The Hot Blog

Do you consider there to be some difference between horror movies of years past and what you call 'horror porn' now?

Putting TCM '03 in the same sentence as Un Chien Andalou is pretty remarkable and (for me) completely ruins your credibility on this issue.

How is it I can write all that and all you can do is to nitpick something that was obviously meant with some degree of drollness.

Go see it, JMac... might be your favorite of the year.

Yes, there is a huge difference between Halloween, Friday The 13th and Nightmare on Elm Street and this. And there is a huge difference between these films and gross outs like Battle Royale or emotional horror thrillers like Oldboy and Audition.

In the Freddy and Jason movies, there were big, dramatic, graphic images. But they were a punchline to a most complex set-up. Same with The Ring. The new thing is "Get to like the characters and watch us cut off their fingers in slow-mo."

Saw at least starts with a clever premise. And really, had those filmmakers had money, my guess is that it would have been less gory because they would have been able to afford to shoot it more like the straight thriller they wrote.

You didn't read as droll.

I wasn't thinking about Halloween or the original Nightmare, I was wondering more about Friday the 13th Part 4 or Zombie or just about any Italian horror movie for that matter. Trading in pure gore spectacle isn't new.

Anyway, laugh if you will, but Roth earned my respect with Cabin Fever and I will see Hostel this weekend.

By the way, DP, without having seen the movie, I can't respond to your appraisal of it. But I can respond to your taste in horror movies. I know you've said you've enjoyed Oldboy and Audition and such, but those are as much arthouse/foreign films as they are horror. It's like saying you enjoy sci-fi and only citing 2001 and Solaris as examples.

TCM ' 03 is horror porn on the highest level. Don't let its stylishness or the way WhatsHersFace cuts an amazing figure distract you. It's an abomination to what made the original a classic. Crude and artless. I walked out of the Arclight that day with loathing in my heart. Furious even. To know what makes the first one so special is to know what makes the remake an insult. This isn't about mere opinions... it's Aesthetics 101.

Let's talk about it.

The stylishness of TCM '03 is part of what makes it so porny. The shot that went through the bullet wound in the guy's head and out through the mirror of the car, and the gorgeous cinematography, were all there to add to the pure spectacle of the whole thing.

I haven't seen HOSTEL. I'm not a fan of CABIN FEVER, so don't immediately attack me as an Eli Roth supporter.

But anyone who would have the stones to attack "horror porn" after being a champion of THE BLAIR WITCH TEXAS CHAINSAW REMAKE MASSACRE is, simply put, unfit to discuss the genre.

You don't get horror films. You don't like horror films. You aren't qualified to discuss whether or not a horror film is any good.

TCM REDUX was abysmal, a rape of one of the truly great titles in horror history, and as smarmy and stupid an example of the "teens in peril" genre as I can think of. Marcus Nispel is more interested in art direction than storytelling, and that film is artificial and insulting from the opening frame.

I repeat... you do not know the genre. You do not like the genre. You do not understand the genre. You've proven that conclusively.

I haven't seen HOSTEL. I'm sure I will. I'll take your reaction to be a glowing recommendation, though.

Well, looks like I'm going to be starting 2006 totally disageeing with you again, David. Yeah, the sex and nudity was a bit gratuitous (okay, it all was), but I was quite entertained by how things played out even though I thought I knew way too much about the premise going in. I never saw Cabin Fever, but I liked this better than Wolf Creek and House of Wax, the two films in the splatter horror genre that had some saving graces last year. I thought Hostel was much better than the original Saw and stuff like High Tension/Devil's Rejects which didn't have any story/character development and was just gore for the sake of gore. (Do agree about the eye/fingers thing though...maybe that was deliberately cartoonish.)

I also think it's funny that Hostel is already being deemed the worst movie of 2006 before David's even seen Grandma's Boy or BloodRayne! (Which he probably won't unless he pays to see them in theatres.)

Why is everyone assuming that David meant the 2003 remake of TCM? I don't see where he asserted that. I didn't think much of it either, especially compared to the original, but did think Daniel Pearl shot the hell out of it, although even so there was no single image as haunting as, say, Jim Siedow and Marilyn Burns silhouetted in front of the blaring lights of the pickup (Pearl shot that too of course, but the framing is just as likely to be Tobe Hooper's contribution).

Takashi Miike appears in the film simply because Roth has become a friend; on one of the recent, fortunate explosion of Miike DVDs over here (probably ICHI THE KILLER), Roth waxes eloquent about Miike's genius, though I doubt this was his sole motivation. How often do Japanese actors, let alone Japanese directors, get asked to appear in American movies of any type? He was flattered and thrilled to bits. (The far less interesting director Masato Harada proved to be a surprisingly good actor in THE LAST SAMURAI, by the way, as the ambassador who recruits Tom Cruise's character.)

I was mildly impressed by Roth's CABIN FEVER, which gives the lie to David's assertion that he has no sense of humor (it's a damn weird one, but it's there), although this won't get me into a theater for HOSTEL, not at $10.75 Manhattan prices, and not when I already think it's probably more than I need to deal with on the big screen anymore (I've waited for rentals on pictures as various as THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST and IRREVERSIBLE for the same reason).

Mr. McWeeny asserts that David specifically doesn't like or understand horror films. I don't know that I've noticed as much; he's certainly not as fantasy-averse as, say, He Who Shall Not Be Named (cough, Jeff Wells, cough), although at the same time he may prefer his horror movies to be more fantastically than realistically grounded; HOSTEL, from what little I've gleaned of it (Tarantino was just pushing it on Conan O'Brien), sounds like something that's at least vaguely plausible, which can be all the more unsettling. Thematically it seems of a piece with a really ghastly (all the more so for being so well written) paperback from the late 70s called ATROCITY WEEK (something that could *never* be filmed unless they changed pretty much everything about it, though the title's nifty, ain't it).

David's surely entitled to hate this movie (I am dying to find out what this other title is that he hated more), and it's true that sometimes (like any of us who write about film) he's going after it loaded for bear when all he really needs is a BB gun, but what's clear is that he was so *personally* offended by HOSTEL that there's hardly any point in discussing it. I remain perplexed by his comprehensively hateful pan of THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW, of all the silly things to tackle (and which I actually think is Roland Emmerich's best movie, which isn't saying much, granted — of course it's stupid, all his movies are stupid, but this one had the best desctruction porn), but we're all subject to moods, or simple quirks of individual temperament.

David, I wonder what you'd make of something like THE MEN BEHIND THE SUN. You'd have to tell me, because I'm way too pussy to see that one (having sat through Stan Brakhage's THE ACT OF SEEING WITH ONE'S OWN EYES, I've seen enough of actual corpses being taken apart for one lifetime).

Last note: I figure you must tend to write these things on the fly, but I mildly resent the characterization of BATTLE ROYALE as "a gross out." I at least think it's rather more than that.

Dan, you are correct about the assumption that DP was talking about TCM '03 (which he has said he enjoyed) rather than TCM '74 (which I would agree is in the same league as Un Chien Andalou). If that was true, sorry Dave!

However, I have always gotten the sense that Dave only goes to horror movies out of a sense of obligation and that they really aren't his thing. There's no shame in that. But one shouldn't pretend otherwise and use arty creme-of-the-crop thrillers as evidence that one actually does love the genre wholesale.

Dave has stated many times that he really liked the 2003 remake of TCM, so it's likely he IS referring to it. I haven't seen it because I'm more of a psychological horror person, so I can't comment on it.

I'll just save my money for Silent Hill. If the movie has even a quarter of the suspense and atmosphere of the first or third game, it'll be worth it. Unlike most of the other game adaptations, everyone involved seriously cares about it, and the games were actually ABOUT something (though many times hidden in vague subtext). Whether there's enough talent involved to make it work remains to be seen (Christophe Gans hasn't really proved anything except he can juggle a bunch of genres at once, and he REALLY needs a good editor), but they're trying.

Sorry Dave, my previous statement came out more condescending than I meant it to.

The fact that Drew McWeeny crawled out of his hole adds a rich layer to this debate that--for me anyway--was evident in the vitriol Poland heaped upon Roth. Perhaps he just really, really hated it. And maybe I'm just transferring my own feelings onto his words...but the fact that this movie has been getting pimped excessively by the Movie Geek contingent, that Harry Knowles goes out his way to explain how he inspired the movie, and simply the genuine douchiness of Roth and his ego contributes to my skepticism. Maybe it adds to Dave's feelings too. The movie is being pushed so freaking hard by these guys--and they have been wrong so many times, and do far more harm than good anymore (I'm looking at you, AICN)--that it makes one want to artificially pump up any negative reaction. It's sickening. I know that isn't the point of this debate neccessarily, but take the pulse of message boards everywhere and you'll find an evergrowing distrust of the Movie Geek elite of which Roth considers himself a leader. Poland makes it pretty clear in his review that he has no respect for Roth as a supposedly vital and important young filmmaker.

