The Hot Blog

Sorry, Dave, but while you say you're not a cranky old man, you come across like one.

First of all, if you're correct and HOSTEL PART II has no purpose beyond its own violent imagery... why does it need one? The idea that a film needs to have a point that you get is, to me, a step away from saying you know obscenity when you see it.

Second of all, whatever else HOSTEL is perpetrating upon the masses, is it really as odious as the massive commercials for toys, rides and comic books that make up the rest of the summer slate? Unless you believe that Roth's honest intention is to inculcate violence and depravity in his audience, he can't hold a candle to the gross and conscious attempts to brainwash people into buying garbage in which other films engage.

I haven't seen HOSTEL PART II, so I can't say whether the movie's got any value at all in any way, even as a gross-out piece (which I think, as someone who has enjoyed that kind of stuff for decades, has a value all its own), but I don't much understand why it must. But I do know that even if the film is so morally rancid as to make it actually evil, it's less disturbing to me than films that celebrate and induce mindless consumerism, something that viewers will actually take out of the theater with them. People walking out of SHREK THE THIRD will quite possibly stop at McDonald's for a Shrek meal - I doubt anyone walking out of HOSTEL PART II will take a chainsaw to anyone.

Whoa, how did that become a big link?

I consider myself very far to the left politically, and before DP gets branded a conservative in liberal clothing once again, I just wanted to say that I agree with him wholeheartedly here. I read Roth's interview in AICN, and it's sad that he needs to find some BS justification for doing what he does, instead of just admitting he's having fun and trying to fuck with people.

I also had the displeasure of watching what I guess was some kind of trailer for the Hostel Part II (apparently adding "Part" to the title instead of just calling it "Hostel 2" is supposed to add some kind of esteem, like there's actually some kind of STORY going on here) before seeing Bug, but it was just one long scene with a guy in a hospital bed with occasional flashes to what must be shocking scenes from the film. Needless to say, I was not impressed.

I agree with DP in that Roth should be allowed to make these films providing he's not hurting, blackmailing, or threatening anyone involved (he must have photos of Heather Matarazzo blowing a donkey or something, right?), but shame on the executives who use this trash to make money.. There's a wide gulf between a depraved individual indulging his fantasies and a company putting their stamp on it and unleashing it on the public, and along with the people who design video games that allow people at home to drag people out of cars and beat/rape them or kill cops, "aritsts" like Eli Roth should be tarred and feathered (for starters) by angry mobs. I'd be cheering along with pitchfork and torch. I wonder what people like Wes Craven and George Romero have to say about these new films; I can't imagine they endorse them, or aren't partially disturbed at what they've helped create. At least their films seemed to work with some kind of moral compass.

I wonder what people like Wes Craven and George Romero have to say about these new films; I can't imagine they endorse them, or aren't partially disturbed at what they've helped create. At least their films seemed to work with some kind of moral compass.

Posted by: lazarus [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 4, 2007 01:35 PM

Please. Like LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT was cheered on as a victory for morality when it was released. Every decade someone is making a movie that transcends all boundaries of decency of taste, and a decade later they're revered as a groundbreaker who was doing it right, unlike all the jokers making movies today.

Laz-I saw the same HOSTEL 2"trailer"...it was super annoying. And confusing.

I need to let DP's column gestate a bit before really diving in here, but I will say...

He's right that this could be exactly the kind of thing that gets the right-wing all high and mighty against Hollywood again. With the MPAA at a standstill-or at a changeover-the timing couldn't be worse. However, (and please bear with me as I'm not a total "perv") there's some major shake downs going on in the adult industry right now in terms of "shock film makers" being indicted.

The latest indictment is from an adult smut peddler who is every bit as deplorable as Roth (Max Hardcore) and who's films serve no purpose other than to gross you out. But...does he have a right to make them? Yadda yadda. Election year coming up...Conservatives not feeling represented enough....ugh. Here we go.

I would argue that Max Hardcore's films are different from Roth's, in that the people in Roth's movies are pretending to be abused (except for Matarazzo, but as if we don't applaud actors for going to painful physical lengths for their films), while Max Hardcore's performers are really taking serious punishment and humiliation.

Devin-

Perhaps BUT...much like David said "he" felt like Heather Matazzaro (spelling wrong, sorry) was being exploited by being hung upside down naked for an extended period of time.

Of course there's somewhat of a difference-and I get what you're saying-between Max and Eli...BUT...the women in both of these guys's films aren't being "forced" to do anything degrading or exploitative against their wills. They're being paid to perform. They're also being paid to be exploited in order to appeal to the lowest common denominator of a persons Id or psyche. Therein lies the similarity.

I have to say, Devin, your defense of the material without seeing the material is EXACTLY why I wrote the column.

And whatever name you might want to call me, it was my humanity that was abused watching that scene. It was my humanity that took me out of the scene to think about the actress put in that position. It is my humanity that I feel I have lost a piece of by watching something that was not just a piece of violence - no one was a bigger advocate of Audition than I and I believe I am on record about how Imprint should have been shown on TV, even if it was distrurbing - but something with the very angry smugness of a rapist... it's not about the sex, it's about the power.

Maybe you have no lines that can be crossed, Devin. But I doubt it. That would literally make you a sociopath and I know you aren't one.

I am fine with you making the case aggressively against the blatant consumerism of The Summer Of The Triquel. But I have to say, Gore Verbinski hung a child in a PG-13 movie... maybe an artistically successful choice, maybe not. But it had a point, albeit a point emasculated by the glibness that followed. But he was not encouraging his audience to enjoy the child being hung, he didn't take the kid's clothes off or run a sickle over his testicles.

And that brings up another point, as these discussions do... what if instead of Heather M. the girl hanging upside down naked was underage Dakota Fanning and she was being devirginized by the sickle? Would that be enough for you to call, "foul?"

Really... sincerely... what is your line?

I am coming to understand that Hostel 2 is some sort of pact with the geek world, loaded with references to other movies that geeks love, etc. Maybe that myopic view would take me out of my basic way of seeing the world. Maybe that is me rationaizing the discussion of box office.

But a kid torturing an animal is a kid torturing an animal... even if they claim they want to be a doctor someday. No?

"They're also being paid to be exploited in order to appeal to the lowest common denominator of a persons Id or psyche"

I'd say this is arguable.

"Sometimes, we need to discuss what kind of toxins are on the train and whether it should be running... not via censorship... but simply on principle."

But that's a slippery slope, David!!! :p I liked this article better when Mike White wrote it (and as I recall, you criticized it).

Mike said: "shouldn’t we at least pause to consider what we are saying with our movies about the value of life and the pleasures of mayhem?

That said, I agree with the sentiment. I don't believe that lack of legal liability equals a lack of moral responsibility.

I am surprised to see you blaming a dreaded perception of 'being unhip' as a the motivation for not setting standards. That's even more morally vacuous than just being too cowardly to question carte blanche Artistic Freedom.

I hate to repeat my greatest hits from two hours ago, but smoking-hot and awesome ROSARIO DAWSON alledgedly dates/dated Eli Roth. Best of my knowledge, she does not date anyone on this blog. Therefore, he is beyond all reproach.

So keep on rockin' the smarmy frat-boy vibe, E-RO! YEAH!!!!!

On a more serious note, while there's no way I WON'T be seeing HOSTEL 2, it's not impossible that I'll ultimately find it as demoralizing as Poland does. I'll go along with D-Pizzle that WOLF CREEK just made me feel fucking AWFUL. At some point, and I'm sure you recognized the point in the movie too, that one went way beyond the line of artistry, shock value, certainly beyond any "good, clean fun" rationalization. It was I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE-level heartless, hopeless, joyless and cruel.

I don't think Matarazzo was exploited, and after personally seeing her and Roth interact well after filming was completed, I get the impression she doesn't think she was exploited either. In fact, she apparently got into shape and practiced yoga for months to be able to do the scene convincingly. As long as no one was hurt during filming, everyone involved knew what was going on and what would be portrayed and everyone was paid equitably and no one was coerced into participating, I don't think you can argue exploitation (see GOODBYE UNCLE TOM for a similar scenario where I do think legitimate exploitation by the filmmakers is happening).

As for Fanning... well, she's not really having those things happen to her. It's fiction. Would such a scene in a movie be beyond the pale to me? If the intended response was laughter or sexual arousal, I would think so - but, and again, without having seen the movie, I believe that horror and disgust is what Roth is aiming for - and got. The argument here would be, 'Is disgust a legitimate reaction for real art to pursue?' and I don't see why not.

Here's the thing: we live in an age when getting a shock or reaction out of people is tougher and tougher. I see things on CSI that are more hardcore than films could show when my dad was a young man going to the movies. The bar gets lower or the envelope gets bigger and harder to push or whatever metaphor you want to use, and every generation is going to go the next step to provoke,horrify and disgust. In the late 70s punk rockers wore swastikas to upset their elders and society held on and didn't collapse. Now Eli Roth is engaging in extremism to get a reaction, and he's getting it. That's actually technically effective art.

And a kid torturing an animal is - in every single way - different from a movie portraying a kid torturing an animal. Unless you're alleging Roth made a snuff film, I don't see how that comparison floats.

The problem with Wolf Creek wasn't that it was heartless or cruel (which I don't think it was), it was that it was boring and generically identical to every other 'young people in the middle of nowhere' horror movie since the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

Devin-
My point was David said HE felt like Mattazarro was being exploited and you make films to get an audience to react, especially in this case.

For every adult film star who got degraded by Max Hardcore and said it was borderline rape there's ten that said they knew what they were doing and were o.k. with it. It's all nasty to me though and serves no purpose other than to raise the bar through-once again-the lowest common denominator.

I mean, of course Mattazarro said she was down with the thing...like they'd let word leak out that she hated it and felt exploited.

"And a kid torturing an animal is - in every single way - different from a movie portraying a kid torturing an animal."

He didn't compare the act of toruring an animal in real life versus a film. He calls into question a supposed justification for such an act (future doctor). DP is speaking in the general sense of trying to justify bad behavior. I'm sure there's a better analogy out there.

Petaluma - again, having seen Roth and Heather interact in person in a non media event scenario, I have to say that it didn't come across like she was putting on an act.

As for Dave FEELING she was exploited - well, the guy handing out the Daily Worker feels you're exploited, too. Are you? In the larger philosophical sense of someone is making money off of you, whatever your field of work is - sure. But in the real, personal sense?

Devin-

I don't want to get into another war with you now that I like you and all.

David thinks that HOSTEL 2 is evil and shit. You disagree.

I think CHAPTER 27 should be burned. Obviously someone out there disagrees.

Neither of us, or you, has the power to make the films we object to disappear. Hoorway for the USA!

So HOSTEL 2 will come out and do what it does. Eli's a smart guy. He knows what he's doing. He'll make a mint off of it.

Also, just because Heather either doesn't think she is being exploited or is complicit in her exploitation doesn't mean that she ISN'T being exploited. The obvious example is Marilyn Monroe.

The problem with the premise of H1 ( I can't comment on what I have not seen, aka H2) is that the guys were jackoffs who I barely got to know so I didn't care about what happened to them. That plus in the internet universe we live in something like the slaughter house would be exposed by someone's big mouth within 5 minutes.

--Don

And again, my problem here is not a bad movie.

We all have lines. And this film crossed mine, not for the violence, but for the filmmaker's clear attitude about the violence.

And we in the media become complicit, as in this piece... http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2007/06/eli_roth_has_his_dirk_diggler.html#more ... where the magazine not only laughs at Roth's odd self-exploitation, but fails to note that the reason for the prop was for someone to cut it off of an ostensibly living person in a movie. Ha ha.

My fear is not even the rationalization - and "he got to fuck Rosario Dawson, so he rocks" is a fucked up one, especially for her - but the complicity of the more serious-minded media that chooses not to think any more deeply than a marketing effort.

While it would be nice for the media to be less complicit in marketing, in general, what does it matter what the giant penis prop is for?

Don, I like to think that Dave and I are having a friendly and intellectual debate. I know that's how I view it, and I am gracious for the ability to not just have such a debate on this site, but in this country.

Dave, now there's something I can get behind. The media has become so incredibly degraded that reprinting a press release has become considered reportage.

Regardless of whether Eli Roth is in fact the antichrist, has committed a crime against the multiplex of humanity, or is just plain wrong for making Hostel Part 2 in the first place is a little inconsequential to me when the person calling foul on him (I'm looking at you, Mr Poland) is reviewing an unreleased, pirated copy of the movie. Hard to find a leg to stand on when you're the one committing the felony there, bub.

I'll be laughing if Lions Gate decides to sue (after they got their free share of shock-publicity from your posting). Awesome job promoting a film you despise, Poland.

(And just for the sake of the inevitable flame, I don't like Eli Roth, Hostel, or the ultraviolence that currently qualifies as mainstream Hollywood "horror" films...I just think David Poland is a massive hypocrite.)

Don Murphy just said it all. Nice goin' big guy.

And if you (Devin) think Heather M. hanging naked above a tub while a person whittles away at her naked body is anything less than sensationalistic exploitation designed to titliate (aka...pornography in many cases) I have to call B.S. on you. You might be O.K. with it and I fully support your right to feel that way, but it is exploitation.

Again, I think I feel a little less strongly about the whole thing than David does, but I haven't seen H2 yet so I can't fully commit to a comment on it. But HIM feeling that way is the point of HIS column and I also agree with the other points he brings into his argument about trying to justify the violence and exploitation by like....tacking on some smug little thing that makes it all O.K. As in...well, a *woman* had the body hung and, another woman cut a guy's junk off.

Well, if it's not okay for Roth to hang Matarazzo upside-down in H2, does that mean it wasn't okay for David Lynch to abuse Isabella Rossellini the way he did in Blue Velvet (the primary reason for Roger Ebert's pan)? Or for Verhoeven to ask Sharon Stone to spread her legs in Basic Instinct, or Carice Van Houten to do the same in Black Book? Or for Scorsese to allow DeNiro to permanently damage his health with his rapid weight gain for Raging Bull?

I understand the point y'all are making about being complicit in one's self-exploitation - I jut think that it's a red herring in this context.

[b] poor Jeff MCM [/b}

You as usual start your argument from a false position. It IS okay (they all did it) and no one is arguing it is NOT okay. The argument is that by doing it you have resorted to expolitation of the lowest kind.

We can do a Cliff Notes version of the argument for you Jeff and you can have Mommy read it to you tonight.

You were doing so well, Don. How's Transformers?

Of course it _is_ okay. Dave Poland's argument, though, is that it _isn't_ okay for Roth to have done it in his movie.

I should point out: I'm asking a question, not stating a fact. You know: conversation.

You know, regardless of whether or not you think that Eli Roth exploited the actresses or if you think it crossed the line, the bottom line is this: if you don't like it, don't watch it. I had the misfortune of watching both Hostel movies and I didn't see anything redeeming about either film, but I also didn't feel as offended as DP seemed to be. But that's his right, he's entitled to his opinion. But, obviously these films are being made because people are watching them. As long as a series of films makes money, they will continue to be made and it's up to you, as a consumer to either put down your hard earned cash or not. And DP, you didn't have to pay to watch the film, you didn't have to make that choice to pay for this "entertainment". If that is what people want to watch at the end of the day, so be it.

But I highly doubt that anybody would be influenced by Hostel II the way they might be influenced by Lake of Fire. Hostel II does not take place in any sort of reality that I have seen. It is a fantasy. If you feel that people are going to watch Hostel II and kill people, I would argue that you shouldn't join the chorus of folks who believe you should blame pop culture for all that is wrong with the world today. I haven't posted in a while, I hope everyone is swell!

Everyone has a line of tolerance. Mine is actually a lot lower and covers not just the physical torments of simulated rape and torture in horror films but also psychological degradations in comedy. An audience getting off on a character's humiliation over being caught fucking a pie or William Hung singing "She Bangs" on American Idol for our gratification are no less offensive to me just because they're not physically violent. They still appeal to the basest of human instincts and they still make me sick.

But where do you draw the line and who gets to draw it? You don't want me drawing the line and I don't want Poland drawing the line either. If Poland isn't arguing a line be drawn, what is he saying exactly? That Roth is a bad person and I shouldn't send him a Christmas card?

The Cliff Notes version of cjKennedy's post =

"I AM A GIANT PUSSY."

You're welcome. Seriously, dude, you can't bear to watch people being humiliated on American Idol? Making fun of people RULES.

Ohhh Lex...you're so *edgy*.

He sure is. He calls people pussy and says Eli Roth is way cool for banging Rosario Dawson. He totally lives on the edge.

How does one respond to be called a giant pussy without either sounding like a petulant douche nozzle or...well...a giant pussy? Ahhh...the deeper philosophical questions of life.

Anyway, I didn't say I couldn't bear the humiliation LexG, but I just don't get off on it.

I would suggest that watching people get humiliated by Simon Cowell is _worse_ than anything in any horror movie because one is real, the other is fiction.

One is completely warranted due to wholesale delusion.

And Petaluma, I'm way more than *edgy*. I'm AWESOME. I'm easily, hands-down the funniest person on this blog. It's not my fault that 90% of the other posters are so consistently humorless and literal-minded.

For the record, I'd wager that "Stella's Boy" (nice handle, that is) has not slept with famous actresses and models. Eli Roth has.

Therefore, Eli Roth = possesses the power of genius.

Stella's Boy = possesses the power of douche.

And by that logic, Lex...how many famous actresses and models have you 'slept with'?

I wish Nicol was here.

By this logic, LexG = idiot.

LexG, I'll admit to laughing out loud at being called a giant pussy. It was simple, forceful, random and funny if not especially original. Like a guy getting hit in the balls on one of those home video shows, something that makes me laugh every time even though I feel I should know better.

You might want to hold off on printing up those "I'm easily hands-down the funniest person on MCN" t-shirts though.

Jeffmcn, the answer to your question, which shall come as no surprise to you, is zero. But where I ACKNOWLEDGE MY INFERIORITY to the rich and famous, everyone else goes on pretending that THEY'RE HAPPIER BEING A MILQUETOAST DOUCHE.

Why, just look, last night, at that AUDIENCE OF BRAIN-DEAD CATTLE actually BOOING Paris Hilton at the MTV Awards, or more accurately, cheering at the mention of her going to jail, knowing she was there and in attendance, squirming. Ooooooh, way to go out and make a fucking statement there. BOO PARIS HILTON! BOOOOOOO! Fuck those people. FUCK them. Totally irrational, sheep-like class hatred mentality from a bunch of fat, ugly, jealous, bitter LOSERS who've been pre-sold their own opinions. Yeah, why don't you fucking rods vote for GIGLI as the worst movie of its year, or harp on NSYNC for lack of musical integrity while you're at it?

But...Paris Hilton should be booed. Better for her to be ignored, but booing works too.

And why were you watching the MTV Movie Awards in the first place?

You're officially an old man, Dave. Relish in it.

I watched Hostel 2 the other day. Thought it was a bit slow in parts, a bit disgusting in others, but then, if you expected anything less, you're an idiot.

Soul-destroying? Misogynistic?

Please.

I still think that this discussion is focusing WAY too much on Roth. In addition to DP's chastising of "complicit media", there's a studio releasing this thing! How do various suits read these scripts, watch these films, and think it's okay to put them into theatres, okay to make money off them? How do they sleep at night?

Mel Gibson made a film that was controversial (well, two, really), and wound up releasing it himself because no one would bite. That's fine by me. Let Eli Roth put his own depraved garbage into the theatres and see if torture porn geeks rally in support at the box office like the christians did, through word of mouth and fan websites. But why, why, does a company have to put their logo and stamp of approval on something like this.

Again, it's not that one person is sick enough to think of this shit and actually film it. It's that several other people sit around and agree that it's something worth getting behind as investors. When people are willing to stoop to this level to make money, it makes censorship advocates who claim Hollywood will do anything to make money look like they're speaking the truth. Can we show them that there is a line, that the film industry (not including the adult entertainment industry) has some restraint?

As for Devin's comment way back at the top about The Last House on the Left being just as bad as Hostel for its time, a film supposedly influenced by Bergman's Virgin Spring, and one that garnered a 3.5 star review from Ebert back in '72, is maybe not the example you want to use in an argument.

Have you seen Last House, Lazarus? Are you familiar with how controversial it was 35 years ago, and how Craven says himself in his commentary track on the DVD that there are things in it he's uncomfortable with today?

Does HOSTEL 2 have an awesome CAKE-BAKING MONTAGE like LHOTL?

...

Jeff...

"Paris Hilton should be booed."

I'm sure I'll get the standard, stock answer, but why, pray tell, "should" she be booed? What has she personally done that has affected your life in the negative? Or, really, any of the other MTV audience sheep?

I'm almost positive the answer would involve "she didn't have to work for anything, she was born rich, she has mininal talent, she's famous for being famous," etc. Never minding that in recent years she's worked her ASS OFF on multiple successful creative and business ventures, or that she has a beauty, charm, and joie de vivre that shames that 300-lb buffalo Marilyn Monroe who apparently constitutes some sort of "screen legend."

But any of those complaints from that list above could EASILY apply to DOZENS of other musicians, models, actresses, and socialites. They could also, tellingly, apply to many more MALE celebrities, who aren't scrutinized with the Puritanical, witch-hunting ZEAL that's reserved for Paris Hilton.

Therefore, it is Paris Haters, not "torture porn" directors, who are the true MISOGYNISTS.

"she has a beauty, charm, and joie de vivre that shames that 300-lb buffalo Marilyn Monroe who apparently constitutes some sort of "screen legend.""

Forgive my language, but I can't think of any other way to express this: Are you fucking kidding me?

LexG I was with you 100% on the Hilton-haters until you dragged Marilyn Monroe into it. That's just wrong.

Plus you haven't answered what you were doing watching the MTV Awards.

im still trying to figure out who watches the MTV movie awards.

it's like 'contractual obligation TV'. see the celebs show up to quickly whore their upcoming film and then get the hell out.

Even Shia Lebouff, who has been the 'it boy' for about 8 minutes looked like he'd rather be anywhere else than at the show. Someone had a clip link somewhere, it was pretty funny.

As for Hostel 2. Seriously, for someone to argue that it has subtext is like arguing that porn has subtext. Sure, it might just, but the whole point is to get you off. Anything else there is probably unintentional.

Yeah, I'm sure Lee Strasberg would have jumped at the chance to work with Paris Hilton (or vice-versa). Marilyn's acting ability is open to debate (though you'd look like a fool for saying she had none), but she worked her ass off as well while she was alive, and I'll take Some Like It Hot, Bus Stop, and The Misfits over the House of Wax remake and Paris album of "music". But that's just me.

Jeffmcm, I HAVE seen Last House on the Left, and while I'm not denying that it was shocking and divisive when it came out, is ANYONE from the current critical establishment, new or old guard, who's going to get behind Hostel 2? Sure the media (and most of the people on here, it seems) are defending his freedom of speech, but is anyone saying it's anything more than trash? Roth knows how to use a camera, and shows skill building tension, but from an artistic perspective I don't know that he's going to impress anyone outside the past or present basement-dwellers.

Why shouldn't/wouldn't I watch it?

Every year, I subject myself to it, despite it almost never being funny and it ALWAYS being a smarmy celebrity jerkfest that makes the Golden Globes look as earnest and humble as the local chapter of the lumberjack union giving plaques to the wives whose husbands bought it SOMETIMES A GREAT NOTION-style.

But when you have Biel, Alba, Hilton, Diaz, Mendes, and Bynes all under the same roof in heels and little dresses, it should be appointment television for every depressed failed open miker in the 818, all the better to inflict the endlessly warranted self-hatred owed to anyone not enough of a God to roll with the Hollywood A-list, the megawatt talents and geniuses plucked from the greatest theatrical tradition to pass on the baton of cinema to today's brave audiences.

You know. People like Josh Duhamel.

It's interesting that Last House on the Left came up. Ebert's 3 1/2 stars aside, it seems like many of the films in this genre only get critical/establishment acceptence long after the fact. I wonder what people will be saying about Eli Roth and Hostel 1 & 2 in 10 or 20 years.

"LexG I was with you 100% on the Hilton-haters until you dragged Marilyn Monroe into it."

Amen. Me too. I've actually found myself defending Hilton on a number of occasions for the very reasons you mentioned. I credit her for actually doing something with her celebrity, getting out and making money on her own instead of tards like Brandon what'shisfuck just sitting around producing nothing. I'm not saying she's one of the most upstanding members of society, but I gather most of the people that "hate" her are doing it mostly out of jealousy. But yes, the Monroe mention was not right.

Oh, and I once got a BJ from a famous rock star's sister. Does that make me any smarter?

i've seen the scene in question. i agree with poland, but i am an old man so feel free to disregard my opinion, lex.

as for history, i think these films will fall into the "i spit on your grave" side of historical importance. i would be very surprised if people knew what you were talking about in 20 years.

i like horror films. i like naked women. but that scene was disgusting (if for its length, which is over five minutes). just because one can do something does mean one should.

When you say 'these films' do you mean the Hostel films or films by Roth or something else? Because I think there's a big jump in quality between Roth's films and the likes of Wolf Creek/Texas Chainsaw Redux/Saw/Hills Have Eyes.

This makes me think of two famous quotes, which I will probably get wrong.

The first is from Brian De Palma, who said "They always want to punish you if you actually make people feel horrified."

The second was Joe Bob Briggs on Tobe Hooper and TCM, who said something along the lines of "A horror director has to be a madman, he has to make you think anything can happen and might." Of course The Texas Chain Saw (or Chainsaw, dealer's choice) Massacre is practically dainty in comparision to the genre now labeled torture porn. But if you were horrified, and or disgusted, that's likely the emotional reaction that Eli Roth wanted to create. So he succeeded at his goal. Within the genre he's working in, his work (having not seen Hostel 2) is some of the best of the lot. Is that small praise? Perhaps but there's a difference between Russ Meyer and that dude who directed Animal Instincts 2.

p.s. lex,

your defense of paris (your apparent ability to read minds aside) that others do just like her, if not worse is hardly compelling. we should boo them all. we should not chalk it up to a generation.

for the record, i'd boo her because i met her and found her unlikeable. i'd boo her because she thinks rules/laws are for other people and not her.

if you care to change that opinion, you're going to have to come up with something better than she's working her ASS off. because she should be.

I have a very different issue with HOSTEL--the quality control.

HORROR? Not.

Horny back-packers couldn't get laid with satisfaction in Amsterdam?! That right there sets up the premise that we do not have just *ordinary* dumb guys who "deserve" the standard slasher fare.

If Roth has a talent, then his talent is fooling people into thinking they were going to see an envelope-pushing "horror" movie...and I paid for it. It was a cheap imitation so it was a smart business move on his part--making people think they were getting a horror movie then provide a cheap "knock off" ...but I still paid $10 for my ticket so somebody made out pretty good. Joke was on the audience.

Horror is supposed to be mentally damaging and nerve-wracking and frightening Beyond the movie experience.

How many people ended up staying out of oceans after watching JAWS? Like every person you know..some for years!

Did you enjoy taking a shower after the first time you saw PSYCHO? Unlikely.

I checked for Freddy in my closet and under my bed for months.

How many people have avoided staying in a Hostelry after wasting time and $10 on HOSTEL the movie? Uh...I bet NOBODY!

I think whether or not a person feels like they are being exploited, if their image is, then the person IS...simply because that feels like the intent of the director in (I think) trying to create the opposite of empathy in the audience. I was exploited in that sense, and that annoyed me worse than any depiction of the characters. In any movie I would like to be able to empathize with [i]somebody[/i]. Were the Slovak actors exploited financially?

BUT Hostel does nothing new, not any new thing by any stretch. I regard LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT as just as *poor taste* and just as mean-spirited against the audience...I would like to say goodbye to that sort of thing.

Hope HOSTEL pt 2 dies a quick gorey death at the BO.

This makes me think of two famous quotes, which I will probably get wrong.

The first is from Brian De Palma, who said "They always want to punish you if you actually make people feel horrified."

The second was Joe Bob Briggs on Tobe Hooper and TCM, who said something along the lines of "A horror director has to be a madman, he has to make you think anything can happen and might." Of course The Texas Chain Saw (or Chainsaw, dealer's choice) Massacre is practically dainty in comparision to the genre now labeled torture porn. But if you were horrified, and or disgusted, that's likely the emotional reaction that Eli Roth wanted to create. So he succeeded at his goal. Within the genre he's working in, his work (having not seen Hostel 2) is some of the best of the lot. Is that small praise? Perhaps, but there's a large difference between Russ Meyer and that dude who directed Animal Instincts 2.

jeff, i was refering to hostel 1+2 in response to kennedy

"The opposite of empathy"? Lota, I was completely empathetic (?) of the two lead characters in Hostel. They got hurt, I got hurt. Granted, it's no Val Lewton, and to whoever said tht Roth 'knows how to use the camera' I would disagree there (the DVD special features show him asking his editor what kind of coverage to get on a scene...duh) but what he does, he does better than most who try the same thing (yes, I know, faint praise).

Lota, there's a lot more going on in Last House than just being 'mean-spirited'. Essays have been written about it being progressive in its view of violence and as a response to Vietnam/the 60s.

I can't "evaluate" Hostel pt ii because I haven't seen it, but it sounds like straight-to-video sexploitation fare.

If people pay for that crap what can you do.

a lot of people write essays Jeff. So what about it.

Usually those types of "essays" sound like excuses to me, simply because many horror fans like Wes Craven. I like Wes Craven movies, but not that movie. No excuse for the final product. It was beneath him in every way and HE has capability. If LHOTL was done by a lesser known horror director it would be totally pilloried and only remembered for how crap it was instead of "wes Craven's LHOTL".

Lota has a point. People are going to go to Hostel pt 2 no matter what anyone here thinks. As long as those people open up their wallets for this sort of thing, then filmmakers like Roth are going to have a job doing what they want.

I have no interest in "horror porn". I would never see the film in a theater, on DVD or otherwise. I don't have to go pay my $11 and sit through something to know it's not for me.

Eli Roth defending his films as some sort of social commentary is utter crap...whether it be on AICN or in a major paper. To think journalists of any caliber are letting him get away with it is plain stupid. Now if anyone who isn't Roth, can explain to me logically why his stance makes sense, then please pass it on. I'd be most interested to hear it.

(The description of the Heather Matarazzo torture/death scene makes it clear that there is no way that the scene can't be seen as anything but exploitive. It sickens me and I didn't even watch it.)

Smart, convincing people, Lota. I believe that all criticism is justification after the fact, but that doesn't mean you can't get something out of it.

Lota, Ebert gave it 3 1/2 stars upon its initial release and didn't know who Wes Craven was. And no, back then, he did not have the capability to do more on a technical level - he hardly knew what he was doing at all. But if you watch it attentively, you can see that it's the work of someone emotionally in touch with his material, regardless of the low-budget and the crudity of his skill.

Aladdin, what do you think consitutes 'social commentary' if not a movie that suggests that there are implications to our current socioeconomic model if taken to logical extremes?

Jeff, in your favor--

You are right to point out the many valid and, if nothing else, interesting articles about LAST HOUSE. Robin Wood's famous appraisal of it, like Ebert's review, was also written long before Craven was a famous, respected, almost genteel Hollywood horror director. Wood's piece is worth seeking out.

For the record, I am endlessly fascinated by LHOTL and regarded as a masterpiece of sorts.

On the other hand, be careful not to buy too hard into the generalized, and somewhat ARBITRARY, Film Studies through-line about all films being reflective of their sociopolitical context. It's a nice easy thought, a nice way to get underclassmen to write a bullshit essay and feel like there's a scholarly legitimacy to film criticism, but it's just a little simplistic. Trust me, I went to film school (too?), and after four years of "CHINATOWN was because of Watergate and LAST HOUSE was because of Vietnam but then RAMBO and ROCKY were because of Reagan," I kinda just wondered if it wasn't all a bullshit line of logic to keep film professors and scholars gainfully employed but with minimal effort.

Not faulting you for bringing it up, as it's so persistent a line of thought, but it's as often bullshit as it is true, though I have no doubt whoever the Robin Wood of 2010 is will further legitimize Roth's statements that these movies are about our current political scene, which parrots what Craven said about his early stuff.

Jeff there ISN'T any other kind of criticism except "after the fact" -- you can;t critique it before you see it.

Many critics would give LHOTL one star Jeff. Ebert is a revered critic--doesn't mean he's always right or always guilty of good taste.

I got less than nothing out of Hostel. It got a shitty rating on IMDB so let's hope it's a warning that sequels usually suck harder.

I agree that it all needs to be taken with a grain of salt, but in LHOTL's case I think it's undeniable.

Lota: Who said otherwise?
And most critics are aren't that interesting to read, former journalists who think that a movie review should consist of a plot description paraphrased out of the press notes and a consumerist thumbs-up/thumbs down rating.

i also didn;t like SLovakia made to be some little dirty place (with signs in Czech...uh no. not after partition Mr Roth! Talk about cheap ass-at least pretend you are in SLovakia) without culture just craving American accents and complete with kids to rob them (BS on that. you are more likely to get robbed by kids in LA or NYC).

SO not only was the HOSTEL a place of bore gore, but SLovakia was exploited too.

I loved SLovakia, hated HOSTEL.

That would be a rocking T shirt

After partition did they demand the L be capitalized?

I'm joking, of course.

What never gets reconciled is that every year around Academy Awards time we are subjected to video montages and talking heads telling us how Hollywood and movies have changed the world. Just two years ago George Clooney lectured us on how Hollywood was at the forefront of the fight against racism (and somewhere Stepin Fetchit and Mantan Moreland nodded in agreement I bet).

Yet every time someone raises a point that some Hollywood movies have negative influence on our culture and might make our world a little worse everyone chimes in about how films really have no influence at all and "its not like someone will walk out of Hostel II and take a chainsaw to anyone." As if that is the litmus test.

Slovakia was one of the nicest hiking trips I ever had.

The fact that a nasty piece of crap like Hostel would be placed there is annoying.

and yes I stayed in many HOSTELS there too. The only time I have ever been robbed was in Budapest by an American. I had machine guns pointed at me in war zones, but it wasn't intended by the warlords I'm sure.

I do think movies do have a lot of influence in reflecting our best and worse possible selves, but I wouldn't want to impede anyone's freedom of speech either.

Sometimes I feel like some of these movies are almost "hate crimes" in and of themselves.

Fortunately I can;t count ~ 5 that I feel that strongly about.

It's not so much the imagery and ideas, is it? Isn't the real issue--at least among cinema fans--whether or not it's just good storytelling?? I'm not sure that Roth lacks a "moral compass" as much as he lacks storytelling and filmmaking skills. He is trying to reproduce exploitation films and in doing so he has produced just that: reproductions. I hated Cabin Fever and avoided Hostel until dvd. I was actually surprised that there was a real germ of an idea there-- horny guys looking to exploit flesh getting exploited themselves--and I thought it was ok. Poorly shot and constructed, and had that whiff of artificallity, but it convinced me that Roth as least has a brain somewhere. He's not a lost cause he's just a rip-off artist without the skill to follow through on his halfpbaked ideas.

really, all in all it's faulty drama. Bad storytelling. I don't think Roth is a sociopath, he's just an idiot. he confuses shock with drama. He's a geekshow ringmaster with poor pacing. LHOTL makes me feel dirty but it works because it IS relateable. there is a genuinely relatable dramatic situation there, and it feels natural. LHOTL fucking MEANS it, ya know?? Hostel doesn't. It's the same for Hooper's Chainsaw and, as someone else mentioned, Blue Velvet. There is real drama there. It's not just a technical exercise or a reproduction. I felt the same way about Devils Rejects. That was a stylish and thoroughly watchable film but it's nothing but a white noise re-creation of 100 better films.

If Dave thought the scene he describes serviced a compelling story that has a point beyond "look at this !!" then maybe he doesn't react as he does. I would be more concerned with more bad-filmaking. As a horror fan I know that I demand more and wish more horror fans would. You support crap then you will get more crap. I won't be caught dead seeing this in a theater. It'll be a free rental sometime this fall, I reckon. I'm not so much judging the movie without seeing as I am making an educated guess.

Budapest is in Hungary.

warzones in N Africa/middle east/SOuth America lest people think I am speaking of Slovakia.

Cleansteve, one of my mottos is 'never let telling a story get in the way of making a good movie'.

David Poland: You and I have had some differences over the years, but I have to say right now – I FEEL YOUR PAIN. Seriously. I felt an epiphany similar to yours several years ago – specifically, during Jason Does Manhattan, when I found myself seriously tempted to bolt toward the exit while Jason strangled a pretty Asian teen-ager in a scene that seemed to go on for days. (I think I could have gone out for popcorn as soon as he grabbed her – he would have still been choking her by the time I got back.) On two other occasions, the camera dwelled admiringly, almost lovingly, on Jason's murder technique as he prepared to shove a sharp instrument into the flesh of other whimpering, scantily clad female victims. These were nothing more than vicious rape fantasies of the most pernicious sort, doubtless dreamed up by guys who didn’t have anything else to insert into women. But, then again, what else do you expect in this kind of movie?

Judging from how you’ve described Hostel 2, I feel reasonably safe in assuming that I would rather nail my cock to a burning building before bothering to see it. But, then again, I avoided the first one after getting the same vibe -- i.e., that the movie plumbed heretofore uncharted depths of suckage -- after reading other reviews.

Jeez guys...I can understand not liking it, but Hostel 1 was pretty tame in a lot of ways. 300 and POTC were both gorier.

Jeff: Let me put it like this -- If this is the kind of movie you like, I am glad you don't live near me and my family. And if you ever moved into a house near me and my family, I would have to seriously consider burning your house down.

Joe, that's how I feel about people who like Adam Sandler movies.

Not Reign Over me, I trust?

I don't want to risk Mike Binder and Jeff Wells hanging me upside down and torturing me to death.

CleanSteve-
great f-ing post man, you're 100% right. I think Roth's a self-indulgent buffoon who just doesn't "get" that he's not shocking, just simple minded and gross.

In all honesty, when I read the "screenplay" by the Virgina Tech killer, I was immiediately reminded of several morons I've had in screenwriting classes over the years as well as one Eli Roth. Some people just throw as much shit as they can against the screenwriting wall thinking they're edgy and crazy when really...they're just lazy and, well, gross. And stupid.

But I was reserving that commentary till after I saw HOSTEL 2 which, the more I think about it, isn't something I want to rush out and do.

Good, because I really, really liked Reign Over Me. If they would have had lobby displays of my Variety review of that one, too, it would have opened as huge as Knocked Up.

Hm.. not sure if I want to actually read the 85 responses that have accumulated since this was posted... I'm thinking more on the side of "not" since I'm guessing it's someone calling David out for "not reviewing" Hostel from a bootleg DVD and a few others following and then someone disagreeing with one of them, etc. etc. I think my perception of how people would respond to this post will be far more entertaining than the actual posts, so yeah, i think I'll just leave a smarmy comment that has nothing to do with the subject. :)
(And then go back and actually read the posts anyway)

Petaluma: Wait until you teach screenwriting courses, and you find yourself wondering if certain students should be steered over to psychiatric counseling.

"I am coming to understand that Hostel 2 is some sort of pact with the geek world, loaded with references to other movies that geeks love, etc. Maybe that myopic view would take me out of my basic way of seeing the world. Maybe that is me rationaizing the discussion of box office."

Please do not lump everyone in the geek world into this shit. This geek has zero interest in movies like Hostel and Hostel 2. In fact, you'd have to tie me up to see it. Thankfully, while the gore hounds get off on Roth's schadenfreude, I'll be at CineVegas, getting drunk and hoping films like The Grand and My Name is Bruce are truly geek worthy.

Joe-
but how many of them are "really" crazy? I don't think Eli Roth is...he just plays one on TV. Is he a closet case who hates girls....hmmm....I dunno that he's not....

A closet case who hates girls? Geez, do you think people like make slasher movies?

Nearly 25 years ago, I reviewed Jay Leno doing a stand-up comedy show here in Houston. He used to do a bit in his act about slasher movies "directed by guys who don't get laid a lot." How true.

As opposed to all the pussy film critics attract. Isn't that line of attack dangerously close to 'You review movies because you can't make them'?

PetalumaFilms, who've you been talking to?

I don't know what Eli Roth's major malfunction is.

What I do know is that this sequence is unlike any of the films that have been mentioned in the comments on this post... at least to me.

Like everything else, it is all about context. Many films have had more graphically horrible moments. Un Chien Andalou... obvious. The use of fetuses as dumpling filling in Dumplings. The eye popping out of the head in the vice in Casino. Etc, etc, etc... all kinds of examples. And yes, the bar has moved over the years. The vomit in The Exorcist is not now what it once was, especially after Mr. Creosote... but it is still a great, horrifying film.

I get ALL of that. And I agree with much of it. I like exploitation films. I do think they have a place in our culture.

I don't think Hostel is a good movie, but I didn't take offense to it like I have to Hostel 2. But amazingly, Hostel actually fits with Hostel 2 in that Roth is far more abusive to women if you look at the two films together.

And why does it matter? Because we keep lowering the bar. And when the big assaults on reasonable - not restrictive - standards take place, we must, at the very least, have a conversation about it. Nothing I do here will change the future of this film, which is being released in less than 5 days. But having this pass without people whose conscience it disturbs speaking out... that is how things get much, much worse.

It’s a lot better than cleaning up the mess.

I don't know, DP, that seems pretty alarmist to me. I think you're giving Eli Roth and the Hostel films way more credit than they deserve, in that I don't think they will have an effect on society as a whole. But if you're just talking about films, I mean I don't see how what happens here is any worse than the exploitation of women in Tarantino and Rodriguez films.

Have you seen the film, Noah?

Have you seen Tarantino or Rodriguez hang a woman upside down, gagged and naked, slowly being sliced to death as another naked woman works herself into an orgasm over being covered in another human's blood?

Have they even come close?

I go to Twitch every day and I haven't found anything this problematic over years of reading that site, dedicated to the disturbing.

You are right. By itself, it is minor... except for the potential handfuls of boys who feel vindicated in their troubled feelings about women by a director who is clearly giddy with delight in his "achievement." I am not calling for censorship. All I am calling for is for people of conscience to take it a bit more seriously than they do when they disregard an entire universe of films they don't respect.

And you, who I assume to be in the target audience for this film, but who also works to think about things (an assumption based on your participation in these discussions, even if we often disagree), is just dismissing it... just another thing... yawn. That is when it becomes dangerous.

Cocaine is cocaine, crack is crack, and heroin is heroin. Used once, none is that big a deal. And some people just try them and no problem. But I wouldn't really suggest taking out the needle or the pipe unless you are willing to risk a bigger problem.

Movies are powerful things. Like music, they often speak to the psyche louder than to the concious mind. I don't worry about a diet of dead bodies at the cinema. People know the difference. But this piece of film is insidious, in my opinion, in a different way than something like Scarface or even Hostel 1.

I don't know how else to get the idea across, but I will keep trying as people earnestly challenge my position on it.

I'll put too caveats here: I haven't seen Hostel 2 (or the first) and my interest is mainly in comedy. But comedy and horror share a lot of parallels. When practiced by virtuosos - the excesses that are part of the genre become necessities - you could imagine the film without them. But when practiced by lessers - the excesses overwhelm the experience.

But time and time again, at the beginning of their careers, the virtuosos are mistaken for lessers. In comedy: Richard Pryor, Lenny Bruce, Bill Hicks. In horror: Stephen King, George Romero, Wes Craven. It can be hard to see because the shock overwhelms, but the shock is a necessity for what had to be said.

Reasonable standards are difficult to imagine. My wife is a reasonable person. I am a reasonable person. But we over and over again have a discussion about whether something has crossed the line. If two people who love each other can't come to a consensus about a reasonable standard, what hope does a society have? There isn't a reasonable standard.

One of the things that both horror and comedy do is allow us to work with the parts of ourselves that are uncomfortable. Much of the disgusting comedies are forcing us to acknowledge our humanity - particularly that, even if we're capable of wonderous beauty, we still make many disgusting fluid and solids every day. That we're animals. Horror gore has much the same functions. We're meat. We're walking meat that we can scared, torn apart, brutalized and degraded. Both of these things make us uncomfortable and it's fun to be a safe environment to deal with it.

Again, I haven't seen Hostel, but a film that's dealing with torture and the ability to abstract ourselves from it in a time when we're asking when torture is a valid way to extract information, even as we're even already using it - I can see why that's something that people would want to see. Even if it's not Eli Roth's question, it's an issue in our cultural mind and we have to deal with it. Some more explicitly than others.

"in a time when we're asking when torture is a valid way to extract information"

Yes.

This movie is nothing but torture for the sake of thrills, in the context of the film itself or as a viewer.

I agree with everything else you wrote, Todd, and appreciate your input.

I have indeed seen Hostel II, DP, and I just didn't view it the same way as you did. Perhaps is a generational thing, but I didn't find anything in Hostel II approaching the hatred of women that Tarantino shows in Death Proof and he apparently think that all women do is talk about sex all the time. I find that more offensive than a film about people who torture American tourists.

I meant to say that I believe the fetishization of women in Death Proof is far more pronounced than in Hostel II. I also think that both are poor "entertainments". I agree with your assessment that the film is terrible, but I don't agree that it is dangerous.

David, in Hostel, it may well be torture for the sake of thrills not for information. But it's not the goals that we're concerned about with torture, it's the means. Knowing what that is. What it's about. The full significance of the act of torture... that's what unconscious mental experience that Hostel is dealing with.

Plus, once you open up the door of torture for information, some may say you're not far from torture for thrills. Abu Grahib. What were they really learning? Or were they just having their own good time? Their own Hostel?

Thanks for providing a lively forum that's civil and intelligent.

Todd

I'm getting some Siskel and Ebert style "I'm going to Spit on Your Grave" kind of discomfort from your comments, David. Eli seems to have been raised on films like Bloodsucking Freaks, the Troma film to which he did the commentary back before he got famous. And the genre itself requires new tricks, new debasements to get a reaction. It sounds like he played you like a pro. Now, whether that's real horror or not, like the comedy genre, there are few real masterpieces of the genre. And Roth may strike as more Fulci than Argento.

But in terms of lowering the bar, I've got to agree with Devin in that I think films like Wild Hogs or The Pacifier are much more offensive in that regard than something that (for better or worse) actively engages the viewer. Unless you think this film is going to send people on a quest to buy people they can kill.

But how many horror movies have led to violent crimes?

jeffmcm, you honestly think that Hostel is the commentary that the USA needs right now in response to its socioeconomic model when applied to the outside world?

I grew up on those films also, Dellamorte. Went to a lot of them in Times Square.

Comparing Roth to Fulci OR Argento is similar to comparing gruel to fine dining.

What I think is that this is more akin to the endless use of the word "bitch" to describe women or "nigger" to describe black people... after a while, people think it's okay. Sorry... this is not okay.

And the scam - and I do think it is a scam, even if you have convinced yourselves of it - that the industry as a whole is worse than any act of degredation (since I assume that a child aspiring to becoming a fat star on motorcycle is not what offends about Wild Hogs) is not a real argument because the comparison is apples vs Hummers.

Again, I as you and I ask Devin... is there ANYTHING that crosses the line for you? Yes, actual doing rather than portraying is different. But is there anything anyone could do in a film that you would feel crossed a line and promoted a level of human disconnection that would concern you if say, a bunch of frat boys watched it right before a party night?

And Noah... I hardly know how to argue your point. It is, I am afraid, beyond my ability to suspend disbelief. Tarantino may have failed in his portrait, but it is not hateful towards women. Ask a woman whether young women talk that way with thier girlfriends and you will likely get a pretty easy, "yes."

DEATH PROOF SPOILERS

And of course, that sadist gets him comeuppance at the hands of women who return fire on his level and beat him at his own game. Again, you may not think it works, but that is not my issue. My issue is that even in his somewhat immature way, Tarantino is speaking to something more than just sadism. The women, even the ones who are killed, are real characters, victimized, but not reduced to meat.

Noah, Tarantino thinks all women do is talk about sex in grindhouse movies.

On the matter of Hostel 2. I have been frequently sparring with a friend/blogger of mine about this movie. I obviously haven't seen the movie (I'm tempted to see it just so I can lambast it and not be criticised for not even seeing it. Maybe on Cheap Tuesday) but from the publicity stills and the posters it really does, to me, look as if Roth is promoting this movie to men (let's face it, I can't imagine many women finding this shit enlightening or inspiring) as the torture of women. A poster features a woman gagged and hanging upside down. Another features a completely naked woman, showing everything to the world bar her sex organs, holding a decapitated female head. That's sick.

But I get even more insulted when Eli starts talking about it being all about subtext. Maybe people would see the subtext in somebody getting their fingers chainsawed off if there actually was subtext and it wasn't just Roth going "Oh, we'll have him get his fingers sawn off and it can also, i guess, be interpteted as the American government giving local Iraqi law-enforcers guns to protect themselves but before hand cutting off all their resources." He did not think of that shit when he was writing it. He invented it. It's a fabrication.

Thing is, the horror movies of the '70s (such as Last House on the Left and Texas Chainsaw Massacre amongst others) are defendable against the same things. The violence was necessary because at that time new directors needed a way in and these incredibly violent movies that showed at drivein theatres for years was that. Their films needed to be noticed somehow. Wes Craven has routinely said he never saw himself as becoming a horror director.

And I also think that many of those films legitimately arose from the anger at the Vietnam war. If the director says so I'm inclined to believe it.

Thing is, that was 40 years ago. Times have changed. If Eli Roth wants to make a movie proclaiming the Iraq war as a load of fabricated twallop then nobody's stopping him. He has the resources, someone will shill him the money and distribute it to 2500 cinemas. And it's not like "iraq war = bad" is an unpopular topic these days. So it's kind of insulting when he preaches this mediocre filmschool essay claptrap.

I like him more when he's all "titsandbloodandboobies!!!!!" and not trying to tell me that I am misreading a movie in which an woman gets her face burnt by a blowtorch and then has her eye cut off and then decides to jump in front of a train because she's hideous. It makes me angry and enraged.

What David appears to find wrong with the scene in "Hostel II" and the entirety of the movie (I haven't seen either, so I won't comment on either), isn't really about graphics, i.e, gore and nudity. You could recreate the problem and leave both items out of it just by imagining a theoretical scene where somebody's beating his wife, and the attacker is brutal and remorseless, like you'd see in scores of other wife-beating scenes (largely on the Lifetime network), except in this case, you start realizing that the "film" is on the wife-beater's side, and the filmmaker is really enjoying the assault for all its worth.
At least that's how I'm interpreting Poland's experience.

To paraphrase Ebert, it isn't about what a film is showing you (torture, misogyny, etc.), it's HOW it's showing that material to you (giddily vs. unhappily), which is why any discussion of censorship is futile, since you could theoretically have the exact same amount of carnage and nudity threatening to be banned when the SUBTEXT is the real crux of the issue.

DP, we're doing about being exploitative of women here right? And if you think that Roth is exploiting women in Hostel II, then surely you must think that Tarantino does the same. Rose McGowan covered in blood as Kurt Russell laughs maniacally is pretty sick and twisted.

HOSTEL II SPOILERS

And at the end of Hostel II, the main girl gets revenge on the man who was about to kill her as well. And she does it by cutting off his penis and letting him bleed to death. So the killer gets the same comeuppance as Kurt Russell. And also, I don't think there's anybody in the audience who be envious of Roger Bart in this film as he quite obviously a weak, pathetic man who has to kill innocent women to feel important. And the scene with Heather Matarazzo is disgusting and terrible and also at the hands of another woman, who happens to be naked. It was offensive, yes, but not dangerous and just as exploitive of women as a foot shot in a Tarantino flick.

END HOSTEL II SPOILERS

And calling the women in one film real characters as opposed to in this film is really just a matter of the filmmaking not being very good. I preferred Death Proof to Hostel II and I am in no way arguing that the latter film is a good film, but I don't think it marks the coming of the apocalypse either. Also, Tarantino executive produced Hostel II as well.

DP: "It’s a lot better than cleaning up the mess."

What mess is that, can you elaborate?

I want also to answer the question that DP asked Devin: "is there anything that crosses the line for you?" and for me, the answer is: there is no act of visual violence that I can imagine not being usable within a proper context. I hated 300 because I thought its gore was being used for the diabolical purpose of riling its audience up into a frenzy of bloodlust - to want to see a particular class of people (the enemy) decimated. Most horror films - the good ones, anyway, function not by putting the viewer in the position of the attacker, but in the position of the victim. My reason for liking Hostel is that I believe it does that. Maybe Hostel 2 works in a different way - if so, it would be radically different from the way Roth's filmmaking style up to this point has functioned, and so I'm skeptical. If only this conversation had happened on Friday and we could all have rushed out to see it right away. Alas.

Joe Leydon: I'm glad that we've had friendly exchanges over the years or else I would feel disturbed by your comment re: what you would think of me if I were to consider myself a fan of a movie that neither of us have seen.

David,

Sure there's a lot of things that concern me if frat boys watch it right before a party. And most of them aren't on the level of Hostel II. But we don't make art or film or TV or anything creative for the bottom. We shoot for the audience who will get it, who will understand it, who can handle it. Art can affect both positively and negatively. But I feel there's not a single piece of art, particularly anything that's commercial, whose negative values overwhelm its positive or neutral values. We shouldn't be casual about art effects, but they shouldn't be overestimated either.

And none of us, save for parents, can say what anyone else can or cannot handle. Even if you have the best of intentions, you will restrict an idea that might have enjoyed and worse, had a positive influence.

We can have a general discussion about a standard that we'll all tacitly follow. But we won't come to a concessus on a reasonable standard. And we certainly will never follow it because what I can handle is different than what you can handle. And then I'll make a work that breaks it and we'll back to square one. Mourning standards is the best you'll do here.

I don't thin anyone wants to shrug off the negative effects, they just know for almost all of us, you'll walk out of the film, say, "Oh that was gross" or "Wow, I don't believe that she did that" and then you'll say "Hey, let's get some ice cream" and then you'll forget it. Most of us know that's what we feel like after most movies, most video games, most TV shows, most books. The valve of dealing with our deaths, our flesh and the cultural concern about torture in a safe environment easily outweighs the concerns that a few nitwits will get the wrong message...

To further demonstrate my point of a movie like Hostel 2 being marketed and portrayed purely to salivating young boys who want to see violent acts committed against women, this quote from a review at AICN:

"There are 2 big differences here. For one, we have women now (German, Phillips, Matarazzo) as our victims and two- [blah blah about the killers]. These two changes really make this movie much more visceral, and ultimately more entertaining!"

Seeing how the killers buy women and then kill them is more entertaining... I guess.

:/

I have a few points(all IMO of course):

1. Hostel 1 was neither very interesting nor terribly shocking unless you never watch horror. It was better than Cabin Fever though.

2. Eli Roth comes off as a douchebag in all of the interviews I've read with him. I keep hoping one day he'll say something that doesn't make me want to punch him.

3. This entire thread would probably make that douchebag feel pleased he bothered so many people with his movie.

4. People who are not from the southern United States that say or write "y'all" should be shot. Hell, anyone who writes it, unless they're writing dialogue for a southern character in a work of fiction, or transcribing a southerner's speech. Just a pet peeve. Enforced with bullets.

5. David Poland doesn't like or understand horror movies. This is fairly long established(if disputed by him). He once wrote that Old Boy was one of his favorite horror movies released that year. Old Boy, while containing some horrific images and/or scenes, is certainly NOT a horror movie.

6. Don Murphy playing nice with Devin Faraci makes me want to retch. Actually the fact that the Transformers movie advertising and nostalgia factor(combined with Megan Fox's casting) makes me want to watch a Michael Bay movie after walking out of his last three, THAT makes me want to retch. But I admire the skill. And crap, how can he get giant robots hitting each other wrong.

7. If critics mostly regard Last House on the Left favorably today because it was by Wes Craven, then someone please explain the lack of love for People Under the Stairs. That movie freaked me out.

8. Someone sell me on Bug. Or sell me on not seeing it. I've heard mixed things.

"...just as exploitive of women as a foot shot in a Tarantino flick."

That's Tarantino hating taken to Level Bullshit.

Oh yeah, let me make one quick point: as much as I've enjoyed Eli Roth's films - I agree with Pete above that Roth the person seems like a total dick.

Sorry about the 'y'all' thing but the words 'you all' were most appropriate to the phrase I was writing, but too wordy.

Oh, and Pete: totally agree about point 5.

Hallick, I don't hate Tarantino at all. I think he's a talented filmmaker and have enjoyed most of his films. I just think exploitation is exploitation.

PPP - Thanks for narrowing my appreciation of an entire genre down to a semantic argument about one film. You obviously have no idea what I like... or maybe you are just reading selectively.

But for shits and giggles, what films do I need to like to like the genre?

Or do you just get to summarily dismiss me because we disagree about one or two titles?

The Oldboy remark was meant as an illustrative example rather than the basis for my statement.

The context was a previous time your understanding/appreciation for horror was called into question(which has happened a few times), and IIRC you responded by listing several then-recent horror films you liked a lot(one of which was Oldboy) that were mostly not horror films. Which kind of proved the other person's point.

I think it actually might have been Drew McWeeny that called you on it that time. I believe that the one movie you listed at that time which was actually horror was Three: Extremes. Which I liked as well. But it's not exactly a standard mainstream horror movie.

Unless there's been many horror films from the past ten years that you've loved but not written about, I feel fairly comfortable with my remark based on what I've read of your work. Which is frankly almost everything over the past 8-9 years. I forget exactly when, but I started reading your work on Roughcut. I do believe I'm in a position where I can spot a trend in your writing.

I don't dislike your work(I enjoy your writing for the most part) but there are certain subjects about which you are predictable and intractable, such as Wachowski Bros movies, oscar bait movie musicals, Jeff Wells, Eyes Wide Shut, Kill Bill, The Fictional Box Office Slump, and horror movies.

There are some horror movies which you've said you liked that I agree are horror, such as Texas Chainsaw Massacre(the remake). Your review of it is another illustrative example: http://www.moviecitynews.com/reviews/texas_chainsaw_massacre.htm

By itself that review doesn't prove anything, I just find the misplaced enthusiasm for a wretched movie(which of course, is just my opinion) to be part of a trend I perceive where the horror movies you like either to be awful and disliked by most hardcore horror fans or not actually horror movies. Now, being perceived as a good horror movie by a consensus of horror movie fans is not even a whisp of proof in itself, however when your opinion continually is contrary to that consensus then I believe that is telling.

None of which is a judgment of you, it doesn't prove you're a bad person or a bad writer; I just don't trust your opinion on horror movies. Similarly I don't trust Harry Knowles when he reviews something positively: it means nothing because he likes some movies that are just plain awful. However when he gives a negative review, I take notice, because it tends to coincide with my own take on the movie.

Anyway since I perceive a sense of antagonism in your reply then feel I should remind you that you should feel free to take my remark as a difference of opinion and nothing more. You don't need to prove anything to me. It's incredibly possible that I am wrong. In any case I don't think we'll change each other's minds.

Damn that was a long post.

Here's a short version: Dave, I think YOU think you're a fan of horror movies. But it's like saying you're a fan of science fiction movies because you like 2001:A Space Odyssey, Blade Runner, and (the Nispel TCM of science fiction) Michael Bay's The Island. And then going on to trash every other science fiction you see.

Liking a few classic movies in a genre and generally loathing the rest except for one or two modern ones isn't being a fan of the genre. It's not anything. You just like those few movies that you like. Like most people.

Eli Roth is a horror fan, even if he is a douchebag. Because he kind of seems to like it all.

Spoilers for The Hills Have Eyes Remake, the original Assault on Precinct 13, and Hostel to follow

What is too far? Real violence. After that, it's all fairly open terrain. I think the slaughter of children for entertainment is pretty low, but two of the great moments in 70s cinema are when Kim Richards gets killed in Assault on Precinct 13 and the Kitner kid gets it in Jaws because they're such powerfully transgressive moments. And as I said before, a horror director has to keep you unhinged. Nowadays, that may mean cutting a dick off. I would rather people did something skillfully, but the horror genre is so hit and miss that I'll settle for effective. And, for better or worse, when Jay Hernandez is being tortured in Hostel, I cringed. My jaws was on the floor when the creepy mutants shot the mom in The Hills Have Eyes remake. Now are they great entertainment? No, but it is effective.

And for horror, that's a passing grade for me. Really, there's maybe five or six horror films that leave you with something palpably horrific, that fatalism that haunts Curse of the Demon, and Don't Look Now, and Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer. Those films terrify me. Other horror films seem tone pieces, say films by Bava or Carpenter, and then others it's about the virtuosity, watching the dark cackle of an Argento - or on his game Miike for that matter. I don't find Argento's films all that scary, nor really Carpenter's (outside of The Thing) but I totally dig on their approach (the horror film offers the most pure expression of director's talents), the fun I have watching them work, and often watching them with dates.

Then... there's films like Maniac, which I can also enjoy. It's a film that rests it's only value on its sleaziness. To which I would put Fulci, and Deodato, and all those guys whose main trick is shocking you with how far they go. Now, this isn't exactly the greatest of cinematic experiences, but at least it elicits a strong reaction, and for that it's very entertaining seeing films like this in a theater. It provokes a genuine and real response. And I think Eli Roth is trying to piss people off, and he obviously offended you, so I think he got what he wanted.

But, to me, complaining about the torture in a film called Hostel seems beyond the point - Ive always valued the Joe Bob Briggs ethos that a film must be judged for what it is, and that's what Hostel's built on. This new breed of horror film is going extreme partly because of the pg-13 horror market, and Iraq, and all that has passed before (Blood Feast, was what, 1963? People supposedly threw up over that film.) And so this is the new transgressive. But, at least in the first film, it strikes me that Roth knows his way around a camera, and knows how to elicit the responses he wants to get. Is this worse than the first because it's women? Because Heather Matarazzo is not classically attractive? Again, Siskel and Ebert got really mad at Spit on Your Grave, partly because it had a woman enacting the same sort of revenge that had been done by Paul Kersey, except it was the rape victim who got the revenge.

As someone who is 31 years old, "too far" is something I've never really felt with movies because they are just that - if something goes too far the movie tends to lose me, and it becomes a technical exercise. Then again, having spent some time watching most everything that came down the pike that was considered extreme - like Nekromantic or Cannibal Holocaust (though I skipped Faces of Death because I draw the line at real death), I feel sort of inured to cinematic violence of an extreme sort, because there is that disconnect, that sense of watching the makers laughing like William Castle. I'm sure when I have kids I will feel differently. But in terms of torturing women, a sport long held in the horror genre, my guess is that Pretty Woman is a way more damaging film to women than Hostel Part II.

paste pot pete,

well said.

still, i liked dave's review. cranky or not. it's the first honest thing i've read on the site in ages.

well I am a bigger fan of horror than Dave, and I think I would agree with his assessment of Hostel pt II, even though there's no chance I would gratify the maker by seeing it.

however I don;t agree with some of Dave's assessments--some movies he lists that he is quasi defending are insidiuous or have insidiuous portion too--exploitation is exploitation.

The bottom line is that a number of horror movies and bloodless dramas (especially directed by people like Adrian Lyne and Lars von Trier) are built by contempt and hate.

Even good filmmakers are given a pass when they dip into exploitation, but I don;t think they should be given a pass.

I think we have a problem at multiple levels with hate, but horror tends to get picked on because of the blood/gore, and I don;t like that being a fan of decent horror.

Yes PEOPLE UNDER THE STAIRS was a much better & real horror movie.

The only reason why I forgive Craven for LHOTL is that it sounds like he had a very unhappy childhood etc and it spilled over into his first project bigtime. I still don;t think Craven or anyone else should be given a pass for hate cinema.

Am I the only one bothered by the fact that Matarazzo is one of the few out lesbian actresses in movies, and this is the work she gets?

Dellamorte wrote:"But in terms of torturing women, a sport long held in the horror genre, my guess is that Pretty Woman is a way more damaging film to women than Hostel Part II."

Oh, no it's not. You and Devin are cracking me up with this "Shrek/Wild Hogs/Pretty Woman are worse..." stuff. I don't disagree that they are junk, but whether the junk is in a vanilla bag or a red bag doesn't make one better or worse. The collected works of Eli Roth do not contain one more molecule of intelligence or subtext or value than Wild Hogs or the Wild Hogs Happy Meal with the William H. Macy wind up toy. The only people who are "damaged" by these--or any--films are children or are already maniacs.

We all bring our own baggage to these movies. I am bothered by seeing children in jeopardy or murdered or eaten in the service of a stupid, stupid storyline (thank you, Hannibal Rising). As a response to the question Dave posed to Devin, that is MY standard. Make it meaningful beyond a simple display or device. And since we all have different definitions of what's meaningful a consensus will never ever be reached.

But it's fun anyway. I remember when I was about 12 years old I had a camcorder (pardon the clunky 80's speak) and I made a bunch of "horror movies" with my friends and siblings. My brother in a halloween mask jumping out from under leave piles to fake-stab somebody, or shoving my sister into the dryer as fake blood was caked on her amused face. That's what I think of when I consider Eli Roth. It's charming in it's own way. Kinda sad, too. He's still just a 12 year old kid who mistakes imitation for creativity, and he lacks the context and self-awareness (and sufficient skill)that adults need to have in order to develop. Well, I don't know the guy. I shouldn't judge him as a whole like that. But Eli Roth, Filmmaker, is still 12. He isn't smart enough to apply meaning or context to something like the Materazzo scene. he is still just shoving his sister into the dryer for kicks. That's his biggest crime. And crime isn't even the right word. It's just silly. Time for him to stop treading water in a sea of bad poetry and retarded sexuality. He's a relative superstar within the horror community. He has opportunities to make something substantial.

"Time for him to stop treading water in a sea of bad poetry and retarded sexuality."

Please Steve...do not associate ROth with my beloved Spinal Tarp! At least THEY were funny.

Can hardly see Roth as 12 when he has no heart or empathy drive. I think it gives him too much credit.

and Materazzo didn't have to take this picture--if anything I could see it hurting her career.

PPP--on BUG
it was better than I thought it would be. That's about the best "sale" I can make. I like Ashley Judd but smart Judd not "in peril" Judd, but this was ok.

Better than Hostel pt II and Wild Hogs no doubt.

total hypothetical

what if hostel 2 made more than oceans 13 this weekend?

loving this dicussion, btw

I gotta side with DP on this one... the first "Hostel" movie may be the worst film I've ever watched in my home.. I almost threw it away rather than return it to Netflix...

Roth can dress it up however he wants, but this sequel is made solely for boys ages 13-17. Which is actually more horrifying than anything in either one of these "films"...

A small part of me wants to see this movie just to see if has the same effect on me that it did on DP... fortunately, a larger part of me would rather swallow the DVD and pass it through my colon than actually watch it..

In "Broadcast News" Hurt's character laments that it's easy to cross the line because "they keep moving the sucker"...

I'm perfectly happy with leaving the line right before any Roth film past present and future...

Greg
www.denvertvguy.com

"as much as I've enjoyed Eli Roth's films"

JEFFMCM I just want to remind you that you said this.

So how much have you enjoyed them? What's to recommend his films as opposed to Evil Behind You?

Roth's films aren't even scary.

Roth's movies remind me of DOppelganger. Bad with no pay off (scaryness or monsters).

Roth knows how to make money, I'll give him that. Tell people you have a bold new Horror idea and suckers beleive it and come running.

I unabashedly love the horror genre. I have ever since seeing Pet Semetary in theaters with my grandmother when I was a kid. Right around that same time some friends and I watched Cronenberg’s The Fly at a sleepover birthday party. Whether at home or in a theater, I have always loved the feeling of being terrified while also knowing it is all fake and all will be well as soon as the end credits roll. Of course I don’t find movies like Pet Semetary as frightening as I once did.

I find no redeeming qualities in something like Hostel though. I didn’t care at all about the obnoxious and idiotic main characters. There is nothing scary or suspenseful about severed limbs and gallons of blood. I wasn’t offended as much as I was bored, as well as baffled that “geeks” had come to embrace this Roth guy as one of their own and a new major talent in the genre. All because he never shuts up about how much he loves horror, like that has anything to do with knowing how to make an effective horror film.

I have very little to add to the already excellent discussion.

I just had to say that Eli Roth reminds me of the somewhat good looking, socially stunted, insecure kid in high school who couldn't run with all the other really good looking, witty, incredibly popular kids. Recognizing this situation, he surrounded himself with average to hideous looking, more socially stunted, unpopular kids who worshiped and adored him since he was almost one of the really good looking kids.

And, well, he's still doing it.

as someone who has produced a couple of horror films, i'll say this.

my biggest problem with the genre is how unimaginative it has become. i wrote a screenplay that was designed to be scary as hell without showing a whole hell of a lot. by the time i saw the finished film, they had turned it into a grudge/ring rip off and turned the unseen ghosts into rubber monsters like something out of a godzilla film.

To me, less is always more. It's more frightening when you don't see everything. The imagination is far more frightening than any prosthetic effect or gallons of fake blood flying across the screen.

Somewhere between the Hard R rated gorefests and the sanitized PG 13 horror films where they cut to black before you see anything at all is a happy medium that imaginative and creative filmmakers can create something truly frightening.

All it takes is a little effort.

I think the horror genre has taken a turn for the worst. Isn't the whole purpose of the genre is to scare the audience or create suspense?

I watched both SAW and Hostel in TIFF, and there is no 'scary' moment in neither of those both movies. Most of the audience there knew what's going to happen and when the gore started to get going, the audience cheered wildly. More blood, the better. It's a dangerous trend since there will be a director who wants to 'do more' and end up going over the line.

I am not going to see Hostel 2, not because of what DP wrote, but I watched Hostel, and it's mediocre at best. I talked to Eli Roth and he seems like a nice guy. He truly believes that movie violence doesn't matter, and whatever happen on the screen isn't real.

I think the horror genre has taken a turn for the worst. Isn't the whole purpose of the genre is to scare the audience or create suspense?

I watched both SAW and Hostel in TIFF, and there is no 'scary' moment in neither of those both movies. Most of the audience there knew what's going to happen and when the gore started to get going, the audience cheered wildly. More blood, the better. It's a dangerous trend since there will be a director who wants to 'do more' and end up going over the line.

I am not going to see Hostel 2, not because of what DP wrote, but I watched Hostel 1, and it's mediocre at best. I talked to Eli Roth and he seems like a nice guy. He truly believes that movie violence doesn't matter, and whatever happen on the screen isn't real.

I think that most of us could agree that horror in general should be about psychological effect, and not necessarily what is on screen.
Just because a filmmaker has succeeded in showing you something disturbing and/or excessive, does not mean that it should be a commendable addition to the horror genre.
In the spirit of full disclosure, I haven't watched a ton of horror films during my life. I was raised in a Christian household, so my exposure to them was very limited, but I have a genuine interest in the genre. I don't want to just watch any old thing that's labeled horror because it's there. Give me a list of horror films that are must see, and I might make an effort to see them over the course of my life. But don't insult my intelligence by saying Hostel is a horror film. The imagery may be scary, but its lasting psychological effect seems to be minimum. Nobody is going to stop being a tourist because of it.

PastePot
It is not a question of making nice. I got to know Devin. He passionately loves film. He loves what he does. Whether he is always right or always tactful he cares and that makes him one hundred times better than the tools I meet every day in Hollywood at least in my book.

I've learned a lot reading this blog and the responses. Apparently many of Dave's readers don't have lines when it comes to what it portrayed in film. By all means, let's depict naked child rape and mutilation while the laughing cannibal humps a goat in the background, and some will say "fine with me" and others will say 'Well, what's the context?" and others will look in horror at the first two groups and say "Seriously, do you have any humanity in you at all?"

I look to film critics and bloggers and such to get a consensus pionion on movies I'm not sure i want to see or not, and it educates me if I want to invest the time and money sitting through it and imprinting the memory of that film on my brain.

