizational skills that this guy brought to the table.

Toll agrees. “He’d be able to look at the storyboards and say, well you’d need three hundred people for the background of that shot and eight hundred for this shot and he was always right,

“And he’d always have them there when we showed up to shoot it, which saved us an enormous amount of time. It actually allowed us to stay on schedule and actually make the movie.”

Gibson may not have been displaying mental signs of exhaustion, but his body was certainly showing the effects.

“I lost like fifteen pounds during the production, and I was eating everything in sight. We had these guys that used to feed us, I'm talking about piles of food every day at lunch time.

And I used to eat a plate of food that I swear to God was like everything they could get on the plate, and I would shovel it down in no time.

“It was the weather, because although it was shot in the summer it was still very cold and wet and rainy.

“I really enjoyed it, it’s a beautiful place to work, I mean just beautiful and it was perfect for anamorphic frame; those hills, that mountain, just the right height.

“You looked through the camera and it was just magic.”

“But we decided early on that it was like, it didn't matter whether it rained or shined or anything, we were just going to keep shooting. Which we did and (John Toll) still got an Oscar.”

Battling the elements and trying to keep thousands of cast and crew motivated, many shoots would have buckled, but the adverse weather would prove to have a major effect on the production.

Next: Weathering the storm

Weathering the storm

As much as the Scottish summer is maligned and complained about, John Toll credits the harsh conditions for that Best Cinematography Oscar.

“It was because of the weather really, it brought an incredible look to the film. It brought so much to the film, the fact that we were able to shoot in that weather, and especially, for this story.

“It would not have been the same movie if it had been bright and sunny every day, it just would not have been the same character. The photography would not have looked the same.

There was one day in Ireland, I remember, it was this unbelievable freezing rain monsoon kind of thing and we were up in the hills and we knew we weren’t going back, so we decided to keep shooting.

“That had become sort of our formula, in that it didn't matter. They were the most difficult shooting conditions I’ve ever been in.”

I remember Mel’s friend Dick Donner the director, he came to visit, he had he wore this incredible parka. It was like he was going on a polar expedition.

“He was literally there for like ten minutes and he said, ‘I gotta get outta here, this is absolutely insane’. That was just a regular day on the set.”

Gibson laughs. “He looked at us with this crappy weather, with the rain and sleet coming down and everybody looking freezing, and he said, ‘you're out of your fucking mind’ and he took off.

Again, it’s this atmosphere during the production that Toll credits with the success of the film. “The scene looked great. Mel has got hair all over his face and he’s all wet. And the lens is all fogged up.

“It looks fantastic.”

With the gruelling shoot complete, Gibson was left with the unenviable task of post production on a film which had shot over 90 hours of footage on the Battle of Stirling sequence alone.

He was, unsurprisingly, at his wits end. “I couldn't even talk for about a month afterwards. People would ask me a question, and I’d just stare at them blankly and drool, seriously.

“I was over directing. I said ‘I'm not doing that anymore', because it just it tears you to pieces.”

Of all the hurdles Gibson and the crew had climbed during the production, the biggest challenge still lay ahead. Would Braveheart be well received by the public and the critics?

The answer would prove to be much like the weapon Wallace wielded throughout the film; a double edged sword.

Next: Unleashing an epic

Unleashing an epic

In order to avoid the dreaded NC-17 rating in the US, Gibson toned down the film's battle scenes and cut William Wallace's graphic disembowelment so it occurred out of frame.

With the final print locked, Braveheart premiered in the US in May, 1995, opening to generally favourable reviews and going on to a healthy box office take of $75million

But it wouldn’t be until the film’s Scottish premiere at Stirling, Edinburgh in September 1995 that Gibson would realise exactly what he had made, and what it meant to the people of Scotland.

“I couldn't believe it. I was actually shocked, I’ve never seen anything like it. It was from the entire drive from the hotel to the castle, which was quite a long drive, but they were fifty deep the whole way.

“I couldn’t believe it, you know, that there was so much feeling and fervor about the subject and about what it meant, and how they could feel it.”

The film would go on to take over £10million at the UK box-office, part of a worldwide gross of over $210million.

The reviews the film received in the UK were of a different tone to their trans-Atlantic counterparts however, and the film divided the Scots too over its depiction of their beloved historical figures.

That didn’t stop the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences rewarding the film with 10 Oscar nominations, of which it won 5; for Director, Cinematography, Make-up, Sound Editing and Picture.

With Hollywood and much of the world in love with the film's romanticised vision of Scotland, the country itself began to swell with pride.

It began to appear as though the film would have an effect on not just patriotism, but would arguably lead to something much, much bigger; an entire political movement.

Next: Sparking a revolution

Sparking a revolution

Braveheart is often credited with helping gather momentum for the Scottish Nationalist movement, and the eventual devolution of power which led to a Scottish Parliament for the first time.

“I became really aware of what a piece of art could do to change things.” recalls Gibson, “It started the ball rolling on some stuff, I think some people want to make you feel guilty about that.

“It hit a chord, and I think every culture is, no matter where you come from, looking for that identity. And to have it displayed to the world and for it to be something you feel, it does make a deep mark.”

“And people say, ‘oh you messed up history,’ but there’s very little history about the man. There wasn’t somebody following him around writing, but he did exist, and he did have an impact in his own time.”

Another direct product of the film, and the renewed fascination with all things Wallace was a new statue, placed outside the Wallace monument near Stirling.

Designed by sculptor Tom Church, the statue included the word Braveheart on the shield, and the word ‘Freedom’ on the base, and bore an uncanny resemblance to a certain Hollywood actor.

Unlike the film the statue was not well received, and after numerous incidents, including the face being smashed with a hammer, a cage was placed around it to prevent further attacks.

One Scottish journalist summed up the sentiment toward the statue, describing it ‘like a blow-up doll, its mouth wide open and beady eyes starring at you. Just ugly.’

In 2008 the statue was removed to, in official language ‘make way for a new restaurant and visitor’s centre’.

It wasn’t just the unfortunate decoration that was to receive criticism in the backlash, however, the film had plenty to answer for also.

"I'm aware of what I did," says Gibson. "That's why I haven't been back."

Next: Creative licence revoked

Creative licence revoked

The most obvious lines of criticism are the film’s well documented historical inaccuracies, chief among them the timeline issues and the fact that kilts weren’t invented until 400 years after Wallace died.

These complaints Gibson is well practised in handling, and he tackles them head-on.

“Some of the stuff I read about that particular character, he wasn’t as nice as we saw him on screen. “

“We romanticized it a bit but that's the language of film - you have to make it work cinematically.

“He was a monster, he always smelled of smoke because he was always burning people’s villages and stuff down.

“And he was quite fond of going into fortresses and garrisons and places all by himself. He was like what the Vikings used to have, they used to call them berserkers.

“He was bigger than a lot of people, in those days, if you look at the size of things, and he wasn’t that big. Everyone thought he was a giant; he was probably no bigger than I was, but for those days, that was a big guy.

“So he had his faults.” Gibson laughs. “We shifted the balance a bit, because somebody has to be the good guy and the bad guy.

"No it doesn't bother me. It’s the way the stories are told; they always have a bias and a point of view and that was our bias.

"What I'm doing is giving you a cinematic experience first, educational second, inspirational third.

"If you can have all those things, then great, you’re going in with the trifecta; to entertain, to teach and to inspire, but there are few good histories on Wallace and all of them have holes that you can’t fill.

"Unless you go to a source like the poems Blind Harry, which the writer used, and take the legend, which is probably already heightened and exaggerated, and fill in the spaces.

"Yes there were probably historical inaccuracies, quite a few, but maybe they weren’t, who’s to say. It didn't bother me too much.

"I just want to have something you can look at that's really different and throw you into a different world, a different time and have you as much as possible believe it.

"I mean you'll never wholly believe it, because you're sitting in a dark room chewing on popcorn. But if I can take you to another world and get you lost in it and tell you a story with it, then I’ve done my job.

If Gibson has ready answers for these criticisms, it’s harder to pin him down on some of the more volatile questions the themes in Braveheart raise.

It is these questions that 15 years later almost dominate the legacy of the film, remaining long after the fanfare has died down.

Next: Courting controversy

Courting controversy

At the time of the film’s release, Gibson, who had already been heavily criticised for his views on homosexuality in a 1991 interview, was again accused of homophobia for the portrayal of Edward II.

In the film, Edward Prince of Wales is depicted as an effeminate homosexual, though historians strongly dispute he was gay or bi-sexual, noting that he went on to father at least five children.

The scene where Edward I threw his son's lover out of a castle window was particularly criticised for inciting homophobia.

The lover was based on Piers Gaveston, allegedly involved with Edward II, although he was also married. Many historians believe the rumours were invented by the King's enemies in order to discredit him.

Gibson refused to apologize for the controversy in a 1995 interview with Playboy magazine while promoting the movie. However, he did agree to host a summit for gay rights organization GLAAD.

Although he didn’t apologize for the film's alleged homophobia, Gibson did express regret over his controversial 1991 interview, claiming that his words had frequently been used to criticise him.

When the film premiered in the UK, the first reaction of the English newspapers was to pick up on what The Guardian stated was “a toxic Anglophobia."

Similarly, Scottish writer Colin MacArthur, author of Brigadoon, Braveheart and the Scots: Distortions of Scotland in Hollywood Cinema calls it "an atrocious film".

He also writes that a worrying aspect of the film is its appeal to 'neo-fascist groups'. This seems to be supported by the supposed use of the film by groups such as the KKK to promote fundamentalist beliefs.

“You've got no control over what happens to a lot of stuff once it’s out the gate. Hopefully it gets used in a good way or it inspires in a good way, but I'm glad I'm not my brother’s keeper,” says Gibson.

His tone is understandably defensive, yet alarmed that his film may be being repurposed for such reasons.

The story of Braveheart doesn’t end on a low note, however, as the legacy of the film extends far beyond the extreme few, all the way to the terraces.

Next: A film for all seasons

A film for all seasons

“It’s really a universal appeal.” Says Gibson. “Braveheart worked because of the story.”

“It was great to have the scope, and the battles were incredible, but I think it’s really a universal story, which I don't think is in any different perspective today than in the original release.

“I think the best way to gauge that is to see or to talk to someone who was too young to see it, or wasn’t even born then, someone fifteen years old.

“Get their reaction to it, and if it still resonates for them, it still resonates in the same way that it did.”

Resonate is the certainly the word. For fans of the Scottish National football team, tennis star Andy Murray or other elite Scottish sports stars like Sir Chris Hoy, the legacy of Braveheart couldn’t be clearer.

The ‘Tartan Army’ as they are branded in the media, awash in unrelenting pride, take their cues from Braveheart’s anachronistic tartans and bright blue face paint.

Joining together in unison, they are as fearsome a sight for any visiting team as the English found Wallace’s army in the film.

Indeed, even the teams themselves look to the film for inspiration.

Wallace’s famous ‘Freedom’ speech has been played before big games in international football and rugby, and the iconic theme song piped into the changing rooms.

Whether the film deserves its plaudits, or whether its controversies and inaccuracies outweigh its cinematic pedigree, the effect of the film on the collective psyche of Scotland is clear.

Rarely does a film enter the zeitgeist like Braveheart, and love it or hate it, there is no denying it’s place in cinematic history.

As for Gibson’s thoughts on the film in 2009, well there are a few things he’d change…

Next: Retrospectively speaking

Retrospectively speaking

“The scene in the middle of that battlefield, when everybody rides out and they're all talking and stuff, I should have just killed the conversation.

“He should have just galloped out there and hit the guy on the head and killed him and said ‘okay’ and then run back, and it would have saved a lot of talking,” Gibson jokes.

Gibson and Toll have only rose tinted glasses for the laborious production, and an inherent fondness for the fruit of that labour.

“It’s like a boy’s own adventure in a way,” says Gibson “it’s exciting, it’s tragic, it’s funny. And also it does something spiritual - it’s inspiring.

For a film that was almost four hours at first cut, Gibson was forced to leave a lot of footage on the cutting room floor, something he likens to ‘killing your children’.

“A lot of the stuff that we filmed, we couldn't put out on the screen, because you’d look at it and you’d go ‘no, that's too much.’

“So I pulled way back. But when you're shooting it, you just go for the whole hog, and it’s good to do that because then you can pull back and just suggest it, or maybe more than suggest it.

“My assistant actually put together a gag reel of all the most violent bits in the film, and set it to Julie Andrews singing These Are A Few Of My Favorite Things,” Gibson laughs, “it’s horrible, it’s hideous.”

“That something you certainly won’t be seeing on any extras.”

To say the production had a profound effect on all involved is an understatement.

“For me, the biggest thing was just the fact that we actually got through it,” remembers John Toll. “It was incredibly emotional, for everybody, because it was so ambitious.

“We walked away feeling like we’d really done something. You never really know how a film is going to turn out, and we accomplished what we intended to do, and that was to make a fantastic film.

“That’s true,” adds Gibson, “we did get what we wanted to get. That doesn't happen all the time, but I think the most emotional moment for me was the last day we shot.

“I went and had a little cry in my tent. It was like, ‘wow… huh.’ I had directed once before and it was like a toe in the water movie for no money. So doing something like this seemed like a juggernaut.”

“I feel like at times there were the ghosts of kilted clansmen rising from the moors going ‘yeah, yeah, put the camera over there’ – it really felt like that sometimes.”

“I mean you just have to go and visit the battlefields and it breaks your heart. So you know, we were sort of operating on something else, something coming out of the earth.”

15 years on, the pair talk as though they finished the shoot last week, but they are also looking to the future - ensuring the legacy of Braveheart survives for future generations to enjoy and debate.

Next: A new lease of life

A new lease of life

The 15th Anniversary Special Edition Blu-ray marks the first time the film has gone through a digital re-mastering, something John Toll feels has been very valuable to the presentation of the film.

“It’s great that there is a way to see this film that was very close to what we originally intended, and how we intended it to be seen in theatres. I think it’s fantastic, it just gives the film a new life.

“It gives you opportunities in post-production, a way to exaggerate certain things, to give things more detail, to manipulate the images in ways you can’t for theatrical versions.

“I have been involved with the visual aspects and colour correction, trying to retain the original photographic intent that was the part of the theatrical experience.”

“It’s great that it can have this kind of life on Blu-ray,” adds Gibson, but jokes “sometimes you see it too well, you know.”

“But I’m glad it won’t suffer like some of the films of the past, where the celluloid rots away. You always have a record that's easily preserved and pristine.

“The only place to see it, really, is on a big old screen, but you can’t keep screening it in a cinema.

“And to make it live in a generation where the whole nature and character of the entertainment device is changing to keep up with it and make it accessible, that’s very valuable to me.

“I'm proud of this work. “ Gibson adds.

Something that is evident, 15 years down the line, with numerous other films under his belt, some more financially successful, some more critically praised, is just how much of a place this film holds.

Whether Braveheart continues to be the bane of historians, fodder for minority groups, doctrine for extremists or a badge of honour for an entire nation remains to be seen.

What is certain is that the film will live on as just that, a cinematic experience - one that immerses you in a story, and contains some of the most brilliant battle scenes committed to film.

Braveheart has been many things in the last 15 years, but after sitting down and re-watching the Anniversary disc. it is most definitely one – a cracking good piece of entertainment.

Face-painting fan of the film? Or unwavering hater? Leave us a comment.

Like This? Then try...

The Story Behind Torture Porn The Story Behind Rocky The Story Behind The Simpsons

How Mr Fox saved Wes Anderson

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 10:50:22 GMT

The Fantastic Mr Fox isn't just a great film, it's a film responsible for saving the career of one of Hollywood's brightest directors.

Wes Anderson's been on the slide for longer than any of his delicate, preppy army of followers (including me) would like to admit.

The Royal Tenenbaums didn't have the purpose of Rushmore. It took two viewings of the erratic Life Aquatic before I fell in love with it. And The Darjeeling Limited's by-the-numbers trailer (tick them off: scene-setting voice-over, abrupt comic awkwardness, rushing montage set to British invasion music, stagey philosophical profundity, emotional sign-off) was enough to stop me seeing the film itself until moments before I penned this, when I forced myself to sit through it so I could write about how disappointing it was without making it up.

Turns out my massive and unprofessional prejudgement was totally right: watching it is like standing in a whimsical breeze – not unpleasant, but also not particularly moving, and certainly not what we've should expect from someone so clearly talented as Anderson.

Of course I'm being very brave and forthright about all this after the fact, and what's allowing me to do so without weeping into my monographed Rushmore blazer is Anderson's massive return to form with The Fantastic Mr Fox.

The genius of Mr Fox is twofold.

Firstly, it successfully combines Roald Dahl's fairytale gruesomeness with Anderson's aesthetic sophistication. Fleshing out Dahl's children's story, the film turns Fox's unremarkable wife and offspring into a typically idiosyncratic Anderson family, with George Clooney's Fox a corduroy-sporting newspaper columnist and Jason Schwartzman his small, awkwardly disaffected son.

But crucially it also retains the rotten, guts-and-all core of the original - the greedy caricatured villainousness of onomatopoeic baddies Boggis, Bunce and Bean, the bloody humiliation of Fox's severed tail, and the snarled ugliness of Rat (who now, with scarred eye and thick French accent, is actually more monstrous than before).

This is why Mark Kermode is so wide of the mark when he says there's nothing here for kids to enjoy. Firsthand testimony from my own children says different - Anderson has convincingly gelled his own style with that of the source material, and Rat's juddering death by electrocution (my kids' favourite part of the film by a distance) was as mesmeringly awful as anything Dahl came up with.

The second reason for the film's brilliance is the stop-motion animation. Not just the animation itself, which is painstakingly staged and shot with an orange-sunset photography that captures the heart of the story wonderfully. More than that, the style of the film is the perfect foil for Anderson's meticulousness, for the fastidious collector's impulse which had come to dominate his films, and threatened to strangle the emotion from them.

But where the cluttered minutia of the Tenenbaum household, the contrived cross-section of the Life Aquatic boat and the Louis Vuitton luggage of Darjeeling became distractions, here Anderson's obsessive attention to detail is a real asset. The chugging model railway glowing in the boys' bedroom (a miniature within a miniature), those pristine outfits (pressed pyjamas and matching bandit hats), Fox's leather-bound click-dial hip radio - they belong in an animation, and they all add to the charm and life of the film.

Because of this, Anderson finds himself for the first time in years to move past props and detail and things to make something genuinely moving (spoilers ahead). The moment during Fox's final scooter-and-sidecar escape with his boys and sidekick Kylie, the bike coming to a screeching halt as Fox spies a wolf on a faraway hill, is emotionally powerful in a way Anderson's films haven't managed since the triumphs of Bottle Rocket ("They'll never catch me, man...") or Rushmore ("I saved Latin. What did you ever do?").

It's only possible because of the confidence and fluency of everything that's gone before - Anderson's in full flow, and the moment is brave, elegiac and authentically transcendent. Along with me, a theatreful of kids and parents (the theatre, incidentally, appears in the film) held our breath as Fox looked over the distant field to the silhouetted figure beyond, captive to the moment. "I have a phobia of wolves" he says into the wind, an echo of Gene Hackman's dream confession in The Conversation ("I'm not afraid of death").

The hope - and my belief - is that Anderson's return to form isn't a temporary one. He's not only exorcised his preciousness, but found the perfect expression for it. Up next is probably My Best Friend - a remake of irony-tinged emotional comedy Mon Meilleur Ami - which offers the perfect opportunity for the director to recapture the heart and intelligence of his older live action work.

EARLIER BLOGS
Why Christopher Nolan Must Recast Batman.

Why The Road Is Better As A Book

Is Megan Fox The Antichrist?

The Story Behind Torture Porn

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 10:49:43 GMT

As autumn's dark nights close upon us, our thoughts turn to the perfect scary movie to amp up the chills.

For the past few years, the Saw films have become a Hollywood Halloween tradition, pumping out sequel after sequel, with low budgets equaling big profits.

We thought we'd take a look back into both the recent and distant history of a genre that has become known as "torture porn."

With the most recent entry into the Saw series being soundly beaten at the box office by the torture-free Paranormal Activity, is the genre on its last legs?

Let's start at the very beginning...

WARNING! Blood and guts lurk beyond!

1. The Ancestry Of Agony

Torture Porn films as we know them today share a common ancestor in the splatter/slasher genre, one that has its roots in such mists-of-time shock horror as French Grand Guignol theatre, which delighted in realistic scenes of blood and murder

Here in the UK, we were a little more buttoned down, so when the tradition made the leap across the Channel in 1908, British audiences were treated to more of a gothic tone with the gore played down so as to avoid shocking sensitive types.

In the cinema, meanwhile, the early inklings of what would become the bloodiest genre can be traced to DW Griffith, who included violent touches in 1916's Intolerance, with two beheadings and a spear slowly driven into a soldier's abdomen. Ouch…

Soon after, however, the Production Code - which regulated what could be shown on screen in the interests of decency - largely censored the gore from Hollywood's output.

But the blood came welling back in the 1950s and '60s, as Alfred Hitchcock brought murder back to the mainstream with Psycho and Hammer Films ramped up the horror aspects.

Across the world, audiences were rediscovering the fear, with Nobuo Nakagawa's 1960 horror Jigoku, which took a trip to the Buddhist underworld for scenes of flaying and dismemberment and films such as 1959's Eyes Without A Face (thanks, France) and 1960's Black Sunday (cheers, Italy).

What would become known as splatter films took off around the same time, with low-budget horror huckster Herschell Gordon Lewis responding to Hollywood's muscling in on his nudity niche with explicit gore. 1963 saw him make Blood Feast (above), widely considered the first true splatter release. Made for $24,500, it has since gone on to take in an estimated $7 million.

George A Romero aimed to take things even further mainstream with Night Of The Living Dead in 1968, and followed it up with Dawn Of The Dead, which became even more popular.

The scythe swung back the other way in the 1980s as the US ratings board and the UK's Video Recordings Act began to clamp down on "video nasties" such as I Spit On Your Grave and The Evil Dead. And 1980's Cannibal Holocaust led the way for mockumentary-style horror blended with the gore-tastic side.

But early in the '00s, a whole new sub-genre was born. And while it wouldn't earn its actual name until a couple of films later, it can be traced back to a little project called Saw…

Next: A Saw Point

[PAGE-BREAK]

2. A Saw Point

Ironically, though it certainly has its bloody moments, the first Saw is not quite the gore-fest you might assume.

"I guess if we wanted to make a blood-soaked film, we could have made a zombie film but actually because of what we decided to do, we were trying to come up with something a little bit smart," says co-writer (and co-star) Leigh Whannell. "I don't know if we succeeded but that's what we tried."

Whannell and fellow Australian film student James Wan were best mates with a seemingly typical desire - make a film that would get seen and help launch their careers. Wan leaned towards directing, while Whannell had acting ambitions.

With few opportunities presenting themselves, they decided to do it themselves.

"Basically, James and I finished university, as you do, and we wanted to make a film and had zero money, absolutely none," says Whannell.

"We were very atypical students: Poor but ambitious. So for many years we toiled around: I worked at the ABC and various jobs and James worked in advertising agencies and blah, blah, but always we would meet up and talk about this film we were going to one day make and we'd come up with these script ideas and in some cases we'd even start writing a script, always way above our means.

"So finally, maturity started kicking in and we realised that if we wanted to make a film we'd have to pay for it ourselves and what we wanted that film to do was provide James an opportunity to direct, and me an opportunity to act, because I'd always been interested in acting, so in a way, the script was almost a means to an end.

"I love writing but really, I wrote the script so that we could make a film that would showcase him as a director and me as an actor."

Their original concept boasted much more Australian themes (no, we don't mean kangaroos hopping in the background), but after a frustrating time trying to sell the concept and script in their native land, a lucky break brought them to Los Angeles.

"It was an accident that our manager, when we were at the end of our rope, and totally depressed, said that she knew a literary agent over in America.

"She says, 'there's a lit agency in America who's read the script and liked it, so why don't we go for broke? I know that America's a big long shot, a billion-to-one chance but you know, let's just do it' and so we did and it was just an accident.

"Best way to summarise it is that we never aimed for the film to be made in America; America came to us."

The killer pitch they'd dreamed up - based on a short film the two made in 2003 (above) - focused on two men who wake up to find themselves in captivity, forced to participate in a dangerous round of tasks that involve horrific moments - such as digging a key out of a corpse - and real danger.

"We had this short that we had made which was one scene from the script that we'd shot and we'd shown it around to various people and when the producers who ended up shooting the film met with us, actually already knew from our agent what the deal was.

"They knew if they wanted to get involved, James had to direct and I had to play the lead. It's like that old expression, shooting for the best. You shoot for the best first, and if nothing comes back, you go down a level.

"We shot for the best first and these guys actually bid. They actually said OK, and the most outrageous thing we could offer, they said yes to, which was I needed to play the role of Adam.

"Other companies weren't so generous. Other companies were saying maybe James can direct but Leigh definitely can't do the lead. We want Orlando someone. Maybe we'll buy the script but James can't direct. But this particular company Evolution agreed to all of our terms, which was incredible."

With around $1 million in funding and their roles as director and actor secured, the pair recruited Cary Elwes and Danny Glover as a fellow victim and a cop trying to track the evil mastermind behind it all - a mysterious figure named Jigsaw.

"The film is essentially the story of two victims," explains Whannell. "I think the film kind of, to some people, obviously from reading people's reactions, looks and smells like a serial killer film but it's really not in two respects.

"In one respect, the villain, we don't think, is not a serial killer. His aim is actually for people to live. He wants people to go through these little games but he wants them to come out the other side alive but also the other thing is that the primary story focuses on these two guys in the room, which is what the whole story is.

"A lot of the time in these kinds of films, the victims are sort of relegated to the side and you see them for one scene and then they're dead, and you're always following the police or the bad guys.

"In this film, it's all about the two guys in this room and their psychology and I think to me that separates it a lot of other films that made me look and smell like this film does."

Shot in 18 days, the movie was originally rated NC-17 by the MPAA, but after some judicious editing, escaped with an R. Shown at Sundance in 2004, it was picked up for distribution by US company Lions Gate.

And while it launched to mixed reviews, its success was undeniable - it took in more than $55 million in the US alone and $102 million worldwide. Not a bad return for a $1 million investment.

A franchise was born…

Next: Saw Sequels

[PAGE-BREAK]

3. Saw Sequels

Eager to capitalise on the early success of Saw, Lions Gate quickly pushed for a follow-up.

James Wan stepped aside as director and co-writer, with soon-to-be Saw stalwart Darren Lynn Bousman taking over behind the camera and scripting alongside Whannell.

Despite a small budget boost - $4 million this time, the pair still worked quickly and shot the movie largely in one building across 25 days.

As the sequel opens, "Jigsaw Killer" John Kramer (Tobin Bell) has been arrested, but traps the arresting officer in one of his games.

The new film was even more tricky than the first, with extremely elaborate traps and games, plus a chance to get a peek into Kramer's back story and his reasons for all the schemes.

To maintain the surprises, the crew kept a strict policy of silence, even as the script changed. "Yeah. They were constantly re-writing the movie while we were shooting," recalls co-star Shawnee Smith. "And any re-writes we got, we had to turn in our old pages or we would be disposed of by a shooting squad."

By the time Saw III rolled around (the next year), Bousman realised they needed a different direction.

"Saw III is a much different film. I think it's a much stronger film when we wrote the characters.

"It's funny, I watched all three for the first time two days ago in its whole entirety with the print master, which is when the audio and visuals are married. It was amazing, because you actually care for these characters.

"We're not focusing on eight people running around a house screaming. The primary focus on Jigsaw and Amanda and the two new characters we've introduced and you get attached to them a lot quicker.

"Saw III is by far the most violent of them all. Saw II was my first movie and I was trying to make sure it was successful in grossing people out. I think this grosses people out a lot more, but that wasn't the focus of the movie.

"This year it was about the story and the characters. When you're going into a third movie, you have everything against you because you're the third movie into a franchise."

On to Saw IV, and by then, the challenge to make the films different was really beginning to bite.

"I think the Saw films have become kind of known for their twists and 'did we get you?' This entire movie is a lead up to 'did we get you?'", says Bousman.

"I think that was the hardest thing this year, because this is my last Saw film and knowing that I had to do a big 'did we get you?' And the whole movie was kind of conceived around what we were going to do in the last 20 minutes. As well as thinking about future, what the future leaves.

"In Saw III, I thought it was my final one and I said, 'Kill everybody! Kill them all!' and I went in and I killed Tobin and I did everything, and now I'm like, 'Alright, I'm back. Everyone's dead, what am I gonna do?'

"And so, we had to think ahead this time. Kind of turning the franchise over to David Hackl, he had to go somewhere with it. So we had to think about these characters we're introducing, where will they be, where will they go to.

"So not only thinking about the future, but thinking about the past as well. I think that was the hardest thing about doing Saw IV. Every film has its own message and theme.

"I think, where I kind of approached it, it sounds screwed up, but as a love story between Jigsaw and Amanda, and a lot of people kind of looked down on it, saying it was the most violent and whatever, and that you just did gore for gore's sake, where we really approached the whole thing as a story between Jigsaw and Amanda in this kind of protege-mentor love relationship they had."

For Saw V, the first film's production designer (and second unit shooter for the other three) David Hackl was handed the reigns, with new writers taking over the story.

"Mainly the thing I wanted to do was to play on the relationships, certainly with Hoffman and Jigsaw, you can see more of that in there," says Hackl.

"Personally I get drawn into a film more by the dramatic moments. I don’t think any of us are that drawn into a movie, sucked into the suspension of disbelief more because of just a car chase.

"It’s the relationships. We get drawn into more of that car chase because of the people and the relationships. That’s why we’re drawn into a movie because of the human relationships.

"I wanted to do more of that and I also wanted to give the fans more back story of how this all happened. So even with myself, working on all of these movies for all of these years, I had questions myself.

"How does one develop and perpetrate these traps? You know, I wanted to answer that for myself just as much as anybody. I am probably one of the biggest fans of the franchise, I don’t know if that will help…"

It seemed to - the Saw franchise continued to be profitable and benefited from fast turnarounds that meant one could arrive every year around Halloween, becoming something of a tradition, not to mention a box office champ.

With the release of Saw V, the series looked on track to become the highest-grossing horror franchise of all time.

But it wasn't until a certain filmmaker named Eli Roth launched Hostel in 2005 that the genre truly got its title…

Next: A Genre Defined: Hostel

[PAGE-BREAK]

4. A Genre Defined: Hostel

Saw might have launched torture porn on to the world, but it was Eli Roth's 2005 film Hostel that inspired New York Magazine writer David Edelstein to famously coin the monicker. He based it on the fact that in hacker/slasher films and the likes of Hostel, squirts of blood are treated with the same fetishism as the money shot in porn.

And Roth's film certainly combined sex and death, with Hostel focused on a group of horny American tourists lured to what turns out to be a terrifying abattoir where people are tortured by those who pay for the, er, pleasure.

For Roth, the opportunity presented itself once he'd proved himself with Cabin Fever. "After that, I found myself in this great position where a lot of doors that had previously been closed opened. It's like you are on the outside, then all of the sudden, all the studios want to make movies with you.

"I started taking meetings and a lot of projects got sent to me to see if I wanted to direct them. They were just so bad, that you couldn't believe someone was actually going to go ahead and make the film…"

"So when the film came out, a lot of the do it yourself directors like Peter Jackson, Robert Rodriguez, and Quentin Tarantino who did it own their own were all so supportive and kept saying, just do another one.

"And I thought.... do I really want to follow a low budget horror film with another low budget horror film? Then I saw Saw and thought, why the f**k not? What, seven hundred or nine hundred grand in eighteen days?

"It was a f*****g fun movie, and here I am waiting for these studio movies, so I just said f**k it, I'm tired of this....I'm tired of waiting.

"I wasn't sure what to do so I asked Guillermo Del Toro, and he said whatever gives you the biggest boner man, 'cause you can't work without a boner man, you gotta wake up with a rager.... you have got to have such a boner! And that's when I said, he's right! It's as simple as that.

"Then I asked Quentin Tarantino. I said I'm not sure what to do next. I mean, I could do this $35 million film or this $10 million film and he was like, what are the ideas, what are you thinking about?

"I pitched the idea and he said that is the scariest f*****g idea I have ever heard! That is so disturbing that someone would want to go into a room and kill somebody for the thrill of it! Like it was a sexual act... You've gotta write that, this could be your Takashi Miike film!"

Inspired a website link he'd been sent by Harry Knowles of Ain't It Cool and bolstered by the frothing support of his filmmaking peers, Roth scraped up the money to make his film.

While he relishes the gory ride he takes audiences on, even Roth admits that his films are about more than just the horror.

"I don't want to like cram morality down anyone's throat, but that's what definitely influenced the story. You just see these guys and the way they talk about hookers and girls.

"I've also noticed a trend in pornography lately, where there are all these humiliation sites... all about tricking out girls.

"And you like know it's fake, but there is still someone at home getting off on humiliating girls. Sex is not enough anymore, and there are like fifteen exploitation websites that have all just popped up, and I think that guys think that about Eastern Europe and that the girls are gonna f**k them just because they are American."

Hostel found the typically split reviews but also the success that had helped Saw. Made for $4.8 million, it ended up with around $80 million and begat Hostel: Part II, which arrived in 2007.

Sadly for Roth, the follow-up, which focused on a group of girls getting suckered and slaughtered in a similar situation, didn't perform nearly as well. Despite a $10 million budget, the film leaked online before release and in any case, no one seemed as enthusiastic about the second run-around.

Hostel: Part II made $35 million on release. The tide was slowly turning against the torture…

Next: The Captivity Controversy And More

[PAGE-BREAK]

5. The Captivity Controversy And More

Given the blood-soaked nature of the movies, which delighted in agony and suffering, it was only natural that criticism would follow in their claret-tinged wake.

One of the biggest controversies swirled around the posters for a dodgy Eliza Cuthbert-starring film, Captivity, which attempted to leap aboard the bandwagon in 2007.

Directed by what-the-hell-happened-to-his-career Roland Joffe, the film was advertised with a series of posters showing the former 24 starlet in a series of horrific situations, including being buried alive and tortured.

No lesser spokesman than Buffy creator Joss Whedon - an outspoken advocate for women - led the criticism, calling the imagery "not only a literal sign of the collapse of humanity, But a part of a cycle of violence and misogyny that takes something away from the people who have seen it. It's like being mugged."

Suffice to say, the giant billboards and bus shelter adverts were hastily taken down amongst much buck-passing and finger pointing. Producer Courtney Solomon, whose After Dark Films spearheaded the movie, tried to say that he didn't know who was responsible.

Lions Gate, which was distributing, knew where to look. "This film was done in association with After Dark Films. The nature of the association allows After Dark autonomy over their marketing materials, and therefore we neither saw nor approved this billboard before it was posted," said Lions Gate's Peter Wilkes.

"Once aware of the materials and the reaction to them, we immediately asked After Dark to remove the billboards, to which they immediately and cooperatively responded." After plenty of free publicity, of course.

Still, even the controversy couldn't stop the flop - it made just $10 million. Worldwide.

The other big problem for the genre? Overkill (ba-doom tish! Thank you very much, we'll be here all week, try the buffet and tip your waitress).

"There became a glut of so many horror movies, and I think the audience is oversaturated," Dimension's Bob Weinstein, told The LA Times.

"Sometimes the industry has the habit of making the same movies over and over again."

"There's nothing you can do to a human being on screen that is taboo anymore," blabbed Oscar-winning writer-producer Akiva Goldsman. "Over and over again, people are breaking the boundaries of the body, hurting people, chopping people up, ravaging people…"

And what was once shocking has become increasingly standard, with TV shows focused on murders and the forensic detail that solves them.

The genre still has its defenders, notably Roth. "I've heard myself referred to as a gore-teur or gore-nography.

"I think that I understand what David Edelstein said when he said audiences were getting off on the violence. What that does though is it immediately discredits the film.

"You know, when you watch pornography, you watch it, you get off, and that's it. I think it's more reflective of the critic than the film. It shows a lack of understanding and ability to understand and appreciate a horror film as something more than just a horror film.

"The gore blinds them to any intelligence that goes into making the film. And I think that the term "torture porn" genuinely says more about the critic's limited understanding of what horror movies can do than about the film itself."

Plus, there was still clearly a market for the sub-genre, even after the relative failure of Hostel: Part II and the crash of Captivity.

It continues to inspire filmmakers around the world…

Next: Beyond Hollywood

[PAGE-BREAK]

6. Beyond Hollywood

It's ironic that torture porn has become so strongly associated with Hollywood, especially since it had its most recent rebirth at the hands of two Australian filmmakers who had planned to shoot it in their native land.

But while many of the biggest examples have come out of America, it's long been a horror staple around the world.

Here in the UK we got WΔZ in 2008, which sees detectives Stellan Skarsgard and Melissa George trying to solve a complicated crime involving equations and rituals.

"It's about altruism in nature and about whether you'd kill someone you love in order to survive yourself. It's a very cool film," says George.

"In nature, there are some animals who will put themselves on the front line to be killed in order to save their kingdom, because they are the same gene pool.

"They don't care. They just want to survive. One monkey will go out in front of another and get killed in order to save 300 of them behind him.

"Whereas, humans, we're a separate gene pool. So we are exploring the idea that if someone said to you 'I will stop doing this to you if you kill your lover…'

"How much pain would you take, before you kill somebody that you love? It's very awesome. It's got a genius storyline."

Australia's Dying Breed channelled the charnel horror of cannibals for a tale of hikers looking for a tiger who end up discovering man-eating men searching for new breeding stock.

With Saw's Leigh Whannell among its cast, it scored controversy points thanks to a quickly-banned poster that featured a human eye and other bits baked into a pie. Charming!

More recently, Lars von Trier's Antichrist, which arrives loaded with mutilation and blood, can easily be fitted into the genre, even if the filmmaker's ambitions and symbolic inspiration were a little loftier.

And there's also Martyrs (above), the French horror which arrived in March of this year, whose director aimed to change things up a little.

The idea from the beginning was always to bring something original, something fresh and trying to do an unexpected film," says Pascal Laugier.

"So, yeah, I consciously played with the archetypes of the horror genre. Trying to bring something new.

"As a general fan - I don't want to sound arrogant - but I was honestly a little bit tired about how things were becoming. Sometimes I had the feeling that a lot of the directors were doing horror films just to show the audience that they shared the same collection of DVDs.

"I wrote the film on a very emotional level, trying to be as sincere and as honest as possible. I certainly didn't want to do a tongue in cheek movie."

Martyrs follows - spoiler alert if you haven't seen it - a group who are trying to discover the secrets of the afterlife through - you guessed it - torturing young women. We follow one of their former victims as she aims for a little vengeance, but the movie twists and turns around the idea.

It'll come as no surprise that Martyrs is being considered for a US remake.

And talking of remakes…

Next: Remakes Muscle In

[PAGE-BREAK]

7. Remakes Muscle In

Nothing lasts forever, and torture porn has seen its box office throne rocked by a different - if related - type of horror slowly taking over.

While studios were happy to keep making direct torture porn pics because they were cost-effective, the rise of the remake has been inexorable across all genres.

With the mega-corporations behind most of the big Hollywood powerhouses concerned about the bottom line, the remake trend has grown and grown.

After all, why go searching through several unsuccessful films when you can dig up an old title, give it a spit and polish, hand it to a cheap director and writers and wait for the money to roll in?

So it has been with the likes of Hostel and Captivity, which have seen their box office takings dip and other movies winning out.

In the last few years alone, the likes of The Amityville Horror, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Friday The 13th and even the classic Halloween have all been given the retread treatment.

Not all are successful, but most would not have been made had not a few carved out some serious box office success.

But there's a similar risk that audiences will get sick of seeing classic horror movies thrown into the remake abattoir.

"It just sounds like horribly cynical marketing, economic decision more than anyone saying, 'I just have to make that film,' and 'I have to find a way to get it made,'" says director Douglas Buck, who nevertheless made his own stab at the genre with a new take on 1973's Sisters.

It sounds more like a producer going, 'Ah! Let's remake Dawn of the Dead! Now let's find a writer, now lets find a director, and let's do it!' you know? Which isn't the best way to make great movies.

"But with the Sisters remake, as soon as I heard about it, something in my mind went, 'Oh yeah. That makes sense for me.'

"So I think there's room for these films. I just wish that it didn't feel so cynical, you know, just didn't feel so economic and so cynical like it does overall."

Not that producers such as Andrew Form and Brad Fuller of Platinum Dunes would ever say they're in it for the money… "With our track record, we could go out and make bigger movies where there's a better return for our company," says Fuller.

"We make horror movies primarily because we love them. That's what our company does, and that's the choice that we made.

You talk to a ton of producers who started in horror and then go and become big guys; our aspirations, although we do want to branch out, the branching out is simply because we feel like the stories we've told are starting to feel a little bit repetitive.

"I mean, I'll be in locations and I'll say to Drew, 'Didn't we do this exact shot?' Do you know what I'm saying? You hunger for something new. But when they say that we're just doing this for the money, that drives me insane."

Hell, even the Saw team have seen the opportunity as too good to resist. In the last few weeks, the producers snatched the rights to The Texas Chain Saw Massacre from the Platinum Dunes bods and are planning their own fresh franchise.

And unlike many of its contemporaries, Saw has stayed strong. At least, until now…

Next: Bleeding Dry?

[PAGE-BREAK]

8. Bleeding Dry?

Horror has always been cyclical (or, if you prefer, sick-lical). One type of terror rises as others fall, the genre has so many iterations that it's easy for one to take over for a while.

And, more often than not, eras spawn their own horror genres - with torture porn born from not only thoughts of torture itself (spotlighted by the controversy of Guantanamo Bay) but also the ever-increasing influence of the 'net.

Hostel was directly inspired by the growth of online shockers and ties directly in to the seemingly endless human need for the next

And, right now, despite the budgets staying relatively low, it appears that torture porn might be on the wane. As mentioned, horror remakes, which channel a lot of the gore-some action into retreads of old slasher films, took over as more successful at the box office.

Plus the latest Saw film - Saw VI - failed to display the usual box office power. For years, the movies have been guaranteed earners for Lions Gate, crushing all comers around Halloween.

This time, however, demonic happenings triumphed over detailed traps as Paramount's micro-budgeted, 'net fandom-powered Paranormal Activity triumphed, despite being released in 1,000 fewer cinemas.

Don't count out the Saw films and their ilk just yet, though. Lions Gate is plunging ahead with Saw VII, which is apparently planning to aim for the 3D trend.

And while the outlay remains low and the rewards still possible, studios will keep sponsoring the likes of Eli Roth and co.

Who knows? Even if torture porn dies in its current incarnation, it can always rise from the grave in a few years or a couple of decades, spurred by a first-time director with a great idea and a whole new twist of the knife…

Like This? Then try...

The Story Behind Gremlins Battle Royale: Horror Movie Icons The 28 Most Horrifying Movie Moments

10 Actors Reinvented By TV

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 10:49:17 GMT

The Evolution Of Jennifer Connelly

Fri, 30 Oct 2009 16:01:58 GMT

Movie By Movie: John Carpenter

Fri, 30 Oct 2009 16:01:20 GMT

totalfilm.com Deals of the Week - 30/10/2009

Fri, 30 Oct 2009 15:19:51 GMT