Dave has been pretty consitent in his dislike of "death porn," so I don't see a problem there. His continuing defense of TCM '03 is weird, though. On that I concur with Drew. I admit I liked it after first viewing, but as I saw it a few more times I grew to see it as empty and pointless. It's certainly as beautiful and skilled as, say LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT is amateurish and ugly. But Nispel's movie is a showreel whereas LHOTL ( a movie I hate, but respect) has a soul, a POV and a theme worth discussing. I'm of the belief that you can remake anything as long as you find something to elaborate on or reimagine. TCM '03 is just rerun, without the wit and creativity. Snyder & Gunn's DAWN OF THE DEAD remake, however, was a hyper-caffinated reimagining of Romero's film as a balls-out modern action movie. I loved it. I'll have to seek out dave's review of TCM because I really can't remember what he liked about it.

As for Roth, FEVER was retarded. I don't care about Eli's love for teen sex comedies or splatter or exploitation. If you don't know how to cook you can't just toss junk into a bowl and make a cake. The movie was artless, forced, annoying and fucking groanworthy every step of the way. It was a 90 minute self-indulgent joke, and it was hyped to me as a good horror movie. I have no doubt he loves horror but, again, learn how to write, tell a story and make a movie first. AICN and whatnot can go orgasmic over all the "coolness" of the various parts. That doesn't make for a compelling narrative film. FEVER had none of that. I'll have to see HOSTEL myself to decide if he's taken a step (and with the NFL playoffs this weekend I doubt I or many other's will do so this weekend). But I don't think Poland's reaction is anymore suspect than the BNAT crowd proclaiming it horror nirvana. "You don't understand horror" is a lame, weakass, reactionary response. I'm a lifelong 35 year old horror afficianado. What happens if I agree with Poland? Does it cancel out everthing else?? There's a difference between "understanding horror" and "understanding good horror." Torture in and of itsself is not "good horror." It's horror, but it's not good. Stephen King talks all the time about why horror has a different, built-in set of standards to work. I don't disagree with that but I think you can still like and understand horror films and expect more from them than just "boo" or "gross."

I wish he'd quite being so coy about the namelss "Bad Movie." Must be something still out there. If it were BLOODRAYNE or GRANDMA'S BOY there'd be no reason to hide it. UNDERWORLD 2? SLITHER? Damn you, Poland.

I have to say that I am getting pretty concerned with the direction that Quentin Tarantino's is heading in. I actually really liked Kill Bill Volume 2, but was sorely disappointed in Volume One and have to admit that as a collective, they are his weakest films. I was also not that impressed with Sin City. It was well done and had some very good performances, but for me, the film was all sound and fury.

Seeing as he's involved with films like that, Hostile, and the upcoming Grindhouse, QT just seems on a one-man crusade to show how geeked out he is and how he is playing to the crowd. And a lot of people think it's just more of the same after Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fictions. The fuddy-dud-Jeffrey Wellses of the film criticism world will just continue to brush him off as one of those Gen X whippersnappers who are all about style over substance.

Well, I have to say that for all those fondness people now have for Pulp and RD, they forget that there was a true humanity in those films. Despite scenes featuring ears getting off or the "gimp" there was some really strong emotional stuff in those films.

I hope QT hasn't strayed too far from that.

CleanSteve, anyone who has the "stones" to call DAWN OF THE (BRAIN)DEAD REMAKE a good example of a balls-out action movie has no authority to tell us what an action movie is. You do not understand action movies, you obviously do not like them, so please stop talking.

Thank you.

Did anyone think Eli Roth was a talent to begin with?

Dave stated in a comment to another post that he won't be naming the mystery movie anytime soon because, he implied, it will not be seeing the light of day anytime soon. He might want to make a post about it so we all stop bugging him about it.

the movie that dave refers to has to be freedomland. i got it!

You are right, ManWithNoName. And your "DAWN OF THE (BRAIN)DEAD" crack confirms your place as a far higher authority than I or, really, anyone. How long have you been holding on to that quip? Thank god I came along so you could finally use it. Perhaps someday you might actually wish to, ya know, debate some thing. Discuss something, rather than wound me mortally with your Rickles-esque wit.

Thank YOU, sir.

There seems to be two schools of thought for horror nowadays.

The 'old school' sort, which combines gore, style and storytelling with some sort of perhaps shall we say moral worldview (The Exorcist, John Carpenter, Elm Street and the like) and the new view which seems to want to say it is derived from the Miike, Asian tradition but is really just about getting off on gore.

For to long now the new 'horror geeks' want to be the former but are clearly the latter. The Texas Chainsaw Remake seems to be a dividing line. It was actually the former, disguised as the latter and the 'New Geeks' don't like it.

Texas 2003 was one of the best horror films I have ever seen since my teen years. It had style, a deliberate pace and a real sense of dread. A real sense of evil that allowed you to see very base things. That it made you feel true dread is what worked.

It didn't glorify the killers...you saw them for the evil that they did and Biel was wonderful in her role. You cheered for the 'kids' to get away. They earned your sympathy. The scene where she finds her friend 'hung up' in the dank basement was horrifying and she pulled off a true performance

Cabin Fever was junk. Sadly, Tarantino is a very gifted director/stylist who has nothing to say and while this subject matter could produce a great film, I doubt this is it. The hyperbole alone is enough for me to wait for video.

Miike's Audition was terrifying because you cared for the lead man. He wasn't bad, not really good; just an average schmo who has a really bad thing happen to him with piano wire.

Here, Roth seems to want to just have his cake and eat it too. Lots of T & A in the first half, a bit of torture in the second. Say I love Miike, get cred with the 'New Geeks'.

I will see it eventually, but it can wait for DVD.

Sorry, CleanSteve, just mocking Drew's post. I liked DAWN OF THE DEAD too.

Tobe Hooper's film is a precious movie to a lot of people. Every frame of it is pure cinema. And the way it unfolds is so casual, so raw, there doesn't appear to be a production behind it. It's the first modern horror film to convey why teenagers (so athletic, sexual and naive) are the perfect fodder for this genre. Because they are the most "alive."

Drew is right to be a pissed about any embrace of a lesser piece like Nispel's film. To approach a classic with so little respect and such a lack of invention is simply blasphemy.

Bob, good call on FREEDOMLAND. I loved the book and hope you're wrong, but have a feeling it could be a huge misfire. What were Dave's hints, if there were any?

Damnit, ManWithNoName. Please make an effort to denote your sarcasm next time. Went right over my sad little head.

As for Drew, I don't wanna hijack Dave's board with Drew bashing but....I read the DREAD script he cowrote. Him telling anyone they don't understand horror is deluded, insane and simply laughable.

That's all the Drew bashing I will engage in. It does add some much needed context, however. Damn, that script was bad. Uwe Bol bad. NY Knicks bad.

Just bad.

The problem I have with TCM '03 is it's simply an exercise. On first viewing in the theater it was exciting, good to look at, great sound design...it was good audience flick. But dig deeper and what's there?? Nothing. Hooper's TCM is, frankly, fucking hilarious in parts. Leatherface looking out the window and freaking out because he can't figure out where these people are coming from?? That's wit and character. Where was that? The remake was a regression. It distilled what the original was down to a simple blueprint. Yea, it had atmosphere and some good set-pieces but it had no richness at all.

Plus, the decision to rethink the family didn't add much for me. In the original you get some idea of who they were as a unit, and some context for their behavior. In the '03 film, their just creeps. Maybe as a stand alone movie it's ok but to me it did not pay homage or expand or rethink it's source. It just repeated it, without the humanity.

That cannot be the real McWeeney. Otherwise, I have to believe that a guy who's finally achieved his lifelong dream of being a paid writer is *still* playing Fatguy-Goes-Nutsoid on the web.

Also, I don't think Drew would be silly enough to judge who does-and-does-not understand horror *after* his Masters of Horror episode aired. Anybody that gets a writing credit for a 1st Act scene where - an eccentric man shows a total stranger the naked, albino, hermaphrodite, (shackled to a rotating human-size Lazy Susan) he keeps on display in his house, - reeeally shouldn't be claiming to "understand" much. Why? Because the total stranger doesn't even flinch, then decides to *take a job* from this guy by the end of the scene. Maybe it's just me, but I'd think *human logic* would dictate a difference response like, I dunno, running and screaming, or pulling a weapon.

As for Dave's review of Hostel, he's pretty spot-on. The movie strikes me of Roth being jealous of the Saw guys, and cooking up a way, (with Quentin), to swipe the concept. As another person put it, a "I would have done SAW this way" idea, that was actually produced.

The thing that Roth and especially Lion's Gate should understand about the horror audience, by now, is they do not take being lied to in marketing lightly. Sites like Dread Central and Bloddy-Disgustng will explode if this movie doesn't deliver.

As for Quentin, he doesn't give a flying F**k. He'll defend the selling of Hostel as his homage to Bert I. Gordon or some other bullshit.

I've said this to my friends many times, but I'm quite concerned that Quentin Tarantino is slowly transforming from QT the filmmaker to QT the stereotype.

For years, critics blasted his work as soulless, overly violent, immoral, and obsessed with 'cool' 'hip' and 'edgy' and what not. And, it stuck, despite the fact that his three watermarks (Resivoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, and Jackie Brown) were in fact human dramas, with often implied violence, a strong moral center, and comedy only when appropriate to the characters.

But now, with both Kill Bills, Sin City, and his apparent hawking for 'horror porn' like Hostel, QT seems to be becoming a soulless obsessed with hip/cool pop culture junkie.. charges that I always defended him from.

Scott Mendelson

Confession: I haven't seen Hostel, so if DP's seemingly accurate review is different than my eventual thoughts, I'll gladly repost. I agree with him 100% about the other films he talked about, especially the quantum leap in quality between Saw and Saw II (it was a thrill seeing Tobin Bell get a lead role after all these years as a character actor).

Even though I overall liked HOSTEL, I agree with--or at least understand--the first half of Poland's review. To say the movie isn't gruesome just isn't true. In fact, it contradicts the whole porn angle that your review starts with. There's really nasty stuff here that isn't shied away from. It's part of an annoying porno trend in horror, but HOSTEL is still far superior to SAW II, which is the current nadir of this movement. There's a satiric angle to HOSTEL about the extent of our thrill-junkie culture. It's just too bad the twist is given away on the trailers. Still, there is something going on here.

And yeah, Tarantino is losing it. It was obvious he was imitating himself in the vastly overrated Kill Bill Vol. 2.

I have yet to see HOSTEL and am in no hurry because it looks to me exactly as David described it. It IS horror porn....just like WOLF CREEK. Lets take some good looking people, make you sorta care about them and then spend an hour fucking them up. It's the equivalent of freakshow pornography. You're not watching either for anything but a cheap thrill. Just as seeing some nasty porn where a woman is degrading herself, you see WOLF CREEK or HOSTEL and say, "I can't believe they're showing this." And no, I'm not coming down on porn....I love it as much as the rest of you guys....but it's there to serve a purpose....and a real Id oriented one at that.

If that is the real Drew McWeeny, I'm dissapointed in his views on "good" horror. Horror nowadays (Roth, Nispel, the SAW movies) aren't about a good, scary story. They're about pissing contests to see who can be grosser or more fucked up. They're egocentric, mastabatory and lame. There's no point of view, theme or redemptive quality. Hell, they aren't even creating classic characters to torture people anymore! Jigsaw (from SAW) that outback redneck from WOLF CREEK and assuredly the torturer from HOSTEL don't leave an impression the way Freddie Krueger, Michael Myers or Jason did.

And martin, I really liked CIGARETTE BURNS. It was no JENIFR, but it was really great.

Re: Tarantino. Caught up with Jackie Brown again last week. It really is a superior piece of filmmaking. Super smart. Super sexy. Super funny. Sam Jackson blows through dialogue as if he's playing a saxophone. (Was there any Oscar talk for him that year?)

Take off the Pulp Fiction goggles and you'll find it's a movie to love.

My theory is that Poland really, REALLY hates Tarantino for some reason. All of his TCM 03 raving was tied with his KILL BILL bashing. And now that HOSTEL (not a great film but marginally better than TCM'03) comes out, attached with Tarantino's name, of course he has to bash that.

Gotta agree, Crow. I love the moments between Grier and Forster, and I believe it was De Niro's last true acting job, as opposed to cashing paychecks for the "comedies" he's involved with now.

The mocking of Drew's condescending post aside, I don't begrudge the man anything for making money writing, even garbage. Better than what I do for a living, I'm sure. CIGARETTE BURNS had it moments, but overall it was weak, with laughable dialogue and some truly improbable moments, even in a "suspension of disbelief" context. I'm sure Drew knows he reaps what he sows, and he better have a thick skin considering the venom he can spew forth in a negative column.

Worse than "Stealth"?

All I can say is WOW.

Who listens to McWeeny anyway? He used that lame brain site to further his own C list writing career. More power to him. You just can't take someone seriously when they think Eli Roth is the next great director.

Still waiting for Mortal Kombat 5, McWeens.

the original texas chainsaw is still one of the creepiest movies ever. u just have no idea where its going or what the hell is gonna happen next. exactly what a horror film has to be.

After wasting my time seeing Cabin Fever I learned my lesson. Never see another crappy flick by this guy. It's a lesson I paid the price for. I don't feel bad for Dave since he's getting paid to see it.

I want to see what happens to this Aint It Geek crew when someone steals their scripts and reviews them six months early. Or sees an early print and comments on it. You think they'll be pissed and sick the lawyers on them?

I got a feeling they will. You know how many people want to take shots at them? They're really in for it.

Freedomland bad? A bad movie from Revolution? Could it beeeee?

i think i may have hit on it with freedomland. how do u mess up a richard price novel with sam jackson in it?

When Joe "Christmas with the Kranks" Roth plops his ass in the director's chair. This has to be the bad movie.

LesterFreed, it happened already. And it went right as you said it would: lawyers and whatnot. granted, the person who had the material as silly enough to actually post them online, which was patently illeagal. But the vitriol spewed forth when it was revealed how horrible they were was overwhelming. DREAD was every bad story adaptation times 10. Clive Barker should have had McSwan shot dead for that. FINAL WAR....my god, was that bad. And the X-Men rip-off POST HUMAN. Drew is just a vile little weasel, and he must realize that posting what he did here would earn him a few more smacks. What a dummy.

CIGARETTE BURNS was ok. I am the world's foremost Carpenter apologist so i am forbidden from attacking it. But it was ok only because of John and not the derivative unoriginal script.

I still can't get over the first three pages or so of Dread. Every break-up cliche in the book. "We need to talk." "Don't think of it as a break-up." "If you love me, you'll let me go." BWAHAHAHAHAHA.

And don't forget Pavlov's Dogs. Unless that's Post Human with an even more banal title.

Was FINAL WAR the one where the guy speaks "African"? BWAHAHAHAHAH!

Play nice, boys. Ain't no screenwriter in his 30s wants you reading the scripts he wrote in his 20s. In fact, a real screenwriter doesn't want you looking over shit he hasn't polished in the last week.

Technically, I don't think there's much room to disparage HOSTEL as a piece of filmmaking; it's light years beyond CABIN FEVER -- which I enjoyed as a throwaway homage to bad 80's horror -- in terms of shot composition, editing, storytelling, etc. The f/x are garish, but, for my taste, not distractingly so, though if you're completely out of the movie, it's easy to nitpick. That said, the film *is* mostly undone by one major misstep at the end, and, interestingly, had it not compromised in this manner, I think David might've at least begrudgingly respected it for its pervasive nihilism. Thematically, it would've been IRREVERSIBLE-lite, and, if I recall correctly, Poland liked Noe's film.

The odd thing about Eli Roth is that he's so completely worked entertainment journalists, particularly the online contingent, that we're essentially forced to hold an extreme opinion of him one way or the other. It's odd. I get along with Eli and sort of like what he's doing as a filmmaker, and for not loving or hating the guy, I get a tremendous amount of flack.

Scooba, I think it's the "working" screenwriter designation that drives some of these guys up the wall.

Like I said, I don't begrudge McSwan anything. They have a much better job than me, though I don't really want the one they do have. I enjoy films, but don't want to be involved in the making of them.

But, Scooba, since when does Drew play nice with script reviews of films that have yet to shoot footage, or films yet to reach an editing suite? If he was strictly a film critic, reviewing films strictly at press screenings, etc., I'd respect him a lot more.

Can someone explain either what was so great or what was so awful about Wolf Creek? It struck me as just more of the same, not particularly clever, not particularly offensive. I don't think the 'horror porn' term fits it because it does spend plenty of time actually interested in its characters, while a true movie of this type, a la Saw II or Final Destination 2, would just start hacking them up.

"the original texas chainsaw is still one of the creepiest movies ever. u just have no idea where its going or what the hell is gonna happen next. exactly what a horror film has to be. "

my god, i agree with bb. nothing like a chainsaw massacre to bring people together. hey, what happened to my shift key?

That's better. The rough docu-style of original is part of what made it so effective. I didn't see the remake (and was chastized by Dave for "fetishizing" the original) but I can't imagine a slick perfume-ad style serving the material. When I heard about the showy camera-through-head stuff, my fears were confirmed. That kind of cuteness is antithetical to suspension of disbelief.

It's hard to pick a side here. I can easily believe that Hostel is crap, even if I'm not sure how much I trust Dave's taste in this genre. But that doesn't mean I agree or sympathize with McMoriarty.

I find it funny that some people now talk about the Friday the 13th films as if they were classics. Jason had personality? He was a faceless death machine, and a blatant ripoff of the character from Halloween. The Jason movies were nothing but a string of gory deaths, though they did lack the drawn-out sadism that's now in vogue.

I'd like to see a discussion of what the "new sadism" is all about. Is it a reaction against "watered-down" PG13 horror, just another trend, a group of directors remaking the films that influenced them, or does it mean something deeper?

Play nice? If you're going to sit down and critique and analyze other people's work, I think that, what's the term, KNOWING YOUR SHIT should be a prerequisite.

But that's just me.

JBM, you're right. Imagine how much fun it would be if a more established horrible screenwriter was on this blog, like Akiva Goldsman or someone. Then you'd see some shredding!

Frankbooth, you are right about the art direction of the TCMs. It's all about fetishization of the image which I guess was started by David Fincher and Seven. But Marcus Nispel was more interested in backlights than in providing a context for the horror, grounding it in anything or providing meaning.

Also, the Friday the 13th series is fun, but the individual movies are as bad as anything else from the 1980s. It's almost by chance that the series succeeded instead of Prom Night or Slumber Party Massacre or any of the other umpteen titles from that era.

Anyone who has seen CABIN FEVER should not be shocked and saddened that HOSTEL sucks, big time.

Scooba Steve, good point. No writer wants you critiquing their half finished work. Which is why AICN is ridiculous. The Superman script by JJ Abrams they tore to shreds? (a first draft mind you) It will go down in history as one of the least classy things ever done. I still can't believe they did that. If that happend to any of those so called writers that write for that site, hell would break loose.

I'm with Dave. I hate getting overloaded on gore just for the sake of gore. Give me some real chills. It's just lazy to me.

Jeremy - if you really think people give a damn about Drew working or not, you haven't been around these parts long enough. This guy has shot off some the most acrid emails or postings I've ever seen, over nothing. When he finally admitted to having anger issues, about 1% were surprised.

I've read pretty much everything he's written, and honestly, I don't think he's that bad. From what I've been able to deduce, it's his partner Swan, the guy with the supposed sick imgination, who's the weak link.

And if Drew's blindside on Poland follows his normal pattern, it should eventually show itself in the form of some collaboration between Roth and Drew. Maybe Masters of Horror 2, Dread...who knows. Ulterior motives run rampant with the AICN crew.

McWeeny is one guy who really needs Prozac. The AICN Talkbackers probably gave him an ulcer.

I didn't think when we saw HOSTEL anyone foresaw the coming of a grand new directing master.

He's a guy who knows how to spin and market himself.

Yea, Mr. Beaks...er...Jeremy. Drew has banned folks for posts less lame than the one he made here last night. That was a "troll," and I thought Drew was above that. If he wanted real discussion he wouldn't have just attacked. he opened himself up to the comments. As he always does...

And if "working screenwriter" means one Showtime production and a ton of garbage written on spec then most of us here are a stone's throw away from being...Drew.

I expect Nordling will jump in here soon enough. Criticize Drew and the BNAT crowd jumps to his defense. You'd be a better friend if you told him to get a grip once in a freaking a while. The dude is the epitomy of self-sabotage.

They would ban people on the talkback for disagreeing with their reviews. A real petty site that one is. No manners when it all comes down to it.

So this is where the Scorched Planet people ended up.

I'll beg off discussing Drew's perceived personal shortcomings, Martin, because he's one of my best friends, and I'm going to have his back all the way. As to the acerbic quality of his post in this forum, I didn't think it was any more aggressive than anything Poland wrote in his dismantling of HOSTEL. Poland's mistake was referencing his affection for Nispel/Bay's TCM remake, for which I had the misfortune of writing the very first near-rave on AICN. Trust me, I was on the receiving end of Drew's nuclear hatred for that movie the day after he saw it, and my ass is still glowing.

We all have movies that set us off. Tell me you liked HOUSE OF SAND AND FOG, and the discourse will be anything but cordial. It's silly, and it isn't right, and it means I've got issues, too, but when you love movies as out of proportion as some of us do, the hate can be just as fervent.

BTW, if Drew had something cooking with Eli, he'd cop to it.

Anyone that goes "nuclear" over hatred for a movie has some deep personal issues. It's a movie. Not the end of the world. Didn't you learn anything from Star Wars about hate?

I liked HOUSE OF SAND AND FOG. Now show me your hate.

I thought you guys were kidding about this Mcweeny writing a Mortal Kombat movie. Turns out you weren't. I can't wait til that gets shredded by everyone. Paybacks a bitch.

Lets be honest. Race with the Devil, his other project, doesn't scream "Oscar bait!" either. Geeks are going to savage him.

What a bunch of pussies! Enough of this beating up the celebrity writer crap. Drew didn't start the TCM'03 attacks on Poland today... J-mac and I did.

And I wouldn't change a word of it.

In fact I'm ready for a second helping...

So how many of you shitheads are smart enough to make valid points on that atrocious movie? I can't wait.

Most people here kinda agree with Drew on TCM '03. And in fact I find I agree with him more than I'd like to admit. Hell, I agree with Jeremy on things too. the issue here was Drew not practicing what he preaches. When you so blatantly exhibit character flaws well then you're gonna get called on it. The guy is an unapologetic douchebag. Admirable in it's way, but still a douche. He would have been better served to challenge Poland on his analysis rather than attack him with cheap statements. I say that knowing full well how drew reacts when others have done that to him. Not me, mind you. Noway. Not me.

Dave is a cool cat but it would have been very easy to give him the business by accurately looking at some apparent inconsistencies. Instead he chose to be "Raging Drew." Very silly.

Something else, though. take QT's name off this movie and try and tell me "from the director of Cabin Fever" is gonna get anyone but a few geeks in the theater this weekend. Most moviegoers don't know Eli from a pockmark on Drew's back. I suspect it'll beat GRANDMA'S BOY. At least it has that going for it.

Here's a valid point on TCM '03: at one point it's over (ba-doom-boom!).

McWeeny really tries to use his bully pulpit. Doesn't really work though.

What's all the hub bub over TCM? It was decent little flick. Nothing spectacular. Nothing to go ape shit over.

If they sell it as a QT movie and it does an extra five mill, then they did their job.

DP has made some bad calls before but TCM isn't one of them. Biel alone makes it worth the watch.

So at least they connected with their target demographic: guy who like to look at Jessica Biel in cutoffs. I bet Rob Cohen is kicking himself for not designing a bikini flightsuit for her in Stealth.

She really needs better taste in projects.

But anyway, does ANYONE have any arguments in support of TCM 03 except for Biel's presence?

I have to agree with David on TCM. I enjoyed it for what it was, and the remake was done fairly well on all levels. It was remaking a movie that was trashy (but fun) to begin with, so I don't understand why everyone was up in arms about it.

As for Hostel, I'm still seeing it.

Okay, so if you enjoyed it for what it was...what was it? And can you elaborate on 'done fairly well on all levels'?

What "payback"? Drew has opinions on movies like all of you do. And like every working filmmaker on the planet has. He just happens to have a public forum to express them. I have issues with Moriarty, since he called my friend Joseph Kahn "mentally challenged"--a really unprofessional, nasty blow. But whether his movie work is good or bad remains to be seen. No reasonable person is waiting for him to fail just so they can enact some delusional justice.

I wanna mention what someone up near the top said about TCM03:

"Marcus Nispel is more interested in art direction than storytelling, and that film is artificial and insulting from the opening frame."

It's a movie about a man who dresses in the skin of other people and then murders people with a chainsaw. I don't think "storytelling" was very high on the roster for the first film as well (which, incidentally only have one character die via chainsaw compared to '03s, well, 2.5 (one gets a chainsaw to his body but is killed by another method you see)).

I am a fan of 03's Texas, and the original. But when I saw the remake in the cinema I was sitting there with my knees up to my chest, thinking to myself "i don't know if I can take seeing them die anymore" - and for me, that means it succeeded. For me a horror movie gets SCARY when I can imagine myself in the situation and I can't do that with The Ring or Saw, but I could for this. I would be terrorfied. The cinematography and production design only aided that - how could something so almost lyrically beautiful be so horrible.

Takeshi Miike - absolutely despised Audition. When it wasn't being a completely boring romantic drama (!!!) it was turning into a needlessly sick movie. Same for Oldboy. Those are the worst types of "horror" movies. Ones that think they're being more than just excuses for explosions of violence.

TCM (the remake) never pretends to be anything other than a ticket to hell for these characters. It doesn't have the pretention of a prestige movie or something arty. It's just there in all its gory glory. I don't understand when people call it misogynistic... the men die in much worse fashion. Hell, one guy gets a chainsaw to his crotch! Same goes for Wolf Creek.

"I'd like to see a discussion of what the "new sadism" is all about. Is it a reaction against "watered-down" PG13 horror, just another trend, a group of directors remaking the films that influenced them, or does it mean something deeper?"

I agree. It's directors such as Rod Zombie, Roth, etc who are probably sick of seeing the genre they grew up with get turned into lame slasher movies designed to entise 14 year olds into the cinema. That was another reason why I liked TCM03 so much. It just went for it. It didn't give a flying fuck about whether it was playing nice or whatever. It did it's thing and did it with style.

And I can see quite easily how people hate TCM03 i I, PERSONALLY, was terrified. I thought it was great. But don't go yelling at me saying I don't know good horror or whatever. That's a lame argument and you know it.

On the matter of Roth though, I didn't care for Cabin Fever. There's a fine line between homage and just copying and Cabin Fever did the latter. Way too much.

And, I've been saying for years that Jackie Brown was better than Pulp Fiction (minutely so). That scene in the mall that is told from multiple views is endlessly fascinating.

What was Cabin Fever copying? I only know of one or two other movies involving flesh-eating viruses.

1. Wish you guys would cut Drew a break when he sticks his neck out here. I don't mind you fighting him or anyone else on the issues of discussion, but beating him for old shit is not interesting, fair, or kind. And I like that he has an opinion.

2. To compare any idea that Eli Roth has ever pushed out of his brain to Irreversible is grotesque. Irreversible is about something and uses the form to make the point, much as Oldboy has some (less) complex ideas inside of the showy beats. Audition too, but perhaps the least of the three. And Battle Royale is, again, about something, even as much as it is a kill kill die die.

3. The "filmmaking" in Hostel is all cinematography. And all he did was pull his Palm Directors Series Stephane Sednaoui DVD off the shelf along with some old Tarsem videos and said, "Go forth and do likewise." There is nothing smart about the way it is shot. The characters are boiler plate. There are beats that go nowhere. You can't have an emotional connection to the dead because you don't really experience their pain (nor do you much like them before they go).

4. I'm not sure that disagreeing on one movie DQ's me forever for having an opinion. I do like the genre. I was there for opening weekend for a bunch of movies you, Drew, probably saw the first time on video... becuase I am old. The fact that I don't forgive shitty filmmaking because I'm not a guy who gets hard at the first sign of a little gore does not exactly make me insane. House of Wax is an antique, but there isn't a gag in it not done better than Hostel. (And no, not old enough to see that in first run.) give me Horrors of The Black Museum! Give me Homebodies! Give me the shit on Argento's toilet paper before you ask me to embrace the banal boredom of Roth!

I thought Drew was around 32. How much older than that are you, DP?

More to the point, do you want to respond to the various criticisms of TCM 03 or do we need to dig through your archives to remember if you ever posted a detailed review of it?

Here is his TCM '03 review:

There is a sensational bit of 70s retreading coming to theaters this October. It is tightly edited, sharp and to the point. There are some new techniques used to heighten a traditional genre, but its love for the original is clear as a bell

Unfortunately, the movie is not Kill Bill.

The movie I am writing about is Texas Chainsaw Massacre, directed by first-timer Marcus Nispel. It’s a little premature to review the movie in depth right now, but simply put, this one is about as close to movie perfection as you can get.

It is, first and last, a hardcore genre movie. The teens are hot, horny and high. The massacr-teers are grotesque, angry and out for blood. The air hangs heavy with death. And you’re never quite sure what’s coming next.

If I have an objection to the film, it is that the opening sequences in the van, when the kids are just being kids, are a little overcut/overshot. But it is such a small issue that I shouldn’t even be mentioning it. From the moment they land on Planet Chainsaw, every note feels just right.

I knew the movie had me when the gang (I occasionally enjoyed the thought of the foursome as the Scooby Doo group… maybe in 20 years, New Line will do Leatherface Vs. Shaggy) was in a dangerous place, trying to open the door to a locker that has something in it. This was still in the first act. And I thought to myself, “I’m not sure I want to be sitting here right now.” I’m not real squeamish or anything. But the sense of real dread came over me. And I knew…

Best of all, there was not a single case of “She’s only doing that (falling, going into a scary space, not picking up the gun) because she’s in a thriller.” Sometimes, you can kind of feel them setting stuff up to make sure to fix the loopholes. But they get the job done.

The two key performances here are by Jessica Biel and R. Lee Ermey. Both hit it just right. Beyond her acting, Biel is not only interesting because of her loaded tank top, but because there is something terribly womanly about her whole physique. She doesn’t have the waifiness of so many of the young actresses out there. And for this role, that's critical. It reminds me of her role in Rules of Attrraction, where she played a real bimbo… but she had occasional bouts of clarity that felt more real than the portrayal of her character’s sexuality, which she was looser with than AOL is with free sign-up discs. I’d love to see her in the next role that Scarlett Johansson turns down.

The guys are good, but of the “other kids,” only Erica Leerhsen is really memorable, playing a flake who is just waiting to be victimized... only degree ever changes. The Family doesn’t have a whole lot of acting, but they were cast right out of a book of Diane Arbus photos, substituting sepia for black & white.

But in the end, it is Marcus Nispel, cinematographer Daniel Pearl (who also shot the original) and editor Glen Scantlebury (who also cut the underappreciated Joy Ride) at the core of why this film works so very well. Sound mixer Stacy Brownrigg, Production designer Greg Blair and art director Scott Gallagher also deserve some special attention. And giving the devil his due, Michael Bay (yes, THE Michael Bay) rode herd on this one and it is going to be a big fat hit and a long-lasting classic, so…

Thanks, Stella.
Well, there are some things to pick apart here. I don't think Nispel gave a shit about the original movie...I think he wanted to make, quite simply, a horror porn with really good art direction and cinematography. In fact, it's Nispel's attitude that ruins the movie for me. When I watch the movie, I get the sense that he thinks he's superior to the characters and what's happening in the movie, aesthetically removed from the horror, not part of it.

^^^

Exactly. Nice imagery, shit story. Story of this guy's life. You should watch (suffer through) Nispel's Frankenstein TV-movie. Nothing but Fincher's little brother from start to finish and not one original idea to be found. Even the title sequence reeks of Se7en.

"2. To compare any idea that Eli Roth has ever pushed out of his brain to Irreversible is grotesque. Irreversible is about something and uses the form to make the point, much as Oldboy has some (less) complex ideas inside of the showy beats. Audition too, but perhaps the least of the three. And Battle Royale is, again, about something, even as much as it is a kill kill die die."

I hauled IRREVERSIBLE, one of my favorite films of the last ten years, into the argument because both films are after similar game w/r/t the uselessness of revenge. Obviously, Noe's film is superior in every way, *but* had Eli...

Spoiler Time
.
.
.
.
.

... stuck to his guns and had Hernandez's character kill the daughter in a bit of misdirection at the end of the film, I think we'd be having a far more interesting discussion. I like the idea of going all the way to a) deprive the villain of his most cherished thing in the world, and b) punishing the audience for having cheered on Hernandez in his third act quest for revenge. HOSTEL's ending, as it stands, is a cheat, and, because of this, it leaves itself open to the charges issued above by David, but I couldn't bring myself to hate it.

Honestly, I see more Romanek in HOSTEL than I do Sednaoui, but, mostly, I get a Landis vibe ala AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON. The orchestral score at the beginning is very much referencing Elmer Bernstein's mournful theme, though it's nowhere near as effective.

Goodness gracious, look at all the big bad meanies.

I honestly think David has no affinity for the horror genre at all. Sorry. That's my opinion. Anyone who called the TCM remake "as close to movie perfection as you can get" seems to have either never seen a horror film before or just not like them.

Take all the shots at me you want. That's fine. At least I'm willing to hang my balls out there. I'm not posting here anonymously. I'm not pretending to be somebody else. And, yeah, I just had my first horror film shown in public, so I'm probably extra vulnerable if you want to say you hate me right now.

But the point is this. I love the genre. I think horror films are perhaps the most misunderstood and unfairly maligned genre there is. I think you can do and say anything in a horror film. You can tackle any issue. You can take on any subject. You can genuinely bend the genre to any end you choose. So I take it very seriously. And despite the efforts of the Scorched Planet boys to affirm otherwise, when people like John Carpenter and Clive Barker love and respect what I've been doing and when I continue to get more work based on their recommendations, then I feel like I do understand the genre. Maybe you don't. That's okay. In the end, I'm more than willing to put my opinion out there, and my work as well.

David's not the only critic who I notice this particular blind spot in. Roger Ebert gave DEVIL'S REJECTS a glowing review this year, then attacked WOLF CREEK, and it seemed odd, since what he praised in one is what he despised about the other. Jeff Wells just flat out admitted that he doesn't get horror and won't watch it or discuss it, which is probably best.

Maybe I'll hate HOSTEL when I see it. As I said, I wasn't onboard the CABIN FEVER train. But the "horror porn" thing is not a new observation, and it's been leveled at some of the very best films of the genre over the years. It's basically a non-criticism at this point. Just review the movie as a movie and stop with all the finger-wagging about how amoral it is. That's a dead-end, as I learned when I infamously melted down over THE CELL. No one gives a shit if you think a film is amoral or not. Debate it on its merits as a movie.

"He's a guy who knows how to spin and market himself."

Is it odd that he was a protegee of David Lynch, a man who is famous for... whatever he does, really.

"And I thought to myself, “I’m not sure I want to be sitting here right now.” I’m not real squeamish or anything. But the sense of real dread came over me. And I knew… "

that's exactly how I felt when watching it. More dread in that one than The Ring or anything like them.

"Nice imagery, shit story."

Er, anyone praising the original can say that the story ain't exactly Citizen Kane, right? It's the exact same thing. And the thing that got me about the movie was that it WAS just a horror movie. It wasn't pretending to be anything else other than a bunch of sweaty good looking kids getting chased around creepy looking buildings but also adding in gore and violence and thrills that are so lacking in other recent films like it.

I will be the first to admit that I find a lot of the horror movies from the 70s and such quite bad - it's the nature of my being as someone who was born 20 years ago. So when I saw TCM03 (after the original which I also like quite a bit) i had a visual response to the film as well psychological one. I'm not saying it's the horror film version of brain surgory, it's just what it is and I liked it.

I don't care if others hate the movie, but I hate it when they say they hate it because of pretentious snobbery things like "Nispel thinks he's superior to his characters" or bull like that. WHAT DOES THAT EVEN MEAN?!

oh, btw, I recognised bits from Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Evil Dead and the ending was The Night of the Living Dead.

If I'm remembering correctly.

Drew:

I think Ebert made the right call on WOLF CREEK and DEVIL'S REJECTS. Zombie's film wasn't based on a true story, the dream sex scene with Sid Haig was hysterically funny, and we never had a group of sympathetic characters to follow. The film was also littered with black comedy.

WOLF CREEK stays with the teens from the beginning, and I happened to grow to like them. Maybe they were a bit one-note, but I did like them. So, when they are slowly tortured and killed for no apparent reason, I was absolutely turned off. What's the difference (and, yes, I know there obviously is one) between this and a snuff film?

Zombie's HOUSE OF 1000 CORPSES (which I love) isn't in the same category (sorry DP, it's not). First, the victims are all a little rude, arrogant, and condescending. They aren't as sympathetic as the WOLF CREEK kids. Second, the family is very cartoonish, so it's much less real when they start the killing. Both these points make the actual torture and murders less "real" and easier to tolerate.

Like I said in an earlier post, I don't begrudge you anything. I don't want your job, but you probably have more fun at yours than I do at mine. At least you acknowledge you're fair game for criticism.

If DP is unqualified for raving about TCM '03, should I discount your opinion as a critic and tell you to stop reviewing movies based on your REAL CANCUN rave??

See how easy that was, Drew?? Rather than troll, say something. Much better. I understand where you're coming from much better now rather than when you just decided to try and preach to Poland and anyone else who isn't on your unique infallible wavelength.

And as a last comment on the issue with you, there are people that dislike, distrust or just plain hate you who were not associated with the Scorched Planet site. And just because I referenced some things that took place there doesn't mean jack. A lot of people have read your scripts. I know things about CHud or about Africa. Doesn't make me or anyone else a Chuddie or African. That's basic common sense. Try not to be so paranoid, defensive, and facist, kid. The Scorched Planet ship has sailed. Let it sink for god sake. Everytime you or somebody else brings it up you make yourself look silly.

The Ebert point is one I've been interested in, too. I give him a lot of weight because he's first and foremost an incredible writer. The man could write areview destroying GOODFELLAS and he's so could he could just about convince me he's right. I think the point he makes about REJECTS is that the movie's attitude toward itsself had more humour and style than, say WOLF CREEK. WC--in his view--was simply about displaying murder and misery and not anything else. Don't know if he's right. I didn't see WC but I liked DR to a point. But the point is he does normally make a clear distinction between what he likes and doesn't like in terms of these sort of movies. It's purely subjective, but his honesty is admirable. I don't think you could say he "doesn't understand horror." Dave, however, has a clearly defined problem with "death porn" or whatever. Personally, I think he is overreacting. Death Porn will peter out, like every other subgenre. And it's not really new. You could put CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST or BLOODSUCKING FREAKS, I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE, LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT....hell, you could call LETHAL WEAPON or DIE HARD death porn if you want to. The term "horror porn" is, to me, redundant. Horror porn, Death porn. Whatever.

how anyone can back up and defend el roth after watching cabin fever is beyond me.

How can we take anything McWeeny says about movies seriously when he gave a rave review to "Real Cancun"? Don't you have to take a 5 yr grace period for punishment for that for selling out? He wasn't serious was he?

MWNN, I concur on HOUSE OF 1,000 CORPSES. That movie to me display a sense of joy, believe it or not. It's candy colored and silly. It's not perfect but it's fun and, again, joyful in the way I was when I first saw Romero's DOTD or HALLOWEEN. Zombie has a great, classic horror film in him. His writing needs to stop being so showy and self-aware but the guy has chops. I always thought he was dumb mook but he's a filmmaker worth watching.

THE REAL CANCUN. Yea. Goes back to the "self-awareness" thing. He also loved DAREDEVIL. I'm not saying that as another cheap shot but it does put things into perspective.

And as MWNN says I, too, do not begrudge the guy his right to make a living or to have his own sense of taste. He can just be, ya know...a creep sometimes. Get a grip, get off the high-horse and join fandom. Don't be so offensively didactic.

Maybe he really liked REAL CANCUN. I consider JOE DIRT an underrated absurdist classic. We all have secrets.

Do you think Nispel even saw the original TCM? Because that movie was not gory or bloody or anything like the remake. He's a video director. Not much for story or giving audiences the chills. He's for visuals. And seeing some good looking kids guts coming out is more important to him than setting a mood.

Well, if we're airing dirty laundry, I loved CABIN FEVER. I only saw it once, with an audience that howled with laughter (with, not at), so I don't know if a repeat viewing would change that opinion.

C'mon, didn't anyone else laugh when the kid from BOY MEETS WORLD pours Listerine on his manhood?

Liking Dardevil is unforgivable. Comedy you never know with. Some people think somethings funny and others can't even crack a smile. It's totally subjective. Maybe he found "Real Cancun" hilarious. But Daredevil???? I bet he got a nice writing gig out of saying he liked that movie. It's the only explanation I can think of for that. It's one of the the worst movies of all time. To ruin that story is sinful. The Frank Miller Daredevil story. It takes hard work to F that up.

Watching CABIN FEVER was like watching a porno of 2 people who have never had sex before. There are some laughs and a few good gross-out moments but it's mostly a lot of clumsy attempts at figuring out what to do.

It wasn't offensive, just clumsy to the point of being inane. GLORY ROAD is offensive. And I havn't even seen it. Josh Lucas needs to go away.

What's wrong with Glory Road? Seems like Bruckheimer is mining the same territory as Remember the Titans here.

Remember, it could be much worse. It could have starred Ben Affleck.

Showing torture or scenes of that ilk is fine as long as it's for the story. Once it moves out from that to just flat out showmanship it becomes tough to look at and watch. We all remember the ear scene in "Res Dogs" because it made such a deep impact in the movie. It came out of nowhere. Showed these guys really are criminal wackos who will do anything. It served the story.

u think eli roth liked the comparisons to rob cohen and his gem stealth?

Bruce:

The alley-oops and slam dunks showcased in the trailer are an indication that many liberties were taken with an outstanding story.

Also, this looks like a remake of Titans, right down to the scene with the white and black players bonding while lip synching to some 60's pop song.

It does look like a complete rip off of Titans. Which may not be a bad thing since Titans was pretty good. Bruckheimer likes to go to the well a lot.

Somthing that's notable about the ear scene in "Pulp Fiction" and that people often forget is that the camera actually pulls away during part of it, as though what's on screen is too much to bear. The result is simultaneously comforting (since we don't have to see it) and even more terrifying (since we can now imagine the worst).

Now, I don't know if that was an homage to the scene in "Taxi Driver" where the camera pulls away as Robert De Niro makes that skin-crawlingly pitiful phone call, but I don't think most of the films mentioned in this thread would even DREAM of cutting away from the goriest parts. It's de rigeur nowadays as movies compete to be little more than sepia-toned, narrative versions of the "Faces of Death" series.

I also don't think it's at all fair to say that Ebert dislikes or misundestands or is hypocritical about horror (and I haven't seen WOLF CREEK either; I was interested, but it's leaving theaters pretty quickly, presumably to make way for HOSTEL, which I will see because I liked, but didn't love, CABIN FEVER... whew!). Ebert gave four stars to MAY and FRAILTY -- neither of which were exactly universally acclaimed, although they have their fans (including me, especially for MAY). He gave a positive notice to LAND OF THE DEAD and most of the SCREAM series.

It's fair to say that he doesn't care much for slasher/stalker movies, but honestly, that's more of a geek subculture and/or teen diversion. Most of those Freddy and Jason pictures do suck. Most TCM ripoffs suck, too.

I mean, look, I've noticed that Ebert has a very different sense of humor from my own, given his one-star-range reviews for KIDS IN THE HALL: BRAIN CANDY and WET HOT AMERICAN SUMMER and NAPOLEON DYNAMITE (and his tendency to go softer on well-intentioned, not-particularly-funny crud like GUESS WHO or CHEAPER BY THE DOZEN 2).

But I wouldn't say he doesn't "get" comedy in general... just that there's a certain style of humor that's obviously not on his wavelength. Sure, on some level it bothers me because I love those movies, and it's not the same as writing off an entire genre (which some critics do, I guess, with horror)... but it's not the end of the world, is it?

Incidentally, there's a line from CABIN FEVER I quote all the time. That goofy stoner guy with the dog called (I think) Dr. Mambo. One of the main kids asks if it's like a professorial doctorate (or something to that effect). And the dude is like, "yeah, he's a professor... OF BEING A DOG! OOHHH! FACED!"

OK, it's not so funny out of context, but it cracked me up at the time.

Here's why the '03 Texas Chainsaw Massacre was a good movie:

$80m domestic. As someone explained to me in another thread regarding the USC loss yesterday: Scoreboard.

As for passionate lovers of modern horror...in my opinion such people are at best misanthropes and at worst sociopaths. Bizarre.

Jeremy Wrote - "As to the acerbic quality of his post in this forum, I didn't think it was any more aggressive than anything Poland wrote in his dismantling of HOSTEL. Poland's mistake was referencing his affection for Nispel/Bay's TCM remake, for which I had the misfortune of writing the very first near-rave on AICN. Trust me, I was on the receiving end of Drew's nuclear hatred for that movie the day after he saw it, and my ass is still glowing".

OK so - Drew has no personal involvement with Hostel, yet he goes after Poland personally because his critique of Hostle mentioned TCM 03. And you say that's equal because Poland lambasted Roth.

I can understand him exploding on you, because you're his friend and that happens. But we both know the blood runs deep between AICN & Poland and TCM is just Drew's excuse. It's one thing to say he's wrong because he liked TCM. That's subjective taste. It's another to claim:

"You don't get horror films. You don't like horror films. You aren't qualified to discuss whether or not a horror film is any good".

And then:

"I repeat... you do not know the genre. You do not like the genre. You do not understand the genre. You've proven that conclusively".

That's deep, personal dislike and the fact that he wrote it, twice, borders on personal hate.

Jeremy - "BTW, if Drew had something cooking with Eli, he'd cop to it".

Drew doesn't seem as morally ambiguous as Harry, so I do believe if asked, you'd get some answer, about *his* business. But as far as AICN goes, tansparency has never been a word associated with it. If Eli was jumping on Ghost Town or some AICN-associated project, Drew would never say.

Drew no doubt has some personal animosity mixed in there, but I have to agree with him to the point that I will never trust a Poland or Ebert review of a horror movie any more. I agree with them on some titles but their sensibilities simply do not match up with my own in this area.

Ebert? You mean the same critic who gave a rave out to "Rumor Has It"? The same critic who also raved about "The Ringer"? That Ebert?

Ebert's top movie of the year is Crash. He gave four stars to The Cell. He thinks Dark City ranks up there with Citizen Kane.

His taste is questionable. Though his enthusiasm remains palpable.

Enthusiasm is a far cry from competence. He's a critic. His enthusiasm should be tempered. He's beginning to review like Harry Knowles which is not a good thing.

When he starts talking about what snacks he got before the movie, then we can worry.

I can't just read one critic. There's no one out there I agree with even most of the time. Maybe that's why I see so many movies. It's a conspiracy.

A three-star review isn't really a rave, Josh. I've disagreed with many of Ebert's calls, and there were a whole lot of questionable three-star reviews this year, but a critic is under no obligation to say, "oh, well, this is a Johnny Knoxville comedy, so I really *shouldn't* give it three stars even though I enjoyed it."

Besides, Dark City is a great movie.

^ It's a *good* movie. But Ebert's reaction to it was over the top, in my opinion.

To be honest, I liked Real Cancun too... for what it was. It wasn't any better than any three episodes of The Real World... but it wasn't bad. It was just what it was.

New Line, of course, went over the deep end, acting like it was a big money movie. It needed careful handling and got slaughtered for its hubris. Truth is, the new generation of Real World/Road Rules stuff on MTV is more like Cancun, short only a few flashing breasts.

My objection to Roger goes back to the Kill Bill is 4 stars and TCM is 0 stars... on violence. I had no objection to KB on violence or lack of realism. Just thought it was stretched out and thus, too long to carry its story.

J-Mc has it right. If he doesn't connect with my tastes in the genre, by all means discount them. The "one review defines you knowledge or love" shit is, well, shit.

For me, this is the core of when the web goes wrong. There are always exceptions now and again, but "I disagree, so you are a worthless piece of shit" is not discourse. And it deprives both the writer and the reader of the value of new ideas that turn up in the margins of reviews with which you may disagree. I love Sarris in recent years, but don't always agree with him. He sometimes LOVES what I HATE. But it doesn't make him a worthless critic, any more than agreeing with me makes him a genius.

Reviews are just that. Reviews. But from a reviewer I respect like DP it certainly leads me to evaluate my movie going choices a little more. I certainly will wait til video to see Hostel now. I can usually smell a turd movie like this but it helps to be lead in a direction. I don't put all my eggs in one basket but it helps when dealing with movies like this.

GLORY ROAD annoys me simply because, as some others put it, it's a basketball remake of REMEMBER THE TITANS. I liked that movie. But Josh Lucas is no denzel washington. he's no marlon Wayans, for that matter. And how many times do we have to see the same freaking story with the same scenes, the black guys singing Motown and melting the hearts of the racists?? I mean it's nice family stuff but it's cliche now. It's just such an obvious RTT retread that it's embarrassing, true story or not. Bah. My wife can go see it without me.

Drew,

I have no idea what the quality of your writing is like as I have not seen anything you have wrote. I just say to you, you shoul dnot base your self worth as a writer upon what others think of you. Regardless of who they are. Your self worth has to come from within.

Carpenter had a streak of brilliance from the late 70's to the late 80's. Nothing he has done since has come close. Mostly junk.

Barker hasn't written pure horror for over a decade also. He mostly writes soft fantasy now and his film work never matched his best writing.

To use these two as a benchmark of your own 'qualifications' and a way to discredit horror lovers like myself who genuinely love TCM 03 is silly and not a very good argument.

Best.

You are right, Nicol, that you have to find satisfaction from within, but I get why Drew would be jazzed from encouragement by Barker and Carpenter. These are two guys that had massive impacts on Drew and myself. I recognize both are past their heydays, but it doesn't matter.

And if you want to guarentee a positive review from Ebert, just feature an inter-racial couple at the core. Seriously. I first realized this when he gave a thumbs up to that Denzel film, Mississippi Masala.

And with every passing year, I miss Siskel more.

Other Ebert quirks: The first 2 HARRY POTTER films recieved 4 stars each. The last 2, the 2 that are universally recognized as being superior he rated less at 3 1/2 stars each. That's not a lot but he tends to go against the grain on these things. MONSTER'S INC and THE INCREDIBLES were given the same or lesser ratings than ROBOTS. Huh?? TOY STORY 2 got 3 stars, and it was eons better than the original which recived 4. And that's not even getting to his embrace of the TOMB RAIDER films while dismissing things like DIE HARD. How can anyone not like DIE HARD????

He's unpredictable. His true value is in his writing which is as persuasive and clear as ever.

I want some enterprising young writer to get ahold of Drew's scripts and post reviews of them online. Maybe that way these struggling writers can catch a break. Break down those walls young writers. Your destiny awaits.

Wow, this thread sure blew up.

Steve, were we separated at birth or something? From your observations on how fucking funny Tobe Hooper's TCM really is (BESIDES being terrifying) to appreciating exactly the right things about HOUSE OF 1000 CORPSES, which I think largely misbegotten but I too saw the sheer joy in it — whoa, are we on the same page or what. I saw CORPSES as basically a twisted comedy, and it falls apart halfway through, but at first it's obviously something that only someone really obsessed with his own material could have made, and he's not without panache; I look forward to renting THE DEVIL'S REJECTS. (You gotta love somebody who both gives Sid Haig the best role he ever had AND names one of his principal characters "Jerry Goldsmith.")

I agree with David that, all too often, discourse on the Web falls to the immediate level of "no, fuck YOU," which may be instantly satisfying to whoever says it but doesn't get us anywhere.

As for Roger Ebert, he's always been a quirky character, someone worth reading but, in my view, only to see what he might have come up with that nobody else did. I've never looked to him as an authority as far as what's worth seeing, because his tastes are frequently inexplicable and, as David sort of points out, will hate on something that, another day or moment away, you'd have expected him to like. I've always singled out his review of I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE as an example of his completely not getting the point; it's an ugly, cruel movie, to be sure, but so is LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT, which I seem to recall him raving about. I think Ebert panned GRAVE because he hated (as the review shows) the grindhouse audience he was watching it with, much in the same way that his original review of NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD was a thorough pan, in part because he was horrified that parents were bringing children to see it. (If I'm not mistaken, in some markets it played on a double bill with the infinitely more kid-friendly DESTROY ALL MONSTERS, but I don't know when Ebert caught up to it and DESTROY wasn't released until 1969. But in any event Ebert acknowledges NOTLD as a masterpiece now. Remember, in those days movies would tour the roadhouses for as long as a year or more.)

BTW David, thanks for reassuring me that you DID see a little more in BATTLE ROYALE than "kill kill, die die." If you haven't seen the same director Kinji Fukasaku's earlier YAKUZA PAPERS series, you owe it to yourself: it's the I, CLAUDIUS of Japanese gangster epics. (Unusual for Japanese series of this type, the same characters — those who survive, anyway — recur in all five pictures. Usually in these series the lead gets killed off and then recast with the same actor with the same title and a marginally different story, but this is one LONG story being told over decades. It's a must-see.)

Apropos of nothing but coincidence: as background noise I've had CSI on, a new episode with the promise of "human werewolf syndrome," and of all things what gets mentioned but HOWLING II: STIRBA WEREWOLF BITCH. "I still say it's much better than the original," someone drawls. Whoever wrote this really knows their stuff, it was only released under that title in Japan and maybe in Europe, over here it was subtitled YOUR SISTER IS A WEREWOLF.

(Anyone out there actually have the album of HOWLING II? Music by Steve Parsons. People have told me the soundtrack exists but I've never seen one.)

"Your Sister is a Werewolf" is a fun title, but if for no other reason than sheer puzzlement, "Stirba Werewolf Bitch" is much better.

Anyway, if you thought House of 1000 Corpses was funny, Devil's Rejects is the f'in shiznit. Much better in every possible way except for the fact that Karen Black opted not to reprise her role.
And for those who don't see the difference between Hooper's and Nispel's versions of TCM except that one is much slicker, all I can say is, it's there. It's huge. And it's the difference between artistic authenticity and soulless imitation.

Well, STIRBA WEREWOLF BITCH, however less than grammatically impeccable, does at least reflect what we're going to see, whereas YOUR SISTER IS A WEREWOLF, that aspect is disposed of in the first five or so minutes, though it has the amusing nyah-nyah aspect that the whole picture does (like the closing credits with like 40 repeats of the same shot of Sybil Danning ripping her top off).

Actually I thought director Philippe Mora did a brilliant job casting the movie (did you know that the elderly werewolf role was originally offered to Reggie Nalder, and he turned it down? The job went instead to Ferdinand Maybe of FEARLESS VAMPIRE KILLERS fame). HOWLING II is idiotic but, on so many levels, better than it has any right to be.

I WAS sorry to note Karen Black is not in THE DEVIL'S REJECTS, she's done so many charmingly eccentric bits over the years (e.g. as a whorehouse madam in Andrei Konchalovsky's admittedly peculiar but still interesting HOMER AND EDDIE ... almost nobody has seen that one but it's better than it looks, packed with cameos from such likes ranging as widely as John Waters, Ving Rhames, Beah Richards and Tracey Walter).
Actuall

holy crap, this is what I get for staying up this late, my fingers keep tripping. The actor referred above as "Ferdinand MAYBE" is of course the late, great Ferdinand Mayne (aka, sometimes, merely "Ferdy Mayne").

(At least I think Mayne is "late," I was sure Nalder is. Are they both yet drawing breath and the air I myself draw into my lungs is tinged with the sickliest of delusions?)

"I'd like to see a discussion of what the "new sadism" is all about. Is it a reaction against "watered-down" PG13 horror, just another trend, a group of directors remaking the films that influenced them, or does it mean something deeper?"

I agree. It's directors such as Rod Zombie, Roth, etc who are probably sick of seeing the genre they grew up with get turned into lame slasher movies designed to entise 14 year olds into the cinema.

It was a question with at least four possible answers, so "I agree" doesn't really make sense. I assume, from your reply, that you agree with the first.
I'm getting at something else. Horror films are successful largely based on what's going on in society at any given moment. Invasion of the Body Snatchers can be seen as a metaphor for fear of the Commies/ Fifties conformity (there's usually more than one reading to the best movies.) Night of the Living Dead is hard to separate from the chaos of the Sixties, and Dawn of the Dead was made as mall culture was taking over the world (you can't see those blissed-out zombies on escalators and see it as just a horror film.) My point is that the best ones usually touch a nerve of some kind.
Suddenly, we're inundated with movie after movie about drawn-out sadism and torture. Saw, Saw 2, Wolf Creek, Devil's Rejects, Hostel. And in every case, it's human beings doing it to one another.
If contemporary directors just wanted to paint the screen red, they could do it in the style of Sam Raimi or Peter Jackson--with onslaughts of the undead (and yes, there have been several zombie films lately--but that trend seems to be dying) or some other supernatural excuse. This strikes me as something else. Watching humans methodically torture other humans is the most disturbing thing you can depict, at least to me. You can't distance yourself the way you can with a stylized character like Freddy Krueger.
So what's going on? From one political viewpoint, it could be we're trying to diminish real-life torture scandals of the last few years. "You call that torture? That's a frat hazing. I'll show you real torture!" Or we could be desensitizing ourselves to death in general. From another perspective, maybe we're dealing with some kind of collective guilt by putting ourselves in the place of the victims. "What if I were tortured? What would I do? Could I take it?" I'm not saying the makers of these movies are consciously asking these questions, but it's in the air.
Depending on your pov, these movies could be seen as either masochistic or sadistic.
As for Chan-wook Park, he's definitely masochistic. His movies put the viewer through the same wringer as the protagonists, and that's why they're so disturbing. There isn't much gore, quantity-wise, and he usually cheats us of our cathartic revenge and makes us question the whole concept. Same with David Lynch--in films like Blue Velvet, Fire Walk with Me and Mulholland Drive, we take the trip to hell along with the characters, rather than watching from a safe distance. It appears you don't care for that kind of immersion. That's fine, but don't dismiss their work.
Try dipping slightly below the surface and you won't have to ask what the sentence "Nispel thinks he's superior to his characters" means. It will be intuitive.

I'm not necessarily trying to stir up a political hornet's nest, but that's probably what's going to happen if anyone's still reading this thread. But I think it's a question worth asking.

Remember the Titans and Glory Road were both written (GR in part) by Gregory Allen Howard. So there you go.

Oh and according to IMDb, one of the producers of Hostel is producing something called Invasion, written by McWeeny & Swan. Not that it means anything...

I wonder if INVASION is just a retitle of FINAL WAR (since GODZILLA: FINAL WARS is now out on US DVD, I can see where they might want another moniker).

Where can I find copies of these legendary McSwan scripts? The only thing I've seen is the uproarious deconstruction of the first half of PAVLOV'S DOGS. (No, I am not a Scorched Planeteer, I don't even know where their current secret location is, but I've Googled from every conceivable angle and never found the actual documents; even the original deconstruction of FINAL WAR cannot be Googled, though almost everything else from the prior site has been cached. I just want to be able to check these out for myself, and it's not due to any specific hate for Drew McWeeny, who I think is often a perceptive writer about film; so much so that it's flabbergasting how deranged the scripts are. What can I say, I have a soft spot for misspent ambition. If Tim Burton hadn't made ED WOOD, maybe I'd have thought of it. Incidentally another dreadful script, I read it before seeing the film and was amazed that the movie was that good. Sort of, perhaps, in the way that really bad pulp novels, like JAWS or KISS ME DEADLY, can somehow be converted into cinematic perfection.)

IMDb says Invasion is a thriller centered around a home invasion. Which sounds like a rerun of LAPD: Life on the Beat. :)

(URL EXCISED BY DP... SEE COMMENT FROM DP BELOW FOR MORE INFO)

"Do you think Nispel even saw the original TCM? Because that movie was not gory or bloody or anything like the remake. He's a video director. Not much for story or giving audiences the chills. He's for visuals. And seeing some good looking kids guts coming out is more important to him than setting a mood."

for crying out loud, for someone who seems to like the original, you seem to be forgetting that both the original and the remake have as little plot as each other! The original wasn't shakespear. It was a bunch of teens stuck in Texas. Same as the remake. And I would think that all the talk about production design and cinematography meant that mood was all he was about. God.

House of 1000 Corpses is great fun. Dark City is one of my top 30 of all time. I agree with every single bit Ebert said about that one.

JBM...

I've already fully disclosed my association with Mike Fleiss on my site, and I've written no review of HOSTEL anywhere. So nice try.

Dan Yuma...

INVASION (which will be retitled) is not THE FINAL WAR. And the PAVLOV'S DOGS that was run online was written primarily when I was 16, and then rewritten somewhat when I was 23 and 24. It's nothing that we are currently involved with, and it's pretty much as bad as it can be. We all start somewhere.

Camel, the two TCM movies are not equivalent. They have similar plots, but so do 95% of all slasher movies. Nispel may have known the words, but not the music.
And the moods of the two movies are vastly different. In my humble opinion, one was authentically creepy, sweaty and realistic, and the other was studied, mannered, and overstylized.