I've been reading Dave since 1997 (ah, the Roughcut years...) and I've got a feel for what he likes and doesn't like. It sounds like Hostel 2 crosses the reasonable line. There's a reason these are called torture porn. Eventually we're going to get a horror film about a serial rapist who rapes his victims before he tortures and kills them, and it will be to titillate. And then people will post here saying Santa Clause 3 is far more offensive.

By all means, let's depict naked child rape and mutilation while the laughing cannibal humps a goat in the background, and some will say "fine with me" and others will say 'Well, what's the context?"

funniest post ever.

"Hallick, I don't hate Tarantino at all. I think he's a talented filmmaker and have enjoyed most of his films. I just think exploitation is exploitation."

Please forgive my mistaken impression that you're a Tarantino hater. I'm sorry noah.

But I still don't see the exploitation in Tarantino's thing for filming women's feet. Maybe an arguement could be made that he's getting off on those shots in his own way as much as Roth might be getting off on fake-torturing Matarazzo, but the results presented to the audience are radically different and I'm not sure how you can put them on an equal footing on the exploitation scale.

PPP-I liked BUG, but I felt it stumbled into camp by the end. However, as a film buff, I recommend it because Friedkin does some classic 70's nostalgia shots as well as shoots a helluva film. Judd is great as is the lead guy who I'm too lazy to look up.

And...
I still appreciate Dave expressing his feelings on H2 and this is one of the best discussions on this blog in...forever. There's no easy answer and although I respect Devin and others saying their line of crossage is farther out, I also think Dave's right in saying people need to talk about the line and what that line is before we demolish it and have to have like...the government intervene to find it.

I also realized in these last posts in which people (like anghus) mentioned not showing violence or building suspense rather than saturating with blood is more effective-maybe this accounts for some of the success of DISTURBIA? Maybe way out horror like H2 coupled with the faux horror of all these PG-13 movies will steer filmmakers and audiences back to "better" films? I hope so. Whenever there's a hard push one way, you gotta snap back to something.

Pastepot Pete, I think you hit the nail on the head. I wouldn't call myself a musical fan even though I love Singin' in the Rain, West Side Story, and Busby Berkeley - that appellation goes to someone who gets more excited than most for the announcement or release of any new musical or musical adaptation. This should be obvious, but people are stubborn.

Lota: Yes, I have enjoyed his two films and one short (Thanksgiving). I don't think they're masterpieces, but I do think they are good films. Just being honest. He's not as good of a director as Tarantino or Del Toro or Craven but he's successful at what he does.

I would also suggest that not all horror movies are meant to be boo-scary, there are other ways for them to operate. I wouldn't call the original Frankenstein scary either but it's still a great film.

"The only reason why I forgive Craven for LHOTL is that it sounds like he had a very unhappy childhood"
How generous of you. Even though the film has nothing to do with his or anyone else's childhood.

I don't know what Evil Behind You is. Or Doppelganger - I presume you don't mean the Kiyoshi Kurosawa movie.

Aladdin:
"I think that most of us could agree that horror in general should be about psychological effect, and not necessarily what is on screen."

I don't agree with that. Partially because I'm not sure what exactly you mean by 'psychological effect'. Certainly some of the best horror movies (Psycho, The Haunting) are psychological, but some of the other best horror movies (original Texas Chainsaw, Dawn of the Dead) work in other ways. It's a complex genre - more complex than romantic comedies or sports dramas or CGI animal movies.

I remember thinking after Columbine (and no, I'm not comparing that to the movie...just wait for me to get my point out) that it's scary knowing that there is one person who can kill so mercilessly,but you can always say it's random. Just one wacko. But the fact that two people could get together and do it makes it terrifying and incomprehensible.

I think that is what I find hard to understand about our current crop of horror-torture-porn. It's not just one persons twisted vision; in addition to Eli Roth, there were Producers, investors, studio execs, agents, lawyers, actors, actresses...probably hundreds of people read this script before it was filmed...and approved it...financed it. Hundreds more saw it filmed and edited...screened and marketed. Did any of them see beyond the potential profits to the depravity within?

Of course, these movies would not be made if they were not attended, money in hand, by geeks of all ages and any teen who can pass for 17 or get an older friend or brother to take them.

This is the world we live in. A world where torture has become entertainment. If you don't accept it, or tolerate it, then you are accused of being against Freedom of Speech. (Much like I am accused of being "anti-American" for being against the war in Irag and thinking Bush is a deluded moron...but I digress). Where does it end? How much lower can our morals and ethics sink?

Thank you David for your thought-provoking commentary on this subject. I am sure I will get flamed well for my disjointed rant (it kind of spilled out of me...and might not be as clear as I would like).

If Horror is to ever impress me again as a genre worth enjoying these devices have to *GO*:

--"the speech" made by Mr Bad Guy

--blood/vomit/entrails if it's more than 1.0 liter or 3 pounds

--most CGI

--simply depicting neonazi style h8ter crime against people, furry animals etc (it's not scary, just hateful)

--people who can't act/models (male and female)

what would be nice:

scaryness

an innovative monster or supernatural vibe

plausibility--if it isn;t plausible in SOme sense how can it be scary?

Jeff you are interpreting psychological in a very pedantic & limited way. (and I disagree about LHOTL; suffering in a childhood home mattered).

Henry: portrait of a serial killer was unsettling/scary--because of the psychological elements and it was plausible story & actors. Dawn of the dead had many psych aspects--and also the aspects of a "fighting chance" suspence, timing and some kind of story like a nightmare (nightmares are plausible, we all have them).

Too many horror movies have turned into "documentary" just filming of abject violence against anyone/anything at hand to try to be whatever someone thinks is more extreme than the last thing they saw.

It isn;t a fair fight anymore. Romans going to the Colliseum to see old ladies thrown to tigers to get more reaction from the crowd, whether or not the crowd liked it.

At least they didn't have to pay $10.

by the way can we stop blaming geeks for everything?

I'm a geek and read comic books almost every day, doesn;t mean I have any interest in calling Bore Gore entertainment.

Well then why don't you educate me - although since it was Aladdin who brought up 'psychological' your interpretation might not match his. Dawn of the Dead is a great horror movie, but its emphasis is sociological, not psychological.

I don't see what your interpretation of LHOTL is - the basis of your 'disagreement'.

I agree with your about most of your 'got to go' list but what movie are you thinking of for #4 with neonazis and animals?

Lota...you are right. "Geek" was not the right word...and I proudly consider myself one most of the time.

i've always found it fascinating when people claim to read other people's minds. roth's motives are his own. you can say it's disingenous to link iraq to hostel part II. you can even think he came up with the rationalization afterward (although i don't know how you'd prove that).

it reminds me of "annie hall" when woody is being bothered by the intellectual behind him and brings out the author to say "you know nothing of my work." too much pseudo psychological babble.

context is what the viewer puts into it, not the other way around.

david's stated intent was to at least to have a discussion of where the line should be drawn. we've had a very effective one. the most constructive one i've read here in a while.

i don't think we were supposed to come up with "the solution." just give thought to where those boundaries lie, even if just within ourselves.

i can appreciate the stupid, fun horror film. i laughed my ass of when i watched the original "hills have eyes II." the dog has a flashback!

"hostel part II" doesn't make me think of the horrors of torture in real life. i have enough knowledge of that without some film telling me. at best, it's infantile. you might as well make a movie about jalapenos being hot/spicy.

really? torture's bad. no kidding. thanks.

I would agree with Dellamorte that PRETTY WOMAN is more damaging to society because it's seen on innocent while it's really reinforcing outmoded and sexist power fantasies, where women have to get rescued by rich handsome men. I'd say 24, which weekly dramatizes the 'ticking clock' excuse for torture, does more damage than any number of sequels to HOSTEL. In these cases it's socially contextual, not contextual in the film - ie, the morals of PRETTY WOMAN are presented as a good thing, as is the torture in 24. In HOSTEL it's presented as fucked up. In fact, 'That's sooo fucked up' would probably be a pleasing response for Roth.

The thing is that the audiences know HOSTEL is supposed to be nasty and unpleasant. PRETTY WOMAN is supposed to be uplifting and romantic.

actually, the original meaning of "geek" actually fits. it's a carnival performer that bites off the heads of chickens. don't know how it evolved to today's meaning.

and i'm a comic book guy from waaaaay back

"torture's bad. no kidding. thanks."

Well, Hendhogan, by this logic you could eliminate as pointless 99% of movies that get made. We all already know that politicians are crooks (All the King's Men), the Holocaust was bad (Schindler's List), war is bad (Eastwood's Iwo Jima movies) and criminals betray each other (Goodfellas).

i would have that you'd have gone with "all the president's men" instead, jeff.

i would argue that there are shades of grey to explore (that was explored in those movies), ie not all germans were evil during ww II, maybe some wars need to be fought, not all politicians are crooks.

and i don't have one for "goodfellas," outside of guilty pleasure.

Really? Guilty pleasure? Guilty?
You're right, of course, on the others (although 'some wars need to be fought' is not the point of Eastwood's movies). My overall point is that we go to movies for new experiences, and I had never been trapped in an Eastern European torture-for-profit business before while hitchhiking before.

It is funny how we justify things based on what we personally want to see. I love 24, so I guess as long as it's Jack Bauer doing the torturing (or having the unflinchable faith that Jack Bauer will avenge an innocent torture victim) then I am okay with it. Of course, he does do the torturing for a reason (God Bless the USA!), so it's not just for his personal pleasure.

Ah, but is the reason contrived to allow the torture to happen?

Did I spot DP referring to Lucio Fulci as "Fine Dining" in this thread. Awesome.

I haven't seen Hostel 2 so I have no idea if the scene in question will cross my "line" but I do regard Fulci as one of the only directors who, with NEW YORK RIPPER, was able to pretty much demolish my line. After that film I really think he had some serious woman issues and he was working out in his films. I can only guess DP hasn't seen this one.

yes, jeff, guilty. i would be fascinated to hear what more you find in the film.

and i don't go to movies for new experiences. i go to be entertained.

and i'm glad you haven't been trapped in an Eastern European torture-for-profit business before while hitchhiking before. why you would want to elludes me, however.

Jeff, you read it too pedantically again, read it less pedantically. Is pedantically a word?

Mr Feraci--I take your point, and if it is an intelligentsia-level conversation [and from me volunteering with women stuck in prostitution], I'd say that Pretty Woman was highly offensive, flippant and so far from reality that I know that I felt Manipulation, but not Exploitation. They are two different things even though the end Feeling you are left with can be the same. Does this mean I'm not going to get rescued by a rich handsome man? Thanks for ruining my aspirations.

Does a line need to be drawn in movies in general and Can a line be drawn that doesn;t infringe on Freedom of Speech?

I don;t know. I think that the acts themselves that Are exploitation [not simply just manipulation], physically or psychologically, occur in many films and I disagree that Hostel pt II is somehow unique. I

Romans had Gladiators (SLaves) fought each other, and somehow many people think this was OKAY to stoop to this level of entertainment (even though they were still people fighting against their will--as slaves) but it wasn't Okay with many observers when Gladiatorial combat was reduced to throwing in unarmed Christians, old people or those with congenital deformity against armed slaves. Where do you draw the line of what is a fair fight? Horror movies are a Contest or a Fight of sorts.

The standards are unacceptibly low in film and society and exploitation has been around a long time. A lot of earlier violent movies with "exploitation", context or subtext or No text weren't necessarily Better. There are many Bore Gore fests that seem to be declared rocking classics because there's some oblique reference to Vietnam or hippees or Charles Manson and I think they are crap--and no different to Hostel pt II, (just somebody trying to excuse some lowest denominator violence.)

Then again, if you review many of the horror/thriller TV movies of 1969-1979 that were on Cable in the 1980s (or if you are older, on TV) it's amazing how many were truly scary for the 12-21 yr olds (when you see horror movies that you "remember") without one bucket of blood. DR COOK'S GARDEN and DON'T BE AFRAID OF THE DARK were two that come to mind. I still can;t watch my copy of DBAOTD and I've had it several years. (It could be a blank tape with my luck).

Some filmmaker has to set a good example of Horror that will Sell so the crap product becomes UNPROFITABLE.

He did compare Fulci to fine dining. Which suggests to me that he's confusing the director of Zombie and The Beyond with someone else (Bava?)

Hendhogan: IThere are many people much better qualified than to explain why Goodfellas is better than a 'guilty pleasure', such as Roger Ebert, who I believe named it the best film of the 1990s, or any number of other critics. I'm curious, what is it about the movie that makes you feel guilty?

Wes Craven co-wrote and produced Hills Have Eyes 2, which contains these heartwarming scenes:

-a woman gives bloody birth to a mutant baby and is then killed
-a young woman is nearly raped by a mutant who sticks his long, mutant tongue into he mouth (only to have it bitten off)
-another mutant does rape her, saying "give me a baby" and you see her anguished face.

That's art, folks!

Yeah, and Craven also says that he only made HHE2 because he needed the money. I don't see how any of those three things is inherently 'bad' though merely from the description (having never seen that movie).

Lota: I don't know how you read something pedantically. Do you mean overly literal? Maybe you could just say what you mean instead of telling me over and over again that I'm wrong and making me guess.

Oh, you mean the new HHE2 and not the original one - I have seen that one. And it's not very good, but primarily because it's boring. It is semi-interesting as a movie about a bunch of army guys being threatened by an invisible enemy in the middle of the desert who picks them off one by one, but not very much.

Lota, there are essentially three kinds of horror movies:

- the creepy ones, which stick with you, give you nightmares or new phobias

- the jumpy ones, where they just startle you again and again

and

- the gross ones.

There's room for all three. Horror is cyclical, and we'll get out of the gross phase eventually. The only thing is that the creepy ones are hard to make, so we always see fewer of those.

i didn't mean guilty in the sense i'm ashamed of having watched it. i meant i enjoyed it, but in the sense that i cared what happened to the characters. i wasn't emotionally drawn in. didn't particularly learn anything.

it was entertaining and i enjoyed watching it, but if it hadn't been made i wouldn't miss it.

i think we're talking at cross purposes here, but that's the best way i can describe my reaction to it.

Okay, that's different from what I was thinking with the phrase 'guilty pleasure'.

kinda what i thought

JeffCM, that must be the remake, though the original has one of the most infamous movie moments of the 1980's when a dog has a flashback.

Yes, remake, not very good.
So Charlie Kaufman wasn't so original by giving a monkey a flashback in Being John Malkovich.

well I don;t see gross horror movies as being part of any reasonable cycle or true type of horror DF, except what the manifestation of laziness in post-1965 filmmaking has made it.

What happened in 1965?

so much of the psychology of the horror films seems to be based around the disenfranchised who are such a large part of the fan base.

there's something about the freaks, the disfigured monsters taking out their rage on society, their anger channeled into making attractive young teenagers suffer.

this always appealed to a lot of people who could root for the villain, even if they didn't really understand why. it's always the busty girls and the popular kids that get mangled by the crispy janitor or the little boy who was teased until he drowned.

what's the appeal of movies like hostel? who are you rooting for? rich, white assholes who pay money to torture pretty young men and women?

It's what Roth fundamentally misses, as do many modern horror filmmakers.

You don't just root for villains because they're villains. You root from them because they were once powerless and inflict punishment on people you don't mind seeing get hacked to bits. This basic psychology is half the appeal of a good horror film, as well of the explination as to why certain personality types gravitate towards them.

I'm not saying all people who like horror are powerless nerds, but i do think when you look at certain online film types singing it's praises, you begin to wonder just why they're so delighted to see beautiful women hacked and tortured. it's kind of sad.

I realize this doesn't apply to all horror films or all horror fans.

I disagree with you. You don't 'root for the villains' in Hostel, the viewer is put in the position of the people who are the victims. If you were rooting for the villains, the protagonist of the movie wouldn't be Jay Hernandez, it would be Jan Vlasak. In Nightmare on Elm Street, you cheer for Heather Langenkamp. In Halloween, you cheer for Jamie Lee Curtis. None of the villains in any of these movies were ever 'powerless' figures.

The movies where you cheer on the serial killers are either spoofs, like Bride of Chucky, or bad movies, like most of the cheaper knock-offs.

The problem for me is that I hate Hernandez's character in Hostel and didn't care at all about his fate.

That's a separate issue (Eli Roth's capability as a director of actors and writer of characters) separate from the larger issue of depictions of violence.

wow. you couldn't be more wrong.

Freddy wasn't powerless when he was a child molesting janitor, but he was hunted down and burned by the parents.

Freddy didn't end up as a franchise because people were rooting for Heather Langenkamp. They wanted Freddy to kill people. He was a horrible disfigured freak, but he was the most fun character in any of the films, and the only character that anyone gave a shit about.

Friday the 13th holds to the model i talked about perfectly until it became a franchise goof fest as well. Prom Night, Texas Chainsaw, they all have a hint of this.

If you can't see that a lot of people gravitate towards horror because the victims always seem to be popular or attractive people, stereotypical perceptions of popularity, who are gutted by these monsters, then you haven't been paying close enough attention.

i'm a powerless nerd(but not *this* week, now that it is end of fiscal year and I have 6 figure sums of money to spend out fast)

BUT I usually root for the the monster/made monster who is often NOT the "villain" of the piece. (Carrie, Frankenstein)

Moreso now, the villain IS the monster with no rhyme or reason and I can;t get behind that as much, nor can I get behind the hacking to bits or chomping zombie schtick even though Shaun of the dead was very good.

Here's thread for all of the Hostel sequels for all the dumb ass brain dead, heart dead, soul dead people who will pay their money: (some of them are pretty good)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0498353/board/nest/71424840

Lota, i agree with a lot of that.

Frankenstein is my favorite story ever within this genre, and i don't think it's been done right yet.

you have to be logged in to IMDB to use that link.

my favorites from the Posters:

Hostel 14: Torturing the intention span

Hostel 18: Last Attempt To Make More Money Than The SAW Series By Torturing The Puppet.

Hostel 20: Torturing the political and social commentaries that Eli Roth so eloquently expressed in his first feature film, "Cabin Fever".

Hostel 44: Hostel In 'Da Hood

46. What if... Hostel was Hotel

Hostel 50: The Hostel Strikes Back

Hostel 75: Dude, Where's My Hostel?

Hostel 91: Slovakian Idol.

Hostel 123: Aqua Teen Hostel Force - The Animated Movie

Thanks to all this Sturm und Drang "Hostel Part II" is getting a bigger release than expected.

Most megaplexes getting this pic will open 2 or 3 prints. The AMC Empire in Times Square is opening 4 prints.

Anghus, you're mistaken. You don't root for Freddy in the original Nightmare on Elm Street or in it's good sequels - he's the bad guy. He was a monster when he was a child molester, and he's a worse monster in the afterlife. In the inferior sequels this is watered down but he's never the 'protagonist'.

The kids who get killed in most of the movies you talk about are indeed the more popular ones, but that's the point - they get killed. The ones who survive are the ones who are usually the outcast, the loner/rebel, who learns what's needed in order to survive. That's the model of 'empowerment' right there - identifying with the underdog kid, not the killer. A lot more parents would be the victims in these movies if they were about kids taking out their aggressions on those around them.

brings me back to my hypothetical

What if it opens bigger than Oceans 13?

not my fault CHucky. I aint seeing it, I'm going camping or to the beach.

And if I ever come face to face with Eli Roth I'll stick him up for $20 for Cabin Fever and Hostel.

I thought you said you hadn't seen Hostel.

i didn't see it when it first came out, but then was trapped into it eventually (I would still take $10 for the showing even though it didn;t cost that much). If I said I didn;t ever see Hostel the first(did I?), it was an error.

I didn't see Hostel pt ii.

If it opens bigger than Oceans 13 it might be the sick curiosity factor...but you'd wonder after CF & H getting such bad Word that overall it might have one weekend, if that.

jeffmcm is wrong. You always root for the killer/monster. Always.

What was interesting about HOSTEL was how Roth killed off the character who was supposed to be the hero - the nerdy audience identification kid - first and made the least likable of the three into the hero.

Roth's original ending, by the way, had Hernandez finding the torturer's daughter (who he keeps talking about) and murdering her. I honestly think a movie with that ending is much more powerful and would be more obviously actually about something.

I didn't find that interesting at all about Hostel. I didn't like or identify with any of them.

yeah. there was nothing interesting about hostel. i liked one scene, Hernandez's character killing the guy in the bathroom stall, because after 90 minutes of awful, punishing cinema, you at least got to see hernandez murder an insufferable bastard.

the original ending that devin talks about is much more twisted, but i don't know how interesting it is. All it does is make none of the characters sympathetic, instead of the one guy you had a prayer of rooting for.

it's funny when i talk to people outside of the online film community who have no idea who Eli Roth is and think that Quentin Tarantino made Hostel.

Ah, but Cabin Fever and Hostel don't have such bad word amongst their target audience, plus both made a lot of money on video.

Anyway, Surf's Up also comes out this weekend...mightn't it open at #1?

i am unsurprised over the release pattern. if they don't get the money over the first weekend, word of mouth will kill it dead.

i was not rooting for freddy in first film. of course, the theory gets flawed a little by the third film. they were all outcasts in an psychiatric ward in that film

It seems to me that even amongst their target audience, Hostel and Cabin Fever are love it or hate it movies.

'Anyway, Surf's Up also comes out this weekend...mightn't it open at #1?'

I just said bigger.

are you always trying to pick a fight or what?

i root for the monster DF if the monster is MADE, and if the monster isn't the 'real' villain. I like the underdork.

that's where modern horror also falls down is monster-villain are now (largely) the same and there is no "making" it's a just a rampage/explosion of unexplainable liquids.

Anghus, you seem to be the one trying to pick a fight. How does my mentioning Surf's Up conflict with what you said in any way?

Lota, what are you talking about re: unexplainable liquids? I think we are not watching the same movies.

Devin: I don't think that's true. Identification in a horror movie is a complex thing, probably more complex than in any other mainstream genre. You certainly don't identify with, say, the Blob or Carrie's mom (the real monster in that movie) or plenty others. It varies on a film-by-film basis.

don't know jeff. just the way you type things, it always sounds like you're trying to correct people.

i'd say it was me, but i've heard the same sentiment echoed a dozen times in a dozen posts.

jeff if you added up all the blood, urine, liquid portion of vomit, spit and tears the "executed" would number in the thousands for these movies when in reality we're talking about a few corpses in the story.

unexplainable liquids--maybe I should say Unexplainable liquid volume (ULV)

I'll give movies a ULV rating from now on and if it is over 1.5, it's too much.

Lota: what titles are you thinking of?

yes Anghus,

Frankenstein is my favorite story (just after certain Charles Dickens novels) but wonder if anyone can do it the right way since no one ever likes wimpy fine upstanding citizens to look bad like Dr. "i don't want to be responsible for my actions and bury my head in the sand" Frankenstein. He wasn't a mad-man like the movies try to make him out to be. I liked Bride of Frank the best of the group.

I can't think of an effective horror movie where I rooted for the villain, but I think I know what you mean in that we're rooting for the body count to start rising, escpecially in the more slasher/monster type horror movies. It's like getting on a rollercoaster where you're ready for that first big drop to come.

Once it starts though, there should be some characters you hope survive. Personally I thought the Texas Chainsaw remake was effective in that once the carnage started, Leatherface and family were so creepy and evil I was rooting for the remaining kids to get out of there. If we're hoping all the victims die, it's not successful horror. Horror should invoke suspense, dread, fear, thrills...

Then there's House of 1000 Corpses where the family was as charming as a roomful of blood-soaked car alarms and I wanted the kids to escape so the movie could end quicker.

Back to rooting for the monster, that's what Thomas Harris tried to do with Hannibal and Hannibal Rising, and while the good doctor is a cool character, I wanted Mason to succeed in feeding Lecter to wild pigs rather than have the cannibal escape again. And Hannibal Rising wasn't horror; it was a Count of Monte Cristo remake where the psycho protag gets bloody glee out of dispatching his victims.

Damn, talk about being late to the party after a very busy 24 hour period.

Dave P: That was an excellent essay. I started reading you in 2003 when all of The Passion controversy started flaring up, and I must say this is one of your best Hot Button's because of the obvious passion (pardon the pun) you felt for the subject matter. Well done.

To the rest:

A few points based on the comments I have read.

1. The issue here is not how graphic the violence is, it's the context in which it is presented.

One can always rationalize excuses to film explicit sex or violence, but do your reasons justify the level of violence you use? Agree with the films or not, but filmmakers like Kubrick, Peckinpah, Spielberg, Friedkin, Gibson and even Miller/Snyder had aesthetic and/or intellectual resons for showing the level of violence they did in their most violent films.

Can you argue Roth does? Have you seen him interviewed? Does he appear to have any other motive than that of a giddy school boy who gets to see girls naked while seeing explicit acts of violence on film?

2. This is about much more than just horror films but about what standards should filmmakers employ when filmming violence/sex. No one film can do damage, but it says much about the culture that permits it.

I don't know of anyone who hated Iranians after seeing 300 or who really thought The Passion was an S & M film. Those were just facile criticisms based on anti-intellectual discourse.

Teen boys really WILL be masterbating to the naked lesbian/Matarazzo death scene. Stills from it will be on 'celebrity nude' style websites. If you deny that, you are living in a fantasy world.

Can Roth's defender's justify that context or purpose?

As Don Murphy said earlier...one can be exploited even if you consent.

3. Using the 'film xyz was just as controversial in its day' argument is intellectually vapid. It assumes that anything 'modern' is by definition desirable and need only be accomodated. Where do you draw the line?

If someone makes a film featuring 2 hrs of women acting out rape with no plot in ten years will you just use the same argument?

Roth has no other intention but to titillate at the most base level. He has said as much.

4. Where are the feminists? Their silence betrays a real lack of concern for real depictions of women in cinema.

5. Devin,

"...it's less disturbing to me than films that celebrate and induce mindless consumerism, something that viewers will actually take out of the theater with them. People walking out of SHREK THE THIRD will quite possibly stop at McDonald's for a Shrek meal..."

That is a comment so vapid; so moronic; so utterly devoid of any understanding of culture or how people consume film, that it can only come from someone who fancies himself an 'intellectual'.

This film IS a product of mindless consumerism and you are the consumer. Get it? Hostel is a product designed to make money no different than a Big Mac. If you do not realize that, then you really are painfully naive about the film industry and culture.

JeffMCM,

I am not the fan of Last House that you are, but I have spoken to Craven about it and I do not think Roth is cut from the same cloth. Craven is a genuinely thoughtful man. Do you really think Roth is?

Like you, horror is perhaps my favourite genre. I have no time for Roth.

What do you see in his work that you think is deep? I know you love the genre but I am surprised you see him in a similar light to Craven who I think is a genuine artist, if flawed.

Nicol: I never said that I found Roth 'deep' or on the same level as Craven. My overall point has merely been to defend Roth as something other than the antichrist. He makes cheap, amusing movies that are better (a) than most of his contemporaries (Wan/Whannell, Alexandre Aja, Marcus Nispel, Dave Meyers) or (b) than he gets credit for.

Woah, Nicol D, you blew my mind. I thought HOSTEL PART II was being given for free unto the people.

Of course I know it's a for profit venture. But only someone who is fancied by others a dipshit could not see that movies like PIRATES, SHREK and SPIDER-MAN are great big balls of marketing and ancillary product synergy first and films second.

I forgot to add Darren Bousman in that list.

Devin,

Your posts did not indicate you understood that element at all. Your initial comments about Shrek being worse were quite naive.

I also think you tried to insult me in there, but your syntax is so bad I think I'll just let it slide.

jeffmcm, a good zombie film is part psychological effect and part sociological commentary. To me, the scary thing about zombies is not that they eat brains, but the fact that anybody can be turned into one - from the noblest hero to the most evil of villains. I think that qualifies as a psychological terror. The story should give the sociological context.
I haven't seen the original or the remake of TCM. Either way, I can't comment on that particular film.
Anyhow, this discussion has been interesting.

Jeff,

I do not think him the anti-Christ...but what do you see in his films? There is very little craft and no thought.

This is way, way, WAY off-topic, but since a) James Wan was mentioned, and HE'S directing "Death Sentence," based on the original novel by Brian Garfield that became the movie "Death Wish," and b) since it's, er, about violence, and therefore somewhat pertinent (?), and c) this is the current busiest thread... I'll drop this question here.

I saw the trailer for "The Brave One" (Jodie Foster vigilante flick) the other day, and couldn't believe how much it resembled the original 1974 Bronson/Winner film, down to whole camera angles, lines of dialogue, and plot points. EVERY beat of the trailer, sans the gender reverse and the probably love angle between Foster and Terence Howard, seemed 100% Xeroxed from "Death Wish." Is it, too, a remake/re-adaptation of the original book? The IMDB doesn't list it as such, so I assume it's an "original" story. Obviously I haven't seen the finished film, but I'm surprised that Jodie Foster and NEIL JORDAN, of all people, would do a wholesale remake/ripoff that looks from the trailer to be as blatant a job of thievery as any late 70s/early 80s Italian "take" on the U.S. zombie film.

And jeff, you're really that down on Aja? Stylistically and in terms of filmmaking energy, "Haute Tension" and "Hills Have Eyes" (2006) seem to have a considerable edge on Roth's directorial skillz, not to mention his ability to create genuine suspense.

"Teen boys really WILL be masterbating to the naked lesbian/Matarazzo death scene. Stills from it will be on 'celebrity nude' style websites. If you deny that, you are living in a fantasy world."

While I won't deny that stills of the scene might be on "celebrity nude" sites, I think you have a really low opinion of teenage boys if you think they would masturbate to a scene where a (and this is my opinion of course) not terribly attractive actress is naked bleeding all over a decent looking actress who is also naked. I think that any teenage boy who would find that to be a scene pleasurable enough to masturbate to is already dealing with issues. I don't think anybody of a sound mind would watch that scene and be turned on by it and if you are, it's not the film's fault that that happens to be your sexual proclivity.

I don't know, Noah. I seem to remember a few idiots on movie message boards and the like posting pic links and drooling over Jennifer Connelly's tragic and depressing "ass to ass" final scene in Requiem as if it were a good-natured softcore flick on Spice. See also the IMDB's message board entries for "Death Wish 2," where the depressing, violent context hasn't deterred several discussions of the nudity in the film's prolonged rape scene.

LexG: Aja has better directorial/technical ability, but the script for Haute Tension - and thus the resulting movie - was incredibly stupid. Dumber than anything Roth has done. His version of Hills Have Eyes was better, but still kind of dumb. If he can make a movie where the script/characters are up to his technical skills, maybe he'd go up in my estimation.

Nicol: I don't think of Roth as a horror director in the sense of making movies designed to scare, or with eerie moods. I think of his movies as essentially pitch-black comedies, in which people are stuck in 'worst-case-scenario' situations and we watch what happens as they try to get out of them. Like I said: I think he's smarter than most give him credit for and I appreciate his sensibility.

(Oh, and I appreciate your question, too.)

well, now i'm confused, jeff. comedy?

hell, even roth never claimed that

Probably because he's not that bright.

that's the weirdest defense i've ever heard

First, the reports about iceskating in hell. Then, the trashing of George Bush by archconservatives. And now... I read Nicol's first posting in response to David's review.. and... and... AND... I AGREE WITH EVERY FRIGGIN' WORD. (Especially the part about the celebrity nude websites.)

I suppose next we'll see cats and dogs living together...

Mass hysteria!

Hendhogan: Freak out! And just imagine how much dumber Darren Bousman is.

yeah, didn't see those movies.

a friend went to london and saw "saw" there (not that that was the reason for going). warned me not to see it cause it was bad. and not in a too gross for me, bad. but bad movie bad.

don't regret the decision

Saw 1 is excellent compared to its sequels.

BTW: I thought "Death Sentence" actually was the novel Brian Garfield wrote as a sequel to his book "Death Wish" (partly because he really didn't like the movie Michael Winner had made of "Death Wish"). Am I wrong?

I'm with you Leydon...it's also been fairly civil 'round here although I sense that tide is turning.

Since everythings backwards, maybe I'll win BIG in Vegas this week!!

After reading all that Nicol I really would love to be a fly on the wall when Ye Be Judged. Gabriel told me you are going to get some smack-down.

The feminists are present, both male and female. Just because they don;t engage you personally doesn;t mean the movie hasn;t been discussed at length.

As for your comment about Craven and Roth, now I feel sorry for Roth. Your impression of "thoughtful"-ness has nothing to do with the issue of exploitation and who uses it. Just becasue a filmmaker is "somebody" also doesn;t give them the excuse of exploitation/extreme violence either towards men or women.

"300" has PLENTY of exploitation in it too in a package "acceptible" to the average person. And Roth doesn't have Larry Fong. I am sure if he did, fewer people would complain about his extreme cinema (I would still complain), and probably call it Art.

Roth wouldn't know what to do with a good cinematographer if he had one. (I don't know if Fong is a good cinematographer or not since 300 was such a CGI-heavy movie).

too much to see to waste time on comparatively good movies, jeff

I wasn't praising Saw 1, I was damning the sequels.

It is CGI heavy but he still is able to cloak the movie in a nicer veneer altogether. he's done the Lost show.

I don't really have any interest in seeing Hostel 2, but since we have horror fans hanging out for now, anyone know any good psychological horror out now or recently? I recently realized the last horror movie I went to was Silent Hill over a year ago (Which was all right I suppose, but just how much praise can you truly give a movie that's based on a series of games that have better characterization, symbolism, crushing, psychological terror, dialogue, black humor and originality?). I don't really have any seething hatred for the genre, but menacing men in masks methotically murdering horny teens/rich,American tourists/every family USA don't interest me. I like an unhinged atmosphere that doesn't ease up, quality mindfucks, and content that makes me give a damn. Jacob's Ladder is generally my measuring stick, if that helps. The Descent sounds good. I should probably get around to renting that.

you aren't giving us much to work with Straat.

you've seen Shaun of the dead I assume

If you've never seen these they give you elements of what you want but they aren't true necessarily horror-
the host (2006)
touching the void (it was traumatizing; 2003)
the king(2005)
Three Extremes anthology (2004?)

if you want to go back, Abre les Ojos, 1997

or feeling 1980s retro--and uncomfortable:
Magic
Monkeyshines

This is for LexG, who should grab the vaseline and start working some baby batter up after printing out this image. Click on my name to see.

First, excuse my bad english. But, isn't this all about sex?

What Roth does -and this is quite uncommon in American movies- is combining violence and sexual pleasure. In a lot of American horror movies sex leads to death. In the Matarazzo-Scene, death leads to sexual pleasure. I think this is what Poland finds disgusting. In Japan nobody would care. "Humanity" in Polands sense is a concept of judeo-christian culture.

Isn't this just a sign of the influence Japanese culture has on young American moviemakers?

Joe, it's not a heavily psychological thriller, but 28 Weeks Later is very good. It's scary, it has good performances, and a solid dramatic underpinning.

Brucewayne does have a point. There was an old (beginning of the 90s, I think) Rolling Stoines interview with David Cronenberg which I think has some interesting passages, that created quite a big discussion back in the day, and that are quite pertinent, I think, to the discussion here:

"I have no reason to think that I have to give equal time to all sexual fantasies whether they´re my own or not. Let those people make their own movies - leave me alone to make mine. ... If I´m going to get into scenes of bondage and torture, I´ll show a female instead of a male. ... Fantasies are sexual, not sexist."

http://www.davidcronenberg.de/lunchstone.html

The point is, that I think there's an element of exploitation in Hostel 2 (which I haven't seen), but I don't think the scene Poland describe (which incidentally it's one of the clips Lionsgate chose to release to promote the movie)
crosses the line. I do think, and someone else already pointed this out, that shows like 24, where torture is used by the good guys on the bad guys in a ticking bomb scenario, and it usually leads to important clues for the government agent hero to save the day, goes much closer to cross the line (or my own personal line anyway).
In the Hostel movies the villains use torture, and your point of view is the one of the victims.
In 24 is the other way around.

My apologies, Lota. Maybe it's because the list of them is so limited as it is or most movies I like in horror are compromises to things I don't like. I mostly avoid zombie movies and 28 Days Later wasn't necessarily a psychological horror movie, but it had a mostly relentless atmosphere and some good ideas to work with. I'll see 28 Weeks Later whenever it gets here, probably on DVD (Yay city that has 6 screens TOTAL).

I like horror movies that constantly roll out the emotion of fear in sound design, acting, production, and directing without giving the audience a safety zone, but not being the "torture porn" we've been discussing. As for the more psychological aspects, I don't know how to properly explain. Something that digs into your head and scrambles it with fear. Clarifying probably doesn't help, since the list is probably very small to begin with as I've said before, but how about just good horror movies that don't center solely on sado-masochism? I'll probably have to wait for DVD of course, since our theaters prefered to get FIREHOUSE DOG over 28 Weeks Later....

Joe I understand totally...and that's a positive thing to want substance over slash and bleed, but it does mean there is less and less every year for people who like that. Which is why I gave you some foreign titles now out on DVD.

For horror I have to do netflix since 90% of the great horror is coming out of Asia.

and Brucewayne-san,

the excesses of Miike maybe, but most Asian horror I get ahold of (I see ~25-40 per year) is much more about fear than gore (even though many have that element heavy in it too) unless you are talking about the 1970s(ピンク映画)especially some made by 東映株式会社 crossing into horror and the horrible violent stuff post 1970 by 日活株式会社 which caused alot of employees to leave that revered studio but it is not typical of Japanese horror--that's as extreme as this Hostel business. The Yakuza stuff got more popular than the violent pink anyway.

I have friends who work in it and they would have the same opinion on Hostel as the violent pink-utter extreme exploitative crap.

oh by the way Hasebe 長谷部安春 who made the worst violent movies I've ever seen, would always say that watching a violent film never made HIM violent. I wonder what the Opinion of women and gay men is, by many males who view that stuff where women/gay men are "punished"(in the sotryline) with extreme sexual violence/murder. Hasebe-stuff is way worse than anything Roth dreamed up, even though the majority of Japanese horror isn't like that.

I don't think violent exploiting/sexualized movies make people violent, but whoever "likes" or "needs" that kind of crap I'd love to know so I can stay the hell away from them.

I just googled "murder." Blood everywhere!

Amazing an exploitation film like HOSTEL can drum up so much conversation! I just don't have the stomach for the torture porn. But I don't see how the likeability of the filmmaker (Craven) somehow exonerates him from responsibility for Hills or it's sequel. Not that he needs to be exonerated - make what you wish! - but if you're going to kill Roth I think you've got to kill Craven too.

>>I don't think violent exploiting/sexualized movies make people violent, but whoever "likes" or "needs" that kind of crap I'd love to know so I can stay the hell away from them.

Lota: My sentiments exactly. Sorry, Jeff, but that's just the way it is.

Joe: Are you being serious? If so I find your attitude, in a word, childish and hurtful (three words). Yes, I like Hostel. Yes, I like The Devil's Rejects, and a lot of films by Romero, Carpenter, and Cronenberg. And I am confident that if I had enough of a database of the movies you've reviewed over the years that I could find something repellent that you've liked as well.
I would hope that my sympathetic political views and general good-guy-ness would matter a lot more than my movie tastes.

Hey Joe, here's an idea that'll nauseate you:

Eli Roth as a filmmaker is better at diagnosing and speaking about the modern condition of the world today than Paul Haggis.

That should raise the hit count for a while.

Having seen HOSTEL PART II tonight I can say that if the filmmaker was named Ellie Roth this conversation would be WAY different. All of the talk about 'men who can't get laid' or who hate women - that's all IN THE MOVIE. The heroine's final vengeance comes about as a reaction to a sexist slur. This isn't exactly breaking new ground, but it's all up there on the screen.

Jeff: Another reason I'm glad you don't live in my neighborhood.

Look, let me put it as bluntly as I can: When it comes to politics, I'm probably to the left of most people on this blog (including you, Jeff). I have voted for McGovern, Carter, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Clinton, Gore and Kerry. But if you enjoy porn-gore movies -- and, no, I don't include anything I've ever seen by Carpenter, Romero or Cronenberg in that group -- then, sorry, I am in bed with Lota and Nicol.

Wait, that didn't come out quite the way I meant it to...

This is what I have to say on the porn-gore subject (excuse me, David while I take advantage of your hospitality to link to my own blog):

http://movingpictureblog.blogspot.com/2006/12/not-very-merry.html

P.S. If you truly prefer Eli Roth to Paul Haggis, I'm glad we don't even live in the same time zone. I can't see even haters of Crash defend porn-gore.

>>>>I would hope that my sympathetic political views and general good-guy-ness would matter a lot more than my movie tastes

I don't know you at all but as a rule of thumb in a discussion group about films and film criticism your good-guy-ness and self proclaimed sympathetic politics should count for nothing and your movie tastes should count for everything.

Joe, maybe those people were Jewish or other non-Christian faith? Or not practicing Christians?

Devin:

Or maybe just agnostic gore hounds?

I guess. As an agnostic gorehound AND movie critic, I didn't bother going to see the movie, but I do know that people who don't celebrate Christmas are often desperate for just SOMETHING to do on a day when everything's closed.

Devin:

As I wrote: If I hadn't been paid to do so, I would not have bothered, either.

"At the risk of sounding snobbish: I made sure not to sit next to anyone else in the audience. To be frank: Whatever they had, I didn’t want to catch."

Sounds like you learned nothing from Crash.

Crash is a very fine movie, thank you very much. A film I'll bet that, 30 or 50 years from now, folks will be looking at to get a sense of the turn-of-the-century zeitgeist.

Or it'll be looked at as modern Stanley Kramerism. And, frankly, I would way rather watch a film like Hostel, which - for better or worse - actively engages its audience, than a film that makes people nod and say "yep, that's how racism is." But, can I say, I also love that you missed my point entirely. Your predjudice against horror fans is totally okay for you, even though you know you're pedjudiced. I think that's awesome.

And I think it's fair to say that when you're talking about the turn-of-the-century zeitgeist, a film about torture and Anti-Americanism (aka the after-effects of 9/11 and the Iraq war) will be just as relevant, if not moreso.

No, Dellamorte, you're wrong. They will be looking at films like "The Prisoner" or "Reign Over Me," not a sleazy gore-porn film. Because, trust me, when poeple look back at the Vietnam War era, they don't look at crap like "Gruesome Twosome" or "2,000 Maniacs."

And I am not prejudiced against horror flicks. I actually rave about John Carpenter's Halloween in my book. And the producers of Slither and Behind the Mask saw fit to quote my reviews in their newspaper ads.

But they do think about Night of the Living Dead, Dawn of the Dead, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and Last House on the Left in their relationship to Vietnam, as with The Wild Bunch, Bonnie and Clyde, etc. All of which were considered extreme in their time period, and all of which were born out of Vietnam. And in terms of dealing with the race politics of its era, Night of the Living Dead has way more to say than all of the do-goody Kramer films on the same subject.

Hershell Gordon Lewis, not so much. As the legend goes (and I always print the legend) he just had too much fake blood which led to Blood Feast and the success of it led to some cranked out retreads (of some merits, but just the same).

As per what Roth is doing, he's likely somewhere in the middle, as the current cultural climate points his work in that direction if he wants to scare people. I don't think it's the pure hucksterism of Hershell - whether anyone likes it or not, Eli Roth has craft. And I think that the "torture-porn" movement with the Saw and Hostel franchises is a legitimate, tackleable sub-genre that (as most effective non-fantasy based horror movies do) comes from a popular dread. Of this sub-genre (which also includes Turistas and The Hills Have Eyes remakes) there is a definite through-line of torture and xenophobia.

That noted, often the barometer of the cultural climate is better judged by the films that do not directly tackle the issues at hand. World Trade Center is the perfect example of a film that should and will fall into the ether, especially because it's not only a bad film, but a bad Oliver Stone film. The Prisoner? I have no idea what that is, unless you're refering to the old British show. And Reign Over Me? Not to bring down the wrath of Jeff Wells's BFF, but not fucking likely. Ironically, of the films that deal most directly with 9/11, United 93 resembles in its shape and content a horror film.

I don't think I'm stretching to draw parallels with the content of these films and modern concerns, and as for this small but vocal critical blacklash, I'm reminded of Edward Norton's comments about a critic who said that his favorite film was The Wild One, because of when he saw it as a youth, and then railed on Fight Club - not realizing that it was a new generation's version of that story. I understand finding these films sick, I guess, torture is bad (which the film agrewss with) and hard to watch. But whenever a film is called the lowest of the low, as David has done, it strikes more as a comment on the viewer than the film.

Joe: All I can say is that I'm very disappointed in you. You are on record as saying, and I want to give you one more chance to correct this, that I am a bad person and unworthy of friendship because I disagree with your tastes on a small number of movies.

By that logic if I were to dig up a drug-addicted rapist who didn't care for Cabin Fever, you would prefer his company.

That's distressing to me.

Anyway, I consider that in the future Crash will be looked at the same way we currently look at Best Picture nominees Airport, or The Towering Inferno: those are indeed time capsules of their times, for good and for ill.

I think it's best to write this one off to a generational difference and move on (until Friday, when I and David Poland will be the only ones to have seen Hostel 2).

I know (or at least I assume) that this will change radically as the day progresses, but HOSTEL PART II is currently at a 100% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Holy shit.

"But I don't see how the likeability of the filmmaker (Craven) somehow exonerates him from responsibility for Hills or it's sequel. Not that he needs to be exonerated - make what you wish! - but if you're going to kill Roth I think you've got to kill Craven too."

One of my major points of argument in this whole torture porn debate (wherever it is being debates) is that you cannot compare these dingy underground drivein cult movies of the '70s (Last House on the Left, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Hills Have Eyes) with the likes of Hostel and Saw. Hostel Part II is going out to, what? 3000 cinemas or something. It's been advertised extensively on television and the internet and I presume in cinemas. The images of people like Heather Matarazzo bound and gagged upside down have been shot into people's eyes around the globe.

Back in the 1970s they didn't have the luxuries of advertising like we do today. They needed hooks to get audiences to see the movies that were made for a pittance. The times are different and you can't compare.

Roth has everything at his desposal, he doesn't need to be exploitative, but he continues to be so (along with a few other directors).

And as I mentioned in another thread, the major issue for me is that the violent torture sequences in the Hostel and Saw movies don't advantage the movie at all. It's like a sketch program. They're like horror short films. Scene starts and within a certain amount of time character realises they're doing to die and then they do. End scene. It's just like whoever sat around going "how can we kill so and so", came up with an idea, filmed it and then threw into into the film. I haven't seen it, obviously, but I've seen a clip from Hostel 2 where the girls are in a pool and they're discussing where Matarazzo's character is and it then cuts to Heather M hanging in the lair. Wouldn't have been more suspenceful to have these girls wonder where the hell she is instead of showing her getting brutally disected? What advantage does that have other than to satiate the gore hounds saliva glands? I know it's scarier to me to imagine what the hell is happening to Heather than to see her hung upside down and slowly drained of all her blood onto a naked woman in a bathtub below.

As I said, Roth had the chance to prove that he wasn't just a gore hound, but instead he decided to up the ante and brutally murder a bunch of innocent women (even in the first Hostel where the main characters were men, the most gruesome torture was the Asian girl). He essentially gave up the chance to prove himself. He had the $$$ and the faith of certain viewers and industry types. He could have gone out and made a really suspenceful scary film.

And it's times like this that I like to remember that Hostel made $50 and the much-less violence and much better Disturbia will make $85mil. That one was aimed at teenagers up for scares but doesn't actually put any blood into the movie until the final act (and its that time the film kind of becomes a mess).

BTW the ad on the film's RT page steals Last House on the Left's "It's only a movie" motif. Interesting?

Jeff: Don't worry, I'm sure Dellamorte will let you live in his neighborhood.

Dellamorte: "The Prisoner, or How I Planned to Kill Tony Blair." And as far as 9/11 references go, I think future audiences will be more interested in "Material Girls." Or reruns of "Law & Order."

BTW:"By that logic if I were to dig up a drug-addicted rapist who didn't care for Cabin Fever, you would prefer his company." Pretty weak, Jeff. C'mon, guy, you're better than that. I'd expect that from Bi-Bob. Why not go all the way and ask me if I'd prefer to hang with Hitler because he liked Mickey Mouse cartoons?

And once again: I actually like horror movies. What I dislike are faux snuff movies.

Jeff please do not or appear to lump films by Romero, Carpenter, and Cronenberg in with the man who made Cabin Fever and the Hostel(s).

I love horror and I bet there are few who visit/post on this board who have seen as much horror from many countries, read as much manga/graphic novels & comics that I have and there are lines I think that a functioning human should decide not to cross without the need for government interference--things that humans should just understand.

I think Craven has made some excellent Horror but I think he has also crossed the line in the past into territory currently inhabited by Roth.

Neither is excused for hateful presentation (LHOTL & what sounds like Hostel pt 2 is showing). If Roth really believes what he's done is right, he'll start doing dogs and babies but he WON'T will he.

Funny when dogs are more important than humans, and that's what has to change I think.

Bore gore/torture porn (regardless of what country it's from) panders to males who don;t care much for the image of women, and who think effeminate or gay males should be punished.

There are plenty examples of great horror and most horror afficionados when they do their painstaking lists on IMDB, they DO list the best horror in the world. People know what good stuff is.

SO there is no need to pander to crap in any genre, and the lowest denominator in any audience.

Set some standards.

Wes Craven knows the difference, so does Eli Roth, he's just too lazy on all levels, but I'm sure he pays himself VERY WELL.

and certainly pays himself well compared to the staff/crew on the Hostel movie in Slovakia. DOubt any of them got back end when the film made a profit.

more exploitation than meets the eye.

Disagree Camel. A spade is a spade. There might not been advertizing, 3000 theaters etc which YES that lessens its influence and impact, but that does not change what the filmmaker did or was trying to do with the actual presentation. Kind of makes me think of "if you tolerate this, then your children will be next".

I want to see dogs--I want these filmmakers like Roth really to practice this "faith" they seem to have in t heir projects. Push that envelope Eli...go relate it to world politics and Darfur.

O.K. Just a couple of words. I didn't like the first Hostel. I didn't like Cabin Fever (which had a great, and highly subversive idea at its roots though).
Having said that, I find these sort of attempt of character assasination against Eli Roth incredibly amusing. And I also loved that people involved in it usually feels obligated to share their political belief and affiliations before. "Hey, I'm a liberal. Look at me. I'm cool, allright? I didn't vote for Bush so it's not that I'm not cool, OK? I'm not an anti rock mom". Well, actually, I'm afraid you are an anti-rock mom. Nothing wrong with that. It's just important that you know.
I also love the way in which people dismisses the very simple fact that in the Hostel movies the bad guys are those who resort to torture.
But it doesn't matter, you say, because it's the representation of violence, that is wrong. Inhwerently wrong, I have to guess.
So, if that's your standpoint, could you please to me how, for example, William Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus is acceptable to you.
In it, Titus, the lead, kills, in a rather gruesome and pretty gory way (coincindentally represented in Julie Taymor's version with the two victims hanging naked upside down, before getting their throat slit), before being minced and cooked and served as a meal to their own mother. Not that they were innocent, because they actually has raped and mutilated (hands chopped off), Andronicus daughter previously in the play.
Now, that's pretty gruesome and terrible. Now, if graphic representation of violence, by definition is wrong, how is that acceptable to you?
In History of Violence, besides having pretty storng gore, Lota, we have Maria Bello in a cheerleader outfit, sans panties, doing a number for her husband. Cronenberg obviously finds her sexy. By your own definition of unacceptable exploitation (which includes, let me remind you, Tarantino's foot shots in his movies), how can you let that fly?
How is Imprint (which I saw and liked a lot), morally better than Hostel? Howe the hell do you draw the line?
And was it Joe Leydon who said that the likes horror but loathe "torture porn" or, as he said, "faux snuff". Faux snuff. Excuse me, but if it's "faux" how the hell can it be "snuff"? The "Snuff" definition implies that the acts of violence are actually performed, and that's the crime. Do you understand the difference between reality and fiction? I think many of you have it very blurred. But don't imply that the audiences have it too, because you really might be wrong.
Sorry for the long post.

Peace.

O.K. Just a couple of words. I didn't like the first Hostel. I didn't like Cabin Fever (which had a great, and highly subversive idea at its roots though).
Having said that, I find these sort of attempt of character assasination against Eli Roth incredibly amusing. And I also loved that people involved in it usually feels obligated to share their political belief and affiliations before. "Hey, I'm a liberal. Look at me. I'm cool, allright? I didn't vote for Bush so it's not that I'm not cool, OK? I'm not an anti rock mom". Well, actually, I'm afraid you are an anti-rock mom. Nothing wrong with that. It's just important that you know.
I also love the way in which people dismisses the very simple fact that in the Hostel movies the bad guys are those who resort to torture.
But it doesn't matter, you say, because it's the representation of violence, that is wrong. Inhwerently wrong, I have to guess.
So, if that's your standpoint, could you please to me how, for example, William Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus is acceptable to you.
In it, Titus, the lead, kills, in a rather gruesome and pretty gory way (coincindentally represented in Julie Taymor's version with the two victims hanging naked upside down, before getting their throat slit), before being minced and cooked and served as a meal to their own mother. Not that they were innocent, because they actually has raped and mutilated (hands chopped off), Andronicus daughter previously in the play.
Now, that's pretty gruesome and terrible. Now, if graphic representation of violence, by definition is wrong, how is that acceptable to you?
In History of Violence, besides having pretty storng gore, Lota, we have Maria Bello in a cheerleader outfit, sans panties, doing a number for her husband. Cronenberg obviously finds her sexy. By your own definition of unacceptable exploitation (which includes, let me remind you, Tarantino's foot shots in his movies), how can you let that fly?
How is Imprint (which I saw and liked a lot), morally better than Hostel? Howe the hell do you draw the line?
And was it Joe Leydon who said that the likes horror but loathe "torture porn" or, as he said, "faux snuff". Faux snuff. Excuse me, but if it's "faux" how the hell can it be "snuff"? The "Snuff" definition implies that the acts of violence are actually performed, and that's the crime. Do you understand the difference between reality and fiction? I think many of you have it very blurred. But don't imply that the audiences have the same problem too, because, really, you might be wrong.
Sorry for the long post.

Peace.

Sorry for the double post. First time at doing this here.

Long and redundant, Sam. LOL.

That's one of the very few posts that made sense, actually. Well said, sam.

As for not wanting to live next to someone who's a horror fan of films like HOSTEL or LHOTL... that's a ridiculous, idiotic statement, and I expected more from you, Mr. Leydon. I've met you a couple of times and read your column back in the days of the Houston Post when you and Jeff Millar were the best thing in our local papers.

The fact is people have drawn their lines here, and although I can completely understand how some people would think the Matarazzo scene was abhorrent, they are actively refusing to understand that other viewers might... just MIGHT... see something more in the HOSTEL films than the surface level. It may be an accident that HOSTEL is infused with a subtext about American arrogance. Honestly, I'm not sure either way. But, the fact is that it's there. I've met Eli Roth a couple of times and found him to be a funny, smart guy, so I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. I tend to do that with people. I'm kind of fucked up that way, I guess.

I fully plan on seeing HOSTEL PART 2 and if it's as exploitative as you say, I'll gladly say so. But this dismissal outright of a filmmaker and of a film that only a few here have seen (and an illegal workprint at that. For shame, Mr. Poland) is disturbing among people who claim to be connoisseurs of film. What ever happened to open minds?

I think David Poland's revulsion of HOSTEL PART 2 is valid, for him, btw. The film had that effect on him and he responded in kind. It's an honest reaction, unlike many here who are only reacting to the ad campaign. You can take that opinion with whatever weight you like (and DP's filmic opinions never had too much with me anyway). If you're thinking, "Girl hung by the rafters and gored? I can't handle that," then that's valid too, because only you know your own lines and standards. But once you start assuming the same for the rest of us, whether we choose it or not, then you really, really, should drink a tall glass of STFU. I'm not going to ALLOW you to tell me what's morally offensive. That's my decision, and mine alone, so back the fuck off.

Alan: I am not trying to impose my values on you (or Jeff). I am not telling you what to see, and what not to see. I merely am saying that anybody who likes this sort of crap is someone I really don't want to be near. You get your kicks watching what Roger Ebert calls "Dead Teen-Ager Movies"? You actually look forward to seeing a movie that is little more than a series of imaginative disembowelments? Hey, whatever floats your boat. Just keep your boat out of my marina, thanks.

It's like racism or homophobia or anti-Semitism. You have every right to say awful things about people of color, or write terrible things about gay folks. You have every right to have a DVD copy of "The Eternal Jew" and watch it every night of your life. But I really don't want you in my zipcode. It's that simple.

"The racist is calling FROM INSIDE THE ZIP CODE! Get out of the zip code!"

I think Joe is entitled to his opinion however intollerant you think it makes him look. I feel bad for him though after the numbers come in this weekend . . . if he's so afraid of fans of this movie he's not going to want to leave his house. The tracking on this film is looking pretty solid.

Alan: THAT is funny. (BTW: I don't think of "When a Stranger Calls" -- either the original or the remake -- as a Dead Teen-Ager Movie. Not saying either was a particularly GOOD movie, but...)

This is a lot like the "child molesters in the neighborhood" scene in KNOCKED UP, only stupid. C'mon, you really equate horror fans to racists? I'm not sure if anyone's told you this yet... but they really don't kill people in movies. Sure, let's show all horror film kills offscreen. Let's not try to provoke the audience with disgust and horror and fear. That's what gore DOES. Just say you don't like the horror genre. I can actually respect that, in a way. But the comparison you just made is, well, dicktarded.

Once again: I enjoy well-done horror movies. I think Dead Teen-Ager Movies are vile. I am not demanding censorship. I am suggesting restraint. As for gore: Depends on how and why it's used. I really had no problem with the carnage in "Saving Private Ryan," "Casino," "The Departed," "Straw Dogs," and many others, too numerous to mention. On the other hand, "Friday the 13th" and its ilk disgust me.

BTW: Accusing me of hating the entire genre simply because I'm repulsed by certain films is a bit silly. Sorry, but you sound like some of the people who accuse me of being racist because I gave a bad review to a bad movie about (and/or by) African-Americans.

All the films you listed, though? They aren't horror films. If you're talking about shitty movies, that's one thing. Absolutely, lots of shitty horror films.

But would you really want to take the gore out of:
Carpenter's THE THING
HALLOWEEN (and yes, there's some gore there)
ALIEN
DEAD ALIVE (aka BRAINDEAD)
The EVIL DEAD films
THE OMEN
THE EXORCIST
THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE (and admittedly, there's not that much gore there)
JAWS
DAWN OF THE DEAD (both versions)

The fact is, most horror gore is there to elicit a reaction, and you may not like the reaction. That's understandable. It should remind you that you're still human. I'm no gorehound myself, mostly because when I do see it excessively on screen my mind automatically registers it as "not real" and it takes me right out of the movie.

My wife is uncomfortable with most horror films. She just won't watch them. And most slasher films really are shit. But I can't dismiss the genre entirely, either. As stated above, whether or not you choose to believe this, HOSTEL (the first one) does have some underlying issues. They aren't even all that hard to spot; they're barely subtext and practically text, to paraphrase a BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER episode. I don't avoid movies like the BLACK CHRISTMAS remake because of the subject; I avoid them because by all accounts they're terrible movies. But there is some sort of zeitgeist that many horror films, especially some of the more graphic ones, are plugged into, and that's why the genre remains interesting to me.

Joe . . . How would you respond to someone who was a "fan" of Alan Parker's Midnight Express? I didn't care a whole lot about HOSTEL but it seemed to be cut from a similar cloth. Does Parker get a pass solely because he's seen as a more serious filmmaker?

Alan: Can't claim to have seen every single movie on your list. And I can't claim to be a major fan of all that I have. But, no, I have no problem with the violent content of these particular titles.

Let me throw out another title: "Joy Ride." Loved it. (Hey, my review is quoted on the DVD packaging.) And to go back to your list: I have a very vivid memory of seeing a midnight sneak preview of the original "Omen" with two staff reporters back when I was film critic for a paper in Jackson, Miss. I kinda-sorta knew what was coming in the glass-decapitation scene -- yes, even back then, there were spoliers -- but my colleagues were caught off-guard. Indeed, they were so shocked that both of them literally jumped out of their seats on either side of me , and nearly wound up in my lap. LOL.

Krazy Eyes: I don't think I'm receiving your meaning there. By "fan," do you mean someone who thinks it's a great movie? I wasn't THAT impressed by it, but no, I'd have no trouble having him as a nextdoor neighbor. Hey, the flick won two Oscars, and was nominated for four others.

But if you're talking about someone who jerks off while watching an endles loop of the tongue-biting scene, well...

Which reminds me: Have you ever spent any time in a Turkish prison? Do you like gladiator movies?

it's a long thread.

My chief complaint is quality control, I don;t think Cabin Fever or Hostel were scary and they were not good Horror to me. Hostel pt 2 sounds like it is moving into Violent Pink genre and that's what I think Horror or any non-rated X movie should Not do. It's like the Gladiatorial arena of old ladies versus tigers--violent/torture porn whatever it will be called is not where I think horror can best revive or continue quality cinema.

Sure many films have scenes that venture into an exploitative area that isn't ok to me, many "good" directors do it and I don;t think they should.

I think distasteful based-on-true tales (many of which are gruesome) or fiction tales can still be told without venturing into a Porn type of area.

We seem to be too okay with extreme violence and humiliation in this country, but not okay with skin or politics unless it is Directly tied to violence, retribution or humiliation.

and NO I am not for limiting the 1st Amendment/censorship.

Like the move for a little restraint/responsibility in hip hop lyrics (to move away from promotion of Extreme violence,rape and gangsterism) very well supported by many musical artists from the ground up because they've seen the effects on young people in the hoods, I think you can have good horror without returning to the extremes of violent pink (for forced sex and extreme depicted violence).

Exorcist and Henry portrait of a serial killer--

you can tell a story where these things have 1)happened in real life/be believable, 2)have a story, 3)be scary and 4)Not venture into porn/extreme violence extended scenes for no purpose but to appear to the lowest sort of 'rarely seen before low'.

but we will still have plenty of crap, piss-poor horror if people continue to pay to see them, so maybe we have lots of lowest common denominators.

maybe it's time for a new fall of the roman empire

offer something really scary and better, people will pay to see it too.

I'd love another movie on par re. quality like the Excorcist and I think Red Eye is one of the better things that Craven has done.

This is a very frustrating thread. I feel like very little of what I have said has penetrated through to some of you.

I haven't been trying to defend the entire gore genre as much as I've been trying to refute the blanket assertions that several people have been making - and as we all know, every blanket assertion ever made has been completely wrong. The vast bulk of gore movies are boring and trashy, and I include most modern iterations of that formula (the Saw movies, the remakes of Hills Have Eyes, Hitcher, and Texas Chainsaw Massacre) Why? Not because they're gory, but because they fail to use their gore in an interesting or valuable way. Each of these movies is hollow spectacle.

However, my contention is that other movies, for me, specifically including those by Eli Roth and Rob Zombie, are pretty good, for a variety of reasons.

It should be possible for adults to discuss these movies and be able to disagree about them without accusing each other of being subhuman. And Joe, your comments are insulting in exactly this manner.

"Not because they're gory, but because they fail to use their gore in an interesting or valuable way. "

JEFF THAT PENETRATES. I GET IT AND AGREE.

But, you are trying to tie this to saying that Hostel is a good movie for YOUR reasons. DOn;t even go there Bub. I'm not buying it even if it's free.

It's just like you trying to convince me that Black Dahlia is a better or more interesting movie that LA COnfidential. Uh-uh.

we have to agree to disagree.

"But, you are trying to tie this to saying that Hostel is a good movie for YOUR reasons."

How else am I possibly supposed to have a discussion? Am I expected to adopt YOUR tastes and predispositions to decide how I should like a movie?

???

Jeff: Once again, I will say -- Everyone has the right to like any kind of movie s/he likes. But I don't care to associate with anyone who enjoys movies that use graphic depictions of violence only to provide cheap thrills. That is dehumanizing and -- here's a word I rarely, almost never use -- sinful. I don't care how technically accomplished those movies are. Shit is shit, whether it's floating in a toilet or served on a china plate. Call it horror porn, Dead Teen-Ager Movie, whatever. If you feel insulted by that statement, well, to paraphrase Edward R. Murrow, I'm not the least bit sorry. I am sure there are people out there who would not want to associate with me because I once gave a mostly favorable review to "Howard the Duck."

That's a shame.

Yeah, I know. But what the hell: I thought it was a funny movie at the time.

You know what I mean.

a good project for bored horror Directors with no imagination looking for material. adapt some MR James.

of MR James:

"...story writer H.P. Lovecraft was a fan, and wrote a review on his work: "...gifted with an almost diabolic power of calling horror by gentle steps from the midst of prosaic daily life." he says, also adding: "Dr. James has, it is clear, an intelligent and scientific knowledge of human nerves and feelings; and knows just how to apportion statement, imagery, and subtle suggestions in order to secure the best results with his readers." Although largely ignored by filmmakers - Night of the Demon (1957) - is one exception), his work has a dedicated fan base, and the BBC filmed several of his stories in the 1970s, wisely titling them under the series "A Ghost Story for Christmas". In 2000, horror legend Christopher Lee jumped at the chance to read four of James' stories in another Christmas special screened on BBC2." from the IMDB

I don't know, Lota: Lovecraft hasn't been served all that well by movies of his work...

I couldn't agree about M.R. James more. One of the best and scariest horror writers there has ever been.

John Carpenter (before he lost all will to seemingly do anything) used to profess that remaking "Night of the Demon" was a dream project of his. Also, director Hideo Nakata has claimed that his Japanese RING films owe as much to the writings of James as they do to the books they were officially based upon.

I've never seen the BBC short films but they're available on DVD in the UK and very expensive.

Much too much banal intellectual discussion about a snuff film. This is basically porn, folks. You don't need to psycoanyalyze it! If you dig seeing gruesome torture, check it out. If not, who cares?

And whoever says they want to live in a world without people who watch these films, please, do yourself a favor and remodel that closet you're living in, or just hang yourself, because the world is what it is, and you're living in it with millions of people who get off on this stuff. You might as well say you don't want to talk to anyone who watches or has watched porn....or breathed oxygen...

Personally, I'm not very intersted in hanging with anyone who thinks Adam Sandler films are funny, but most of my friends do, and I deal with it, and I still like them, and even laugh at some of those dumb ass movies myself once in awhile when I'm good and high. Yes, I hate myself for it, but you can't be perfect all the time.

Chosing your friends and neighbors based on their aesthetic taste is like picking them because of their clothes, or their car, or their haircut, or the books they read - grow up, and learn how to relate like a human being, jeez. I'm not a big fan of torture porn, but I am of freedom of expression, more power to those sick bastards, ha ha ha! munch! munch! munch!

OK, I admit -- reluctant -- that you're probably right, Muncher. I mean, if I can put up with Republicans as neighbors, I should be able to put up with gore hounds. But that doesn't mean I have to like it.

"I don't know, Lota: Lovecraft hasn't been served all that well by movies of his work..."

Same thing with Democracy, doesn't mean we shouldn't try. A little Optimism here Joe!

Maybe, KrazyE, a smart producer could get Carpenter to do a MR JAmes with a 2nd unit director who has good taste. Carpenter has a movie in prod now so he's still working. He's only 60 or so, so presumably he's not ready for pasture yet. I hope not.

The BBC readings were excellent. I'd have Christopher Lee read me a story any day of the week. Get a region free player and buy them used. I had a copy when I lived in Europe.

Well then the studios can Identify it as torture porn Carpetmuncher, at least then people have it identified as what it really is, instead of Horror which i don;t think it is.

If only we could put the Republicans and the gore hounds in the same Hostel or Cabin for a few days, something productive might come out of all of this.

No offense to the gore hounds.

Joe, you must hate action movies.

Krazy eyes--use kelkoo

a warning to the curious, is one of the better ones and if you don;t have region free buy it anyway in case it disappears.

http://shopping.kelkoo.co.uk/ctl/do/search?siteSearchQuery=a+warning+to+the+curious&fromform=true

Joe: let me try this one more time. My disagreement with you has to do with your unwillingness to see (a) any shades of gray in this subgenre, and (b) the possibility that a normal person with no criminal record or mental illnesses could see something in these movies that you don't. I don't like Crash but I don't think that anyone is a bad person for doing so, and I am open to the notion that others see something and get something out of it that I don't.

Dellamorte: Once again, your logic is faulty. I enjoy action movies. Buy my book, read chapters on "Die Hard," "The Killer" -- and "The Seven Samurai." (Actually, you could also read several Variety reviews for free on line, but what the hell, I'm always pimping the book.)

I see that Chud.com has now turned into DefendEliRoth.com, while AICN is AICNHasEliRothsDickInTheirMouth.com this week.

So what's the difference between watching John McClane walk pick glass out of his feet and shoot the hell out of bad guys, and watching a young man get a finger chopped off by a maniac in Hostel?

Presentation?

It's my turn tomorrow, Stella. I've been doing jaw exercises, didn't you see that photo?

So when violence is brutal and used to make you feel uncomfortable it's horrible if viewed as entertainment, but murder as an exciting and thrilling act is A-okay?

Cause I don't make the leap that all viewers of "torture porn" get their kicks from the violence, and I would argue that action films glamorize and vandalize the sacredness of life a lot more. The gore may be what they're talking about afterwards but I tend to think that People go to horror movies to be scared, get close to their dates, and maybe feel better about being alive. Almost all of these films have protagonists that survive their horrors. These films are generally about survival in dire circumstances.

The difference between entertainment and porn.

Okay, Joe and Stella, care to toss out anything more than three words? It's a legitimate question. In fact, I would say that an action movie in which violence is justified by righteous action (like Death Wish or 300 can be more damaging than a standard horror movie.

I would love to jeff, but honestly, I haven't seen Die Hard in a long time. I am just guessing that the presentation is different, that what the director wants the viewer to feel is different. Like I said though, since I haven't seen DH in so long, it's just a guess.

Oh and I'm not at all into movies that glorify revenge. Not my thing.

alan, you know i love you. but stella is not wrong. how many filmmakers do you know that not only does the entire staff report on, but spend a great deal of time in talkbacks trying to defend them.

It's almost sycophantic. One of the staffers made some kind of statement to the affect that only a 'minority of critics' went after Eli Roth for Hostel. Really? A minority? Now how i remember it.

Aint it Cool News is to Eli Roth as Fox News is to George W. Bush.

But hey, it's passion. i wish i'd see this kind of passion for a film like The Host, or something that really deserves all this text.

The Host rocks!

I can absolutely agree with that.

Well, yes, my post was long, redundant and with way too many typos, yet I feel it posed a legitimate question.
And I'd like to stress that I wasn't addressing personal tastes. Everyone is obviously free to like or dislike whatever thing for whatever reasons. But that's not what's happening here.
It's not that people here is arguing that Eli Roth is a bad director. Hey, before seeing Thanksgiving, I might even have agreed with you on the matter. It's the mob mentality on display. It's that he's being treated as someone more or less on the same ethical level of a drug dealer, because he uses lots of chemical compounds that look like blood in his movies, and sometiymes - GASP - not only a naked woman. But the two things combined!
Oh, my God! Gore and sex! The Nation is in peril! Well, besides the simple fact of life that Hostel, with the exception of one scene, is not really that extreme in temr sof graphic violence, the sole assumption of giving a moral connotation to gore is absurd. You use it in your movie, and you have to redeem yourself somehow by injecting into a much larger context with profound philosophical ponderings, and not only as subtext. That's not enough. They have to be in clear view, on your sleeve. Why? Gore, in itself isn't good or bad. It's how you use it in your film. There's a little nice movie called Feast, which is gory as hell, much more than Hostel, and that really doesn't have any political subtext. It simply wants to play with the rule of the genre, and it does it with wit and creativity.
Which is what counts in movies.
The rest, to tell you the truth, reminds me of those reviews when Ken Russell's The Devils came out. More than 30 years ago. Go read them. You'd say that Eli Roth directed The Devils.

wow. when did eli roth fans get so defensive?

wait. when did eli roth get fans?

and for people defending his schlocky, amateurish work, they're acting a lot like martyrs. I'd tell them to get off the cross, but apparently they like that sort of thing.

if you can't take the mutilation, get out of the dank basement.

I'm not even a fan. Yet. I'll see Hostel 2 and I'll let you know.
It's just that outraged bourgeois are too much of an attraction me. It's impossible to resist.

Sam: Actually, I wrote one of those reviews. And it was a rave.

Carpetmuncher: The Host is superb. Even now, I cannot understand why it didn't make a bigger splash in this country.

Jeff: I can't say I was a big fan of "Death Wish." And the sequels? Oy, vay! Haven't yet seen "300." As for "Die Hard" -- it's not a revenge movie, is it? I thought it was an action movie. Which you'd know if you'd buy my book.

Joe, here's my thesis about action movies: they're called action movies because they contain, simply, action. Which is motivated by the plot in a good movie but not all the time - the central reason to see them is to see people getting into fights and shootouts and whatnot.

Die Hard is not a 'revenge' movie per se but the motivating incident - the terrorist takeover of the building - is a wrong that must be righted, and in this particular case, by a lone individual using whatever tools are at his disposal. The bulk of the film from that point on is to watch McClane shoot guys, outsmart them, beat them up, etc. until order can be restored. The audience's reaction is to suffer with McClane when things are bad (like when he's peeling glass out of his feet) and to triumph with him when things are good (like when a bad guy dies). But throughout, the violence is always justified as something good and righteous, a reaction to what the bad guys have done.

Of course, Die Hard is an excellent movie, becuase of the tightness of the script, the strength of the performances, and the fluidity of the direction. But take all that away and I ask, how is it any different from an adolescent will-to-power fantasy in which you are given permission to kick the asses of strangers with the justification 'it's okay, they started it'?

Let me repeat: I really like Die Hard.

Jeff: We have an expression in New Orleans -- With some people, if they don't know, you can't tell them. If you don't know the answer to the question you pose here, I'm afraid it's beyond my meager powers of persuasion to enlighten you.

BTW: Using your reductivist logic -- take away "the tightness of the script, the strength of the performances, and the fluidity of the direction," and "Die Hard" is "Death Wish" -- then I guess "Hamlet" is just another revenge story too, right? Damn that Shakespeare!

And with that, I'm off for a while. Have to show "Shoulder Arms" to some college students, which means I likely will first have to explain who Charlie Chaplin was, and what World War I was all about. (I know: Some of you think I'm being snide and condescending and ageist and all sorts of other nasty things. But trust me: I've taught this class before. You have no idea...)

Joe, this is a discussion and I'm asking rhetorical questions. Of course I have an answer, I'm asking for _your_ answer. Surely you've been teaching long enough to know how this works.

Also:

The first Death Wish, while flawed, is better than its reputation (and sequels) would suggest.

The difference between Hamlet and any other revenge story isn't technical skill or fluidity - it's poetry and the intelligence that Shakespeare shows in having Hamlet wonder out loud if revenge is a good idea or not, and what the implications might be.

Plenty of bad movies have been made with good performances and fluid, exciting direction, but even the best Michael Bay movie is still a Michael Bay movie.

With entertainment vs. porn, if you want to say the plots of all "Torture porn" horror films are the same, you could make that argument for the Astaire-Rogers musicals. That it's about execution I agree with, but it seems like it's a genre you have no interest for or understanding of. Extremer horror turns you off because it's too violent for you. But that's not a moral issue, and turning it into one is absurd.

When I was younger I didn't get musicals, mostly because I hated Sound of Music and the bloated 60's musicals that were foisted upon me and essentially destroyed the genre. Since that time I can rattle off at least a dozen I now clutch close to me as masterpieces.

I don't really care about Roth, though in this case I want to defend him because of what his art stands for, if not the art itself. Frankly, I'm slightly annoyed that I now feel responsible to buy a ticket to see Hostel Part II this weekend.

This catfight/nerdfight/whatever has gone global with the help of CHUD. The summary as posted this morning to Fark:

Moral crusaders discover "Hostel Part II," right on schedule. Eli Roth high-fives everyone involved for bonus publicity

Don't be surprised now if this gore/porn/splatterfest busts the charts.

Anybody read Variety's rave review of The new Hostel Part 2? I wasn' a big fan of the first film but I remember thinking the director had potential. Hmmm, how scary would it be if Roth's gorefest was actually a GOOD movie.

http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117933848.html?categoryid=31&cs=1

Chucky, do you ever watch any of these movies or is your interest strictly limited to boxoffice and distribution in the NY/NJ area? Just asking.

since no one said it directly is this thread, and since I have to go off for a few days and make deadlines etc., I don;t see Hostel & other extreme violence movies as any different than The Passion of the Christ even though supposedly the latter movie was to Praise Him. It didn;t have the sexual scenes but portraying the devil as so Feminine that my first thought was "the devil is a woman" was enough for me to nearly put it in that level of exploitation.

Jesus get off your cross, Mel Gibson and Eli Roth need the wood.

Hey Chucky it might bust the charts, but maybe Eli's next movie might have 362 spectators nationwide if it is as bad as some say.

Dave,

Do you think you would have had a different, maybe not as visceral, reaction if this was first seen in the theater? The way you describe the disc carries a lot of emphasis, as if it's snuff.

Hendhogan - research Roth's interviews for Hostel. His inital reasoning had nothing to do with Iraq. That came out much later in a LA Weekly CYA piece, IIRC, after some no-nothing critic in Dallas first made the comparison. The reality is he was talking to Tarantino one night about SAW, what they liked and what they would have done different. His big beef was the perspective and how the audience should not have been put in an omniscient POV. That's the genesis of Hostel, a guy who was jealous of SAW and wanted to make his version.

And all this BS about violence in other films does not carry wieght because almost all of these films mentioned - Last House, Henry, Fulci movies, etc... didn't have shit for theatrical or home video distribution. So from a mass-saturation standpoint, Dave's 100% correct. Exploitive fare of the past was not distributed or targeted at the mutliplex. It had no chance. Now, it's a summer release.

"Hey Chucky it might bust the charts, but maybe Eli's next movie might have 362 spectators nationwide if it is as bad as some say."

Since when has a movie's lack of quality been a box-office hindrance, even to a follow-up?

Jeff: You’re starting to remind me of a poster that was popular in some circles in the early 1970s, when “All in the Family” was at the peak of its popularity. Simple enough: A photo of Archie Bunker, smiling, along with the words: “Face it: There’s a little bit of me in you.” A rather unsettling concept for a Leftie like myself. And, yes, a little scary.

Time and again, I have said that gore-porn movies are sick and twisted and dehumanizing, and anyone who enjoys them – even the slickly produced ones – has something tragically off-kilter in his hardwiring. And I would really not care to spend any of my limited time on this planet in close proximity to such a person. That's just my opinion, and I'm not saying Eli Roth shouldn't be allowed to make "Hostel 2," or you shouldn't be allowed to see it. End of story.

But you can’t let this go. You can’t brush it off with a joke, or simply agree to disagree. You start silly arguments and set up straw men and ask pointless questions about “Die Hard.” And all the while, I can’t help thinking: Bingo. I hit a nerve.

Let’s face it: For all your rant, all your bluster, there is a part of you – maybe that part of your brain that is the last part to shut down before you go to sleep – that wonders: What if he’s right?

Scary, huh?

Good night. Pleasant dreams.

LOTA,

You are soooooooooo predictable.

Who were those feminists again?

Joe: I didn't think I was ranting or blustering. I was pretty sure I was asking questions and participating in debate. I'm sorry that not only do you consider me to be unworthy of human contact, but that you consider my inquiries to be unworthy of discussion. And you know what? You might be right about all of this. I don't think I'm going to change to your position, primarily because your critical judgment seems to be very un-nuanced, but that's why I'm posting: to share.

Joe: I didn't think I was ranting or blustering. I was pretty sure I was asking questions and participating in debate. I'm sorry that not only do you consider me to be unworthy of human contact, but that you consider my inquiries to be unworthy of discussion. And you know what? You might be right about all of this. I don't think I'm going to change to your position, primarily because your critical judgment seems to be very un-nuanced, but that's why I'm posting: to share.

Sorry for the double post. Us subhumans do that.

Okay, I just got back from Hostel Part II.

The Matarazzo scene is directly taken from the story of Elizabeth Bathory, which it seems David doesn't know, or he would easily have been able to identify the character in the cast list -- she's called "Mrs. Bathory."

Countess Bathory bathed in the blood of virgins, believing it would keep her young -- the conceit in Hostel II, that some rich bitch in eastern Europe might actually believe this and want to try it out, is not a huge leap for a horror film. It certainly wasn't made up from scratch by Eli Roth as a unique fetish, nor is it arbitrary that the killer is a woman.

Funnily enough, this is the least gory of Roth's films, and it's certainly less gory and kinky than Oldboy. But it does try to get you to feel a bit for the killers, which is going to rub a lot of people the wrong way.

Saying that it crosses some kind of new line is just silly. But it isn't as easy to dismiss as Roth's other movies, because it's better made in every way. Maybe that's the issue.

The difference between Die Hard and having Bruce Willis jump out and shoot a few guys is that the entire purpose of the movie isn't for guys to go watch guys get shot at a whole lot. It's about Bruce Willis trying to save people from terrorists any way possible.

Which is where I think the Hostel and Saw (and various others ones I haven't seen) go wrong. The violence is the reason for the movie's existence. I really do think that the only reason Roth made these movies was to show people dying is fucked up ways, and the Saw movies are just that times infinite. I don't think Hostel is a suspence-filled pseudo-political thriller about a young man discovering the truth about a secret underground organisation and the lengths he must go to to try and stop it and to save his friends. I think it's about some guys who go to Europe and then die gruesomely, but one escapes. End of movie.

Camel: Amen.

That's a valid interpretation.

Another interpretation is that the purpose of Die Hard _is_ to watch guys get shot and beaten up. None of the hostages in that movie matter except for McClane's wife, who is a screenwriterly necessity. The scenario of the movie is designed to provide a framework in which scenes can be constucted for McClane to kick ass. Take out the ass-kicking scenes and get rid of the hostages through something simple like tear gas and you have a shorter, less satisfying movie.

Fortunately, Die Hard is well-made enough that you don't notice this and are free to enjoy the ride, as opposed to a bad action movie like, say, Mr. & Mrs. Smith, where they wrote the action scenes first and had to contort the rest of the story to fit around them and make sense.

I believe there's less difference between an gory action movie and a gory horror movie than most want to think.

Kamikaze,

Excellent observation.

Jeff,

Do you really believe that about Die Hard?

I actually do not think that you do.

Which part? Some of it is rhetorical and some of it isn't.

jeff, are you comparing action movies and torture movies in general? or "die hard" and "hostel, part II" specifically?

you're comparing a fifteen second scene with bruce willis picking glass out of his foot, with a five plus minute scene about the torture of a young girl.

the willis scene is the end of act two, beginning of act three, where obstacles are put in the lead character's path that he/she must overcome.

i don't know where the matarazzo scene fits in. i know it's not a obstacle to be overcome.

i'm probably going to get taken to task over the length of the scenes in question. and i don't know how long the scene needs to be to be less offensive. can the scene be cut shorter and still be effective (to whatever vision the director has)?

p.s. thanks martin for the update in the origins

General.
Plus, some action movies are also torture movies (Man on Fire for example).

i think you are confusing intent.

yes, there is/are torture scene/s (i can only think of one at moment, but been awhile since i've seen film), but the movie is not about the torture. it's about one man's redemption through this child that we was to protect and failed.

both "hostel" movies are about the torture. you take the torture out, there is no movie. not a shorter movie, no movie.

And since when is torture not a valid subject for a movie?

I found the torture in Man on Fire much more objectionable than the torture in Hostel.

I think if forced to choose I would pick Hostel over Man on Fire.

i didn't say it wasn't a valid subject. i would argue that the torture in these films is about glorification.

you want to read more into it than that, go ahead. your opinion. fine. ditto with your preferences.

the justifications that are coming out don't necessarily back those opinions. there's one group that insists the "hostel" movies are social commentary. if i were so inclined (which i'm not), i could grant that for the first one. explain what new social commentary is being made by the second, though, please. another seems to be saying not as bad as other stuff out there. which sounds very much like "look, mom, the other kids are all doing it" argument.

does the movie have a right to be made? yes, absolutely. should it be made? i'm a strong no. i haven't heard anything to change that opinion.

I would argue that the torture in Man on Fire is glorified, because it's undertaken by the film's protagonist, played by popular movie star Denzel Washington; because the victims are Mexicans and criminals; and because it's done for a narrative purpose (find the innocent little girl!). The viewer is encouraged to find that torture righteous and necessary.

The torture in Hostel is undertaken _on_ the film's protagonists, performed by sleazy, deviant businessmen, and depicted not as righteous and useful but as horrible. I don't know where 'glorification' can be read int that.

have you seen the scene, yet, jeff?

i don't mean that as a slam, but it's hard to get across what i'm saying without that. if you see it/have seen it and you don't get what i'm saying then i don't know where to go from there.

from what i'm gathering from the comparisons to "man on fire," you believe in moral relativism. torture is bad no matter who is doing it or why. unless i'm misreading you.

alan, i'll try to field this one.

validity is always a tough question. when the first hostel came out, i never would have said 'is torture valid', but as Saw and Hostel have kind of spawned a torture sub-genre, i begin to wonder why Roth would go back to the well.

Money, sure. Who the hell wouldn't? But what's the creative inspiration behind it?

Was there really more creative real estate to survey with Hostel 2? Other than some minor craftsmanship improvements and the switching of protagonist gender, i don't think there's anything new or interesting about it. That's my only bitch about validity.

if you want to make a movie about torture, go right ahead. but let's go ahead and bag all the bullshit talk of 'subtext' and let's not pretend Roth has any kind of message or empowerment stance with these films.

He's playing everyone who sees it and laughing at the controversy all the way to the bank. And no, i don't fault him for that at all. I think that part of it is great. Anyone who can do the kind of films they want, the way the want, and make a tidy profit doing it is smarter than most people.

I just wish people would stop trying to add levels to the guy. He's schlock, and poorly thought out schlock. Let's call a spade a spade.

I don't have any objections to Hostel 2 other than it's unoriginality, which is the most offensive thing to me as a fan of film. I also get offended at the constant, and i mean CONSTANT cock sucking he gets from the internet film sites. It's embarrassing, like watching the geeky kid in school freak out because the Captain of the football team let him sit as his table in the cafeteria. It removes the veneer and exposes these guys as sycophantic and just shows how easily they're won over.

Then again, i guess expecting any kind of credibility on the net is a pipe dream

I'm strictly speaking about Hostel 1. I'm seeing Hostel 2 later tonight.

If I believed in moral relativism, then I _wouldn't_ believe that torture is bad no matter who is doing it or why. It sounds like you're contradicting yourself, because the moral relativist would say that torture can be justified situationally, while the moral absolutist would say that torture is never justified and inherently wrong.

i'm not contradicting myself because i haven't stated an opinion on justification. i was trying to figure out your position.

a moral relativist puts all moral issues on the same level despite any outside forces acting on that issue. but now we're getting lost in semantics.

i still can't figure out where you stand on the issue from your response because you use the conditional "if"

Well observed.
Here's what I think my position is: I think it's foolish to lay down blanket rules like 'everyone who engages in torture is bad' or 'any movie feturing torture is bad' because as has been repeated by many, it's all about context.

For me, the failure of Man on Fire as a film was that I was not convinced by its narrative and thematic structure that the torture Washington's character engaged in was meant to be seen as anything other than thrilling and righteous - as a total positive with beneficial outcomes. If the movie had depicted him as more of a monster (in those scenes) and less of a hero, I think it would have been dramatically more honest and not objectionable.

For me, Hostel is in a different ballpark because it's not trying to be taken dramatically seriously. Its worst scene is when the hero indulges in revenge murder at the end of the movie, which is objectionable for the same reasons - it's presented as something justified and positive.

ok, but if they are in different ballparks why'd you compare them?

spoiler alert

side note: do not agree with you that denzel is a hero. i see him as an anti-hero. the movie sets him up as searching for some form of redemption for past deeds that are not clearly delineated, but intimated to be truly horrific. he starts to climb out when his charge is kidnapped and believed killed. to me, the torture scene shows a descent back to where he begins the film. he can't escape who he is and what he's done. it's why he has to give himself up at the end of the movie.

now, if they had cheated and he got away in the end, i could understand your take.

I compared them because Man on Fire is a glossy studio movie with a big star in it, and Hostel is a cheap indie movie with no stars in it, and one is generally regarded as something cheap and tawdry, and the other isn't - but they both feature people torturing other people.

Re: your take on Man on Fire, I can see your point but my experience in watching it was that I was still unconvinced. Maybe if the part had been played by an actor less likeable and handsome than Denzel Washington, who I never believed was really in need of 'redemption'. Put Ice Cube or Nick Nolte or Ray Liotta into that movie and perhaps the aspects you speak of would have worked better for me.

if it doesn't work for you, it doesn't work.

now, when you get back from seeing "hostel, part II" i want to know if you can do the same thing with that movie as i did with "man on fire."

just to reiterate, MY problem is with the sequel. i found the matarazzo scene abhorent (whether there is precedence for it or not). to me, whatever point the director was going for there could have been gotten across a lot less graphically. to me, the intent is to make the audience luxuriate in this girl's demise. by spending the money, he wants to make me complicit in the act. it's equating the rich people who pay to torture to the audience who pays to see them do it.

just looking back, that should read "if it doesn't work for you, it doesn't work for you."

realized how it was made it seem the the movie's success or failure rode on your shoulders.

I'll let you know...what exactly do you mean when yuou say 'as i did with "man on fire"'?

"he wants to make me complicit in the act. it's equating the rich people who pay to torture to the audience who pays to see them do it."

In theory, this is not a bad thing, if undertaken with the right perspective and knowledge on the part of the filmmaker - it's how Hitchcock operates in Psycho and Powell in Peeping Tom, among others.

"if it doesn't work for you, it doesn't work for you."

This is true, and it's the great unquantifiable, irrational secret at the center of all movie reviews.

you compared the two scenes of torture, equating them in some respects. i described how the scene in "man on fire" fit within a character arc to enhance the movie. how it fit into the bigger picture of the story was trying to tell (whether it succeeded or not).

i want to know if there's a reason to the movie outside of seeing a bunch of people get slaughtered like cattle.

i don't know about "peeping tom" as i have not seen it. however, you are missing the point when it comes to "psycho." yes, hitchcock has the killer's perspective during the stalking, but at no time does he make you feel complicit in the murder.

in any case, as violent as the scene is, there is not one shot of the knife entering janet leigh. it's all in the execution, if you'll excuse the pun

I'll let you know re: Hostel 2.

In Psycho, he doesn't make you complicit in the murder, but he makes you complicit in Janet Leigh's theft of money, Norman peeping at her in her underwear, and his subsequent clean-up of the murder scene, where you want him to escape being caught.

again i think you are confusing first person perspective with complicity.

No I'm not. When Norman is cleaning up after the murder, the scene serves no purpose except to transfer audience identification from her to him. We want him to get away with it.

except at this point in the film, he is a potential victim of his mother. we can't be complicit in an act we didn't even know he did til an hour later.

gotta go. won't be able to get to computer til monday. look forward to what you have to say then

interesting discussion, but are you all blokes in here? david poland's commentary was, to me (a woman), a distincly feminist rant, and virtually no one has addressed the feminist issues raised in his column. i've been reading the hot button for many a year and have never read anything quite so strongly-worded by mr. poland, so it obviously really struck a nerve. i'm a down and dirty scary movie lover and haven't seen either 'hostel' movies as they look like utter shite and not scary in the slightest, but i thought mr. poland's arguement was well formed and compelling in this disturbing 'post-feminist' era where 'raunch' culture exploitation of women, mindless video game violence and internet-driven porn have exploded into the cultural psyche, becoming more and more 'mainstream' and acceptable. good on mr. poland for taking a stand, it's his column and he can say what he thinks, at least it's got people talking.

Hendhogan, it doesn't matter. He's cleaning up after 'mother' which means he's complicit in her crime; by watching him and rooting for him to be successful, so are we.

Leahnz

women's rights and women's groups who address violence towards women re. how they are portrayed in the media, and human rights groups that have to deal with real torture aren;t saying much publicly yet about Hostel pt 2 since they don;t want to sell tickets for it inadvertantly.

I already addressed it somewhat above. Both males and females have already said that the portrayal was offensive, and those statements don;t have to be a "rant" they are pretty obvious.

There's been discussion about it enough Offline, and NOW (they have a Media section on their website) and other organizations devoted to addressing violence against women have been stating (not ranting) for a long time that portrayal of women in the media can influence the young and have been asking for restraint in media expected for mainstream release.

COmmentary by a number of groups concerned with human rights (that includes women) will be later and likely low key since no human rights organization would want to end up selling tickets (the curiosity factor) for a movie that shows people getting off on torture onscreen.

I never rooted for Norman to be successful Jeff. It's a big assumption you make.

I didn't mention you specifically, Lota.

"serves no purpose except to transfer audience identification from her to him. We want him to get away with it."

it's a theory for horror movie viewing--at least decent ones.

sounds like you are speaking for and to everybody. You are entitled to your own opinion but this doesn;t speak for this member of the audience when I first or subsequently saw Psycho. If it is was what Hitchcock was trying to do, he didn't succeed with me even though it is one of my favorite movies.

What a director was trying to do doesn;t necessarily have that end result with individual members of the audience, in part or as a whole.

Sure. I'm curious as to what you were thinking in that scene in the movie, though.

Maybe also now you know how I've felt for the last week when I was told that everyone who enjoys certain movies is a slavering maniac with poor taste and bad hygiene.

Blanket assertions are dangerous.

But sometimes, alas, accurate.

Joe: You know nothing about my hygiene (unless you have a camera spying on me in the shower, which doesn't say good things about you).

Jeff: Bingo.

SOME are making blanket assertions about enjoying Hostel pt II

SOME are wondering about why a filmmaker would want the audience to see extended torture and call that pushing the envelope.

The biggest complaint on IMDB by those on the Hostel pt II board seems to be that the movie was boring and had major logic problems...so the torture and/or POV foisted on the audience didn't win anyone over anyway really. SO I guess the torture WAS pointless!

Then again a handful (although they seem like friends of production/or they worked on it and ADMITTED it) say it was the greatest horror movie our time and waxed so poetic about Roth's abilities that one would have thought they were speaking of Fritz Lang just wrapping up "M" for goodness sake.

So I finally saw the movie, and it will come as little surprise to anyone that I didn't hate it. I'm not going to bother writing out a full review here (I probably will on my own blog) but I'll make a few points:
All this discussion all week had the effect of overhyping the violence and gore, so that it felt tame in comparison. Congratulations, DP.
The infamous Heather Matarazzo scene was indeed one of the weakest parts of the movie because it is improperly contextualized; it happens for no good thematic reason and then is forgotten. A couple on a date in front of me walked out shortly after it was over.
Lastly, I think the movie and Roth have more engagement and integrity than the movie's detractors want to give them credit for; This is not a masterpiece of probing intellect and emotional acuity; but Roth does have something to say and some skill to say it with.

End of line.

...I almost forgot:

It's better and more responsible in its use of violence than 300.

I agree Jeff. I would also like to add that, given the ending (or better yet the first ending), I'm appalled that people can keep on denying the socio-political subtext of the movie.
On a side note, the second ending would probably have the late Lucio Fulci throw his arms around Roth calling him "My Son!"

And Lota, do you feel that Variety, Hollywood Reporter, and Emmanuel Levy are Roth's friends too?

Jeff,

"The infamous Heather Matarazzo scene was indeed one of the weakest parts of the movie because it is improperly contextualized; it happens for no good thematic reason and then is forgotten. "

That's why we say he's a hack, Jeff. He offers no context other than the sheer pornography of the violence itself. The 'context' of the violence then becomes the inherent misogyny of the eager viewer who along with Roth is there for the thrill of the kill.

The 'context' is not the story, but the AICN chat rooms and such where the Harry Knowles type geek crowd can slather and salivate about how gory it is while they wait for the DVD to come out and put still frames of Heather caked in blood on celebrity nudes dot whatever.

"Lastly, I think the movie and Roth have more engagement and integrity than the movie's detractors want to give them credit for;"

What do you think that engagement and integrity is? As a lover of horror also, I am interested in what you think that is, because so many of us just do not see it.

You know my opinions Jeff. I am the least PC commenter in these parts and I love horror but if there is a more misogynistic filmmaker working in Western cinema today other than Roth I have no idea who it is.

That knife in the cheerleaders vagina in Grindhouse (done for laughs, mind you) along with the 'no context for Heather' death scene of Hostel II seem to cement that rep.

We always have to remember as lovers of any genre that sometimes we can see depth where others can't. But other times because we love the genre so much it also means we elevate a lot of utter crap.

That's why ultimated Grindhouse (and Hostel II it seems) flopped.

Anyway, I am curious about your opinion on what you think Roth is saying, because I know you are passionate about horror.

I would say that there are plenty of 'more misogynistic' filmmakers out there. I think the most obviously misogynistic director is Neil LaBute, because even though some of his movies are about hateful women-hating men, like In the Company of Men, most of the others just repeat that behavior, like The Wicker Man. I think Michael Bay is a misogynist. Also Tony Scott, Marcus Nispel, and the makers of Norbit.

Eli Roth, like Hitchcock, Verhoeven, and DePalma, is an equal-opportunity misanthrope (although less talented than any of them).

The redeeming content of this film, and why it's still superior to Saw or Hills Have Eyes or The Hitcher, is that Roth's movie is about power relationships and how those relationships are articulated through money; the gag at the end of the film (spoilers) is that the girl who survives does so not because she is more clever or tough or determined to win than anyone else, but merely because she happens to be rich enough to purchase her own freedom from the powers that be. I'm sure you're rolling your eyes at a horror movie by Eli Roth that has pretenses towards a critique of capitalism, but there you go.

Thanks for asking.

Jeff,

Thanks for writing.

I am not rolling my eyes. I would only argue the irony of the crtique. That a film like Hostel, which allows a corporation (and Roth) to make millions on mutilation and gore, then has the audacity to critique capitalism.

If this is what Roth intended, I would argue it is rendered hollow. If it were self-reflexive in someway I could understand it, but other then committing the actual act, how is Roth or QT any different than the characters in the movie on a moral level?

Well, I would ask you to explain how you think it's 'rendered hollow' but you have no evidence to prove your point because you haven't seen the movie, right? Certainly I see your point and if Michael Bay was making a movie that criticized capitalist excess I would think it was hypocritical as well.

The most basic difference between Roth and his characters is that (a) Eli Roth is not actually mutilating anyone, and (b) Eli Roth is aware of the dynamics in his scenario and chooses to expose them to his audience. It's the same reason I think it's funny when certain filmmakers are accused of being 'nihilistic' - the very act of making a film or any artwork is the antithesis of nihilism.

I think the difference between seeing what Roth is saying as genuine or crass depends on a lot of different factors depending on the individual. I was more or less convinced; I can imagine others not being.

i'm not here to pillory eli roth. as someone pointed out, a couple of hundred people were involved in the making of the movie.

if i'm reading you right, jeff, the point of the movie is a critique of capitalism that comes in the final reel.

what disturbs me (and it's not a deeply held disturbance) is the off-hand way the matarazzo scene is tossed aside. dismissed. not as bad as thought.

i am exercising my free will and making my displeasure known by not paying to see the movie, so i'm relying on you here. does the scene belong in the movie? is it necessary? or can it be edited out without damaging the integrity of the movie? is there a reason for its inclusion? and if so, what is it?

and finally, the argument that everyone else is doing much worse is not a compelling one.

I wouldn't go so far as to say '_the_ point of the movie is a critique of capitalism', because it's not a single-mindedly coherent text in which every facet of mise-en-scene and dialogue are revolving around this singular theme. But it's more about that theme than anything else, outside of the idea that horror can be funny and entertaining (and I don't think that should be picked apart because it goes back at least as far as James Whale.)

As far as the Matarazzo scene goes, you have it about right. It could easily be plucked out of the movie and not make any significant difference, except that then there would be four horror beats in the movie instead of five.

But yes, I'm dismissing it, because for me it was a scene that didn't stick out as something that was so offensive that its mere presence warped the shape of the rest of the film, like a black hole. It's a gory scene in a horror movie - big deal.

Your mileage may vary.

not suggesting the scene warps the shape of the rest of the film. but you seriously can't see how it can offend some people? given that it serves no real point within the movie.

horror for horror's sake is pointless. hell, anything just for anything's sake is pointless. leads to bad film-making.

Sure I can see how it can offend some people. I would never argue that 'nobody should be offended by this' primarily because there are so many things to be offended by. People have talked about being offended by Shrek 3 or United 93 or Zoo or Paris Hilton and I am not in control of any of those things either.

I disagree, though, that 'x for x's sake is pointless'. There goes 90% of all mass-market entertainment.

...what I object to is the blanket assertion that the movie as a whole, above and beyond that one scene, has zero value as art or entertainment. And I still have never gotten any answer as to why Roth gets picked on when inferior movies have been ignored recently.

not picking on roth. you'll notice i've never once contended anything bad about him in all the posts. i saw the scene and was repulsed. i saw the blog and responded with my take.

you wanna talk about the others. i'll try. but i don't like the rash of remakes of old horror films and have gone out of my way not to watch them. i have seen my fair share of the older stuff, but hardly to level of others here.

"...what I object to is the blanket assertion that the movie as a whole, above and beyond that one scene, has zero value as art or entertainment."

i don't make that assertion. couldn't even if i wanted to as i will not see the movie. i would wager that you've seen a film and came out saying it was going so well, then this one scene really blew it for me. i don't like the presumption that a movie by nature is art. i think there is a difference between film and movies.

I agree that the scene, as it is, copuld disappear from the movie. Of course then we won't know what happens to Lorna, but I'm guessing Roth could have shown just the aftermath, BUT, and it's a big BUT, the scene, thematically, is not alien to the movie's subtext.
Quite the contrary. If you want to read it as a metaphor ir only reinforces it.
Having said that, I don't think anybody is saying that people don't have the right to be offended by it. Hell, I don't think even Roth would say something like that.

as any scene, there are multiple ways it can be shot from page to screen. what we see on the screen is the choice the director and editor made.

to me, they picked one of the most offensive ways to shoot it.

the defense of this film (and i'm going to reiterate only this film) is that there is some deeper meaning: to your mind, a condemnation of capitalism. or to narrow it down even further to just the bathory story. okay. so, the elements needed is the girl, the blood and bathory. what if we shorten it up? open on matarazzo (who by the way doesn't have to be naked), bathory lays in the tub, grabs the scythe, we see her had extend out of frame and blood pours down on her.

everything else is extraneous.

Except that there is still value in seeing certain things visually and not through suggestion. For example, the scene gains visceral power by showing the tip of the blade rub over Matarazzo's skin without piercing it; after that point we do, in fact, never see it making any incisions (until the final one).

so, what is the value in this scene?

p.s. visceral is an interesting word. especially as it pertains to its roots.

It means what it means.

The best possible value that I can give you of the scene is that it tells the viewer how bad things could possibly get for the surviving characters. Unfortunately this is somewhat redundant for anyone who's seen the first movie, but there you go. Also it functions as a scene of horror for horror's sake, as discussed before, which I don't think is an inherently bad thing. You go to a horror movie to see scenes of horror just as you go to an action movie to see car chases which may or may not be justified by the narrative, and to a romance to see couples in love; it's a generic feature.

Main Entry: vis·cus
Pronunciation: 'vis-k&s
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural vis·cera /'vi-s&-r&/
Etymology: Latin (plural viscera)
1 : an internal organ of the body; especially : one (as the heart, liver, or intestine) located in the great cavity of the trunk proper
2 plural : HEART 4

And what's your point? I already knew what it meant.

jeff, i enjoy cinema with plot, story, character development. occasionaly, i enjoy a mindless romp. but i admit it's a mindless romp. i'm not going to defend it as good. about the best i'll give is a generic "for a bad movie, it was good."

you look at this scene and your first reaction isn't about the social commentary. it's this girl is going to get fucked up. it appeals to our most base traits. it is exactly like watching christians being thrown to lions.

to explore this area once, well okay. to go back and do nothing but redo, retread the same territory. what's the point?

Well for one thing, unlike the Christians and the lions, nobody died to make this movie. Does that mean I need to get rid of my DVD of Gone Fishin'?

Seriously though, it all depends on your criteria. For example, which I enjoy plot, story, and character development as well (aren't plot and story the same things?) I don't think they're necessary components in film art. I think that having a theme and elaborating upon it is of primary importance, and providing a sensation or an experience is good as well. I also don't think that any scene of a character's death is inherently base; you like this girl, you want her to get out of it just as you know she isn't going to. For comparison's sake I can think of scenes in Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Hills Have Eyes that were poorer in the characterization department and therefore I recognized that all that was going to happen was salacious spectacle; those movies are obviously inferior to this one.
But ultimately if you don't like it, you don't like it.

surprised you even have a dvd of "gone fishin'" what are you afraid you won't be able to get a copy at netflix or blockbuster?

the baser instinct is the same whether someone dies or not. unless it is your contention that the draw is not to witness the murders.

my take is that people are not going to see the movie to see the characters survive. they are not going to get a scare. they are going to see death safely. that's what makes it repulsive.

and if those films are as you say they are, that just means that they too are equally despicable, not that "hostel, part II" is better. just because something is one or two steps above something else, doesn't make it better, or even good.

But, Hendhogan, doesn't that apply to every gore scene ever put on film, not only in horror movies?
You could have said the same exact thing on the scene in Casino where the guy gets his head crashed until his eyes pop out. Or in Goya's Ghost, where you get a naked Natalie Portman tortured by the Inquisition.
Either that is your point of view regarding all gore, or I really don't understand what makes it an exception in this particular case.

Hendhogan, you could make a case against Hostel 2 speficially if you wanted to but when you say that people are just watching 'to see death safely' you totally miss the point. It's like saying roller coasters should be banned.

(I do not have a copy of Gone Fishin'.)

look, sam, if you cannot differentiate between "goya's ghost," "casino" and "hostel, part II" then there really isn't any more to say.

so, i'll ask again, jeff. what's the point?

i'm saying it's pointless. you keep saying there's a point. but no one is saying what it is.

I get the impression there is no answer which will satisfy you.

i'm sitting here willing to listen. i don't promise satisfaction from the answer because i sense a fundamental disconnect.

you keep wanting to talk about this film in relation to the genre and i'm talking about this film in relation to films in general. i also get the sense that you are linking both parts together when defending the second.

i think movies like this one desensitize people to violence. the line is constantly shifting because it is necessary to get the shock of crossing the line. but then what happens next? do we get to see worse and then say "well, it's really not as bad as the second 'hostel' movie?"

to me, it's a lowering of standards not to create a point. not to show something to humanity that might need be shown to it. it's a crossing of the line for thrills, because it can. it's shallow.

"eh, i've seen worse" is not a good argument because that's my point.

I can differentiate very well between them. On the other hand, you, given your standpoint on gore and violence in movies, really shouldn't.
And please, the political subtext behind Hostel Part 2 is as clear as the light of day.
You don't believe it's there? Fine. I have seen the movie. Jeff saw it. You didn't. Tell me what kind of a discussion there could be about it here.

sam, i don't doubt there is political subtext. i don't think people went to see the film for the political subtext. if the draw is the political subtext, then the marketing campaign was reeeallllyyyy far off.

now, if you want to tell me that yes that is exactly why you went to the movie, i apologize.

and secondly, i don't think subtext automatically justifies the film. i need more. what about the politics made the rest of the movie acceptable?

Hendhogan, the line of acceptable vs unacceptable is different for everybody. I was pissed off at The Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake and 300; I wasn't pissed off at Hostel 2. I can't tell you anything else beyond what I think I have already said. Ultimately it's up to the individual.

One last time, about the Bathoiry scene.
The movie is about a globalized industry allowing the rich and priviliged to slice, torture and kill, something devouring, people from the lower classes, that are classified and price and offered for bidding sections.
There's a scene recreating the real life crimes of a Medieveal aristocrat killing and bathing in blood of peasant girls, in order to maintain her youth.
If you can't see the link then, well...

Hendhogan the movie was market as a slasher/horror movie. It was marketed for what it is.
If you want, we can start over a discussion as to why people goes to see horror movies, or read horror novels, or, hell, even listen to heavy metal.
I can tell you right now, that, no, it's not blood lust.

sorry, i think that's a cop out.

i believe i have a legitimate concern over the downward spiral of films in general and horror in specific. but my concerns are getting in the way of your entertainment and therefore are dismissable.

to put it up to individual taste means accepting the film as necessary and acceptable. i'm not willing to do that without a compelling argument in its favor.

In our country, the accused is innocent until proven guilty.

I mean what do you want, a set of guidelines? I'll give you one: I object to Texas Chainsaw and 300 because I think the audience is encouraged to root for the various murders to take place. I do not think that happens in Hostel. That's my line. I don't see where else this discussion can go because all matters of artistic judgment are ultimately up to individual taste.

it's also a combative process where both sides present their arguments for judgement.

i laid out a case. you countered with "individual taste." we take that to a judge, what verdict comes from it?

You haven't proven your case either; in large part because you haven't seen the movie. How would your 'process work for any film? How would I defend The Departed against charges that it's needlessly violent, pessmistic, and nihilistic? My response would only be to sat that its performances, dialogue, and direction make it a worthwhile artistic experience. I can only do the same for Hostel 2, albeit in a diminished manner. As far as I'm concerned, though, it does not need to be defended. You can't prove a negative, and I can't prove that it's not degenerate.

i'm not looking for you to prove a negative. argue the positive aspects of the movie. tell me what's worthwhile.

why did you enjoy it? it's your opinion, so it can't be wrong. we're not in a courtroom. we're two individuals (with sam occassional popping in) discussing opposite opinions of the same movie.

you want to throw out the "you haven't seen it" card, fine. has anything i've said been off-base or unfair in regards to "hostel, part II?"

and "the departed" is a bad example. i enjoyed watching the movie, but i don't think it's best picture material.

Why did I enjoy it? It was entertaining. It was cleverly written and featured a couple of scenes with true emotional resonance and intelligence. I'm pretty sure I said 'entertained' before and you compared it to lions and Christians.

Has anything you've said been off-base or unfair to it? Nothing except the insistence that it is contributing to the downfall of society and needs to be defended to those who disapprove of it sight unseen.

all right, i got it, jeff. the dude abides. i'll be returning your carpet to you.

Jeff,

"I object to Texas Chainsaw and 300 because I think the audience is encouraged to root for the various murders to take place. "

Can you really say the same is not true of Hostel II? I mean Jeff, I -HAVE- seen it and the Mattarozzo death scene is straight out of sexualized hard core S&M.

I wanted to return to the thread after I had seen it.

Once I saw the Bathory scene, it confirmed what I suspected. Had the woman bathing in blood been old and unattractive, maybe - maybe- the critique would work, but she is not. She is another one of Roth's attractive, sexy women. And the sequence is structured like hard core S & M, cutting pornography, right down to the way Heather goes on whimpering for minutes on end.

When Bathory finally slices her throat open, it is orgasmic. The blood gushes out like a literal orgasm to the agonizing minutes of foreplay that has preceded it.

Yes...one is asked to 'root' for the war in 300 and we can argue if it is justified or not. But some times there is a right and wrong side in a war.

Heather's death scene in Hostel II is designed to be masterbated to. Taken in context with his cheerleader Grindhouse scene, I cannot see how you cannot see Roth as anything other than a pure misogynist filmmaker. Yes, he has honed his craft with a bigger budget. Yes, he knows how to compose shots better now (that surprised me)...but to some degree, that makes it worse.

You can try to deconstruct language and meanings all you want saying Love, Actually is porn or this or that is porn, but ultimately that is just mental gymnastics.

Also, the Wall Street like sequence where they are bidding on the bodies on the net starts well and then goes to cheese when they start splitting the screen.

Anyway, I just wanted to offer my thoughts after going silent for a few days.

Understand, I do not think liking Hostel II makes you a bad person or anything, most will see it and not be affected. But it does open the floodgates to the mainstreaming of something that is much better left in the closet.

That does not help society. It makes it a whole lot worse.

I totally disagree about every one of your points.

1. In the Matarazzo scene you are sympathetic to her character and her sufferings. The scene is calculated as one of intense horror - meaning, something awful is happening and we, the audience, are powerless to do anything about it. Same as the dinner scene in the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre or where Frankenstein throws the little girl in the lake.
In the Texas Chainsaw sequel the characters are fashion mannequins whose bodies are fetishized from the opening frames of the movie. In 300...yes, sometimes a war can be _justified_ but that's a long war from making a movie where you whip the audience into a literal bloodlust.

2. I guess I can't agree it represents a hardcore S&M because I've never seen one of those. I would expect, though, that in such a thing you would actually see the blade going into Matarazzo's flesh, which is never shown until the final blow. I agree that the scene would be improved if it was an unattractive woman - good idea. Sure, you can masturbate to this scene, but I defy you to name a film that you can't masturbate to if you're in the mood.

3. The cheerleader scene in Grindhouse is a joke. Men and women alike recoil at it. There is similar genital mutilation in Hostel 2, remember? Roth does not fit my definition of a misogynist, which would be a filmmaker whose depiction of women illustrates a pervasive fear and loathing. The female characters of Roth's movies are treated exactly as his male characters. For examples of a misogynist movie, LaBute's The Wicker Man, or Norbit.

4. If we're judging a movie on 'does this help society or not' then you'd have to eliminate 75% of most television and movies. Roth does not deserve to be singled out.

Best.

Jeff,

"Sure, you can masturbate to this scene, but I defy you to name a film that you can't masturbate to if you're in the mood."

I think you're just being faux clever here, Jeff.

Thanks for the long post though.

Seriously, just because a scene has naked people in it, doesn't mean that the filmmaker is intending for it to be masturbated to. It means that he knows nudity will make the scene more provocative and discomforting. Crass and lazy? Maybe, but that's not what we're arguing.

Jeff,

"Seriously, just because a scene has naked people in it, doesn't mean that the filmmaker is intending for it to be masturbated to."

Of course. So then we have to look at the context.

I know you are sincere in your belief that Roth is a serious filmmaker, but do you at least try to understand why so many of us disagree?

I mean, you're bright. You must read the boards on AICN....you really do not think that with all of the sexual language used to describe horror and the structure of the scene, it is not meant to be sexual?

I mean I love horror like you Jeff, and to me it was painfully obvious. I mean Miike's stuff has S & M overtones but I never got the impression that a line was crossed. Here, I really felt like Eli wanted to share with us some of his personal fetishes (although not the killing obviously).

Do a quick net search, S & M sites show stuff every bit as stylized and structured as this in the same way. I am not trying to push the point, but Roth got those images from somewhere.

Of course I understand why you disagree. Do _you_ understand why _I_ disagree? (no, I do not read the boards at AICN...I shudder just thinking about it).

From my perspective, the scene of the girl tied up and menaced is just about as old as cinema itself. I don't know what you object to by referring to 'the structure of the scene' since accepted screenwriting tells us that the world's most standard structure for a scene or story is rising action building to a climax. The scene is sexualized, that's undeniable, but that's what makes it as good as it is - the combination of sex and death provides the viewer with a complex and unsettling experience.

It doesn't matter where Roth gets his images from, what matters is what he uses them for. Please remember that I think this is the weakest scene in this movie - but it's not indefensible.

this is what you said:

"As far as the Matarazzo scene goes, you have it about right. It could easily be plucked out of the movie and not make any significant difference, except that then there would be four horror beats in the movie instead of five."

you're arguing for a scene that by your own words does not have to be in the movie.

also, your own words:

"Why did I enjoy it? It was entertaining."

the scene did not detract from the entertainment, i take it.

your words:

"Crass and lazy? Maybe, but that's not what we're arguing."

so, would you call it crass and lazy if we were arguing those points?

and i know the challenge wasn't to me, but "schindler's list" & "river's edge" leap to mind.

The scene didn't have to be in the movie as far as the narrative was concerned, but then the Dream Ballet doesn't need to be in Singin' in the Rain as far as its narrative is concerned either. I'm not arguing 'for' the scene, I'm arguing against 'the scene is the worst scene ever filmed'. And no, the scene did not detract from the entertainment.

If the argument was "Hostel 2 is crass and lazy" I would agree, to a point, but for me the argument has been 'Hostel 2 is the worst movie of the year and Eli Roth should not be urinated on if he is on fire'.

I don't know what point Schindler's List and River's Edge are in reference to.

sorry, posts got in the middle.

but I defy you to name a film that you can't masturbate to if you're in the mood.

is the reference

Any movie with Keanu Reeves and Ione Skye in it could be masturbated to.

And re: Schindler's List, the junior Senator from Oklahoma disagrees with you:

"As a congressman in 1997, Coburn protested NBC's airing of the R-rated Academy Award-winning Holocaust drama Schindler's List. Coburn said in airing the movie NBC had taken television "to an all-time low, with full-frontal nudity, violence and profanity." He also said the broadcast should outrage parents and decent-minded individuals everywhere. Coburn described the airing of Schindler's List as "...irresponsible sexual behavior...I cringe when I realize that there were children all across this nation watching this program."

oh, and quit going to hyperbole. i never said it was the worst scene ever filmed, even if you do have quotes around it. and i never said "hostel, part II" was the worst film of the year or that bit about roth.

it's like the speech in "broadcast news" by albert brooks when he's "semi-serious here." and, no, i'm not comparing roth to the devil. but it's a lowering of standards, bit by bit. i've hit my floor. you have not and don't see the big deal.

I wasn't talking about you specifically.

Your final point is mostly correct, although I think (a) there are many, many, many things that should be assailed for the culture-wide 'lowering of standards' before getting to Eli Roth and a harmless, juvenile horror movie, such as the dumbing-down of the news and the insistent lies of politicians. You can say 'my disliking Hostel doesn't mean I don't dislike those things either' but every time you post here against Hostel is a time you're _not_ posting somewhere else demanding accuracy and balance from CNN or Fox News. And (b) I think it's disingenuous to say you have 'hit my floor' when you haven't seen the movie.

fair enough on "schindler's list" although disheartening.

keanu's in "much ado about nothing." now, i know some people like their shakespeare...

I'm more alarmed by Johnny Mnemonic. Now that was crap.

the scene was enough to "hit my floor"

disingenuous as you may feel it is.

and i disagree with "harmless."

Then to be fair you have a lot of other movies and TV shows to chastise.

which is fine by me.

but just because there are other movies and tv shows out there doesn't mean this one should get a pass either

Like I said: every time you post about this one movie means you're giving a pass to something else out there.

another dismissive comment from jeff, ladies and gentlemen.

It's not dismissive, I'm telling you that your efforts seem to be unfairly singling Roth out, thus indicating you're more interested in punishing him than in cultural issues at large.

first of all, i haven't personalized it. i don't blame roth. i have said before there were hundreds of people involved in the making of this movie.

second, you are getting obsessed with fairness.

third, this is a forum for this movie specifically.

i understand you far more than you realize and indeed understand me. to you this movie is entertainment and you don't want anyone to mess with your entertainment. there were times in the past when i felt that way too.

it's an interesting conceit that one can't be outraged by one thing unless he's outraged by all things. seems like a very difficult way to live. can't wait for the next time YOU don't like something.

Well, I already said that I didn't like the Texas Chainsaw Remakes or 300 or Norbit - they were all offensive in different ways - and I could name hundreds of movies that are inferior to Hostel 2. It's not that I 'don't want anyone to mess with my entertainment', with heavy connