Archive for category Sequels
Interview With REC 2 Writer/Director Paco Plaza!
Posted by Matt in Interviews, New Releases, News, Sequels on July 6th, 2010
I’m not sure how my lucky number came up when the promoters of REC 2 were looking for bloggers to write about their film, but a couple weeks ago I was offered an advanced screener and an interview with writer/director Paco Plaza. Surely, our humble blog here doesn’t rank amongst the horror blogosphere elite (check out our current HorrorBlips ranking haha), but I like to think that we do a good job with the limited time we have to devote. So, that said, I was very pleased to receive the interview invite. Chris and I watched the film and came up with some (I think) thoughtful questions that we figured would interest our readers. As I’m sure you already know, REC 2 picks up right where the first film left off, placing us behind the lenses in the same apartment complex overrun with its killer residents. Here is the interview:
I was interested to see that there are plans to make this series into a foursome with “Apocalypse” and “Genesis.” What aspects about REC inspired a saga and what concepts do you think will hold an audience through four films?
After the release and success of the first film, we began to think it was worth developing the cosmology we had created. When we thought about it, we decided to rescue some ideas that were already planted. For the example, the demonic possession left a lot to explore. And that’s what we’re now doing, with each film we want to give twists and turns and have the story go beyond imagination.
Recently, the first person hand held camera style has become popular. What do you think it is about this style that has captivated audiences?
I don’t know; maybe the POV offers a deeper implication, linked with other languages like TV or videogames that a young audience is familiar with. And it’s much cheaper, and that has no doubt captivated producers.
Will all four movies maintain the “first person” hand-held camera style?
No, that will change.
Anything you can tell about the direction the saga is going to take?
No, sorry. We think part of the success has been hiding our cards until the premiere, and we want to keep it like that. All I can say is that I’m writing the prequel with Luis Berdejo, we’re working really hard in making it the funniest and scariest of the three.
Should American audiences expect to see any of the three new films finding themselves into American remakes?
I don’t know. It depends on American producers.
What makes REC 2 unique from its predecessor and the other films of the first person camera style?
I think its mix of genres; in fact, it is a film spliced in two. Our model on this was James Cameron’s Aliens and its turn into action. We wanted to play with different POV’s and have flash-back, a bunch of new and playful elements. It’s not as strict as the first one.
Zombie horror has become a leading genre these days and I feel REC was pigeonholed into that genre. What about the REC saga transcends that genre?
Possibly that both REC films contain really strong views on Spanish society. They deal important matters such as racism and media manipulation.
What do you envision as being the “next big thing” (genre, style, etc) in horror?
I don’t know. What I’ve enjoyed is the end of those awful torture movies with pointless violence involved. We’re lucky that is over.
What did you use as blood in REC 2? It’s very realistic.
At certain moments its real pig blood; many times (when in contact with the actors) is just a special composition, a secret formula David Ambit (FX) will never share.
During the writing process of the first film, was the religious/demon angle always the intended direction?
Yes, that is the background we created; at the end of the first REC we somehow gave a lot of clues, in the tape, in the newspapers on the wall…everything was already there.
Some might view REC and REC 2 as critical of the Catholic church. Was it your intention to make a statement about the church?
Not at all. We both are big fans of The Exorcist, I agree it’s one of the best films ever made; we loved the idea of showing that our creatures were not zombies, and in the end of REC we had sawed the idea of a demonic possession happened in Portugal. I’m a practicing Catholic, but Jaume is not, and I think the approach to the subject of possession for us was more aesthetic than religious.
[End Interview]
First, a statement – I greatly appreciate being offered this interview and I think Mr. Plaza gave us good, honest answers to the questions. However, I’d be remiss if I didn’t say that he omitted some of our more “difficult” questions, namely:
- The Catholic Church is an organization founded on spirituality and uses it to explain our reality. Given this, in REC 2, why are they trying to find a scientific explanation for something that is always considered a religious/spiritual matter?
- There seems to be a bit of confusion regarding the role the viewer is supposed to play in REC 2 considering we are watching several different pieces of video captured from multiple devices. Is this “found footage”? And if so, why did the editor of the footage choose to keep elements like battery meters and other viewfinder text on the final print?
As you may guess, these two questions reflect my main criticisms of REC 2 and I would love to have had Plaza’s opinion on them, but I can understand that there are plot holes and certain leaps of faith (no pun intended) that we’re expected to take as viewers. What did you think of REC 2 and were you able to get past these flaws?
[REC] 2 is now available on VOD, VUDU, Xbox Marketplace Playstation Network, Amazon and will be in theaters July 9th. Check out the official website at Rec2themovie.com and if you haven’t already seen it, watch the trailer below.
Alone In The Dark II – Disgraceful. Will The Real Edward Carnby Please Stand Up?
Posted by Chris in Reviews, Sequels, Trash, Video Games on April 29th, 2010
The other day I sat down and watched, against my better judgment, Alone in the Dark II (2008). I got nostalgic and soon found myself suckered in with the mentality that it couldn’t ruin one of my favorite childhood franchises worse than Uwe Boll did. I was dreadfully wrong.
Growing up, Alone in the Dark’s signature hero, Edward Carnby, was the Chris Redfield before there was a Chris Redfield. He could shoot his way through a house full of zombies, and if he ran out of bullets he’d a grab a knife from the cutting board or even the cutting board itself and crack open some rotted heads. If that didn’t work he would just throw some killer head-butts and crescent kicks. Let’s see Redfield do that.
However, with superior graphics, the Resident Evil franchise took the spotlight away from its spiritual grandfather, so Alone in the Dark attempted to revamp for the new millennium with Alone in the Dark: The New Nightmare (2001) which moved Carnby and the franchise out of prohibition era America into modern day with some lame explanation about the character being a descendant in some secret organization that passes down the name… really a load of marketing garbage to try to compete with Resident Evil. Carnby, himself, was transformed into a Fox Mulderish wise cracking, early thirty-something, and if that wasn’t bad enough they even paired him with a red-head love interest and threw some government agency conspiracy into the mix.
Unfortunately, this “X-file” that no one should have opened gave Uwe Boll, the worst German since WWII, an idea. And when Uwe Boll gets an idea, a beloved survival horror title becomes a disgrace.
Boll’s “brilliant” vision of bringing Alone in the Dark (2005) to the screen cast Christian-we thought your career was over-Slater as Carnby while Tara-bad boob job-Reid played the Dana Scully-ish character. The movie was mess of bad slow motion, half-assed CGI monsters, plot holes, and Stephen Dorff – the guy you wouldn’t know if he wasn’t the villan in the first Blade movie – who brought plenty of terrible over-acting as the psudeo-villian that, of course, turns good just in time to save the day. While Slater was, in retrospect, a passible Carnby, the movie itself was terrible and only loosely based on anything anywhere in the games.
After the dust cleared from that mess, I was content on going back to playing the original trilogy on an old laptop and forgetting about the other two massacres until Atari decided they were going to try to make everything better by resurrecting Carnby in 2008 with the simply titled Alone in the Dark, which did its best to try to create a plot that would completely discount everything that happened in The New Nightmare and Boll’s piece of trash by simply pretending the game, and the horrible movie based on it, never happened -what I like to refer to as the Highlander 3 maneuver. Nevertheless, this new Alone in the Dark expected us to swallow the fact that Carnby Rip-Van-Winkled it sometime during the Hoover administration and woke up in modern times. Iwould be wiling to swallow this if the gameplay wasn’t a mess of innovation for the sake of it, an over extended mutli-genre debacle, and filled with more bugs than an apartment in Baltimore. At least, I was sure now that the franchise couldn’t get any worse?
Then I sat down and watched Alone in the Dark II (2008). Although, why it has the right to be a “2″ to anything still remains cryptic. The original game to bear that title was about zombie pirates turned bootleggers kidnapping a little girl during prohibition and this is definitely not that. You could try to make the case that it’s a sequel to the Boll monstrosity, but honestly you would have to get some military quality bungee to make a stretch like that since the plot bares no resemblance to anything Alone in the Dark. Maybe most insulting is that Carnby is now portrayed by Rick Yune, whose ethnic background is completely different than that of the character he is portraying. Real good continuity, people! Perhaps the producers should just be honest about the fact that they just stamped the franchise name on their crappy movie and put Carnby’s dog tags on Yune’s horrible character because they wanted people like myself to get suckered into watching it.
However, if the film was even average I wouldn’t have cared. Instead, it unloads its abysmal writing by kicking off with a shootout/chase scene that has something to do with a witch, a dagger, and some group of demon hunters that run around firing big guns at bad blurs of CGI while yelling poorly acted lines to each other through cool stylish headsets. Carnby somehow, which remains puzzling (yes five minutes in and its already confusing) becomes involved with the dagger, gets stabbed with it, and spends the next half hour being carried around by the demon hunters group. While Carnby is lying around bed whining, Lance Henriksen – who we want to like because he was Bishop from Aliens – goes on this whole rant about how he’s not going to get involved, probably setting up the reluctant hero that has sacrifice himself cliche. Then we cut to more shootouts with the CGI blur.
If you haven’t surmised it, the film was unwatchable, made Uwe Boll look like Martin Scorsese, and I couldn’t even force my
self to finish it, which leaves me with one nagging question. Do I want there be to another Alone in the Dark anything? It’s a really sad reality because this series had some strong potential back in 1992. Back then, there wasn’t anything like it. Dark halls, puzzles, guns, and Lovecraft style creepiness: footprints in the distance and macabre sneaking up on you from behind every corner had never rooted itself in the world of gaming. This franchise should have developed into something fantastic as technology improved. Instead, we get a character that’s completely revamped too many times, too far separated from his tough-as-nails Charles Bronson meets Macgyver roots, and four bad attempts at trying to have this franchise claim a foothold with a new generation. Can the real Edward Carnby please start cracking some more heads with a frying pan, and maybe box the hell out of Uwe Boll, until we get another decent entry into the franchise?
Descent 2 Clip/Synopsis Surface And I’m Scared
I’ve said it a dozen times on here before and I’ll do it one more time – Neil Marshall’s The Descent (2005) is one of the best horror movies of all time. It worked on nearly every level – strong characters, incredibly tense and claustrophobic setting, the right amount of gore, great effects, and an awesome ending (talking about the original U.K. one). It gets under my skin even after repeated viewings and that’s saying a lot. So, kudos, Mr. Marshall.
When I first got wind of the impending sequel, The Descent: Part 2, which opens in the U.K. this week, I was apprehensive. If you hold the U.K. ending as the film’s true ending (which I do), there’s really no reason to continue the story. It’s already wrapped up in a neatly morbid little package. Maybe I’ve been avoiding doing research on the sequel, but I just stumbled upon the synopsis:
“Emerging from the cave system alone, distraught and covered in the blood of her missing companions, Sarah is incoherent and half-wild with fear. Sceptical about her account of events and convinced Sarah’s psychosis hides far darker secrets, Sheriff Vaines (Gavan O’Herlihy) doesn’t waste time. Along with his partner Rios (Krysten Cummings), and their cave rescue team Dan (Douglas Hodge), Greg (Joshua Dallas), and Cath (Anna Skellern), Vaines forces Sarah back into the caves to help the rescuers find her friends.“
I know it’s a horror movie but this is ridiculous! First of all, I hate the fact that Sarah is emerging from the cave after her encounter with the creatures/Juno. That means we’re going with the U.S. ending which was a total cop-out from the original idea. On the DVD commentary, Marshall said they used the “Sarah gets out” ending for U.S. audiences because they reacted better to it. I guess that means most of the U.S. test audiences were idiots. Damn you!
Even if you concede that we have to use the U.S. ending, this synopsis is still a bit asinine. So she emerges alone, tells the cops what happened, and then is forced to go back into the cave by the cops!? What kind of cops are these!? In case you don’t remember, this is how Sarah looked when we last saw her:

Now that looks like a woman ready to go back into a cave with blind, flesh eating, half-human monsters, doesn’t it? If we’re to believe anything of what we learned about Sarah in the first film, it’d be pretty reasonable to believe she’d quickly dispatch these sadistic cops with a pickaxe to the thigh or die trying rather than go back in. But this is a horror sequel after all, right? So we’re supposed to have an even bigger suspension of disbelief. Bullshit, I say.
One of the reasons why The Descent was so great was because it was believable (aside from the monsters existing, I guess, but you never know). There wasn’t anything over-the-top about what happens on screen. The characters are realistic and they become trapped in a situation that has happened in real life – being trapped in a cave. The whole film has a gritty, claustrophobic realism that scares the shit out of me.
All of this aside, Marshall is not directing The Descent: Part 2 and I’m afraid that it may cheapen the impact of the first film. Based on the clip below, this sequel seems to be sticking with the claustrophobia themes but I’m scared it’s just going to be a rehash of old (but excellent) ideas. Regardless, I’ll be there on opening night for this one. Check out the clip and let us know what you think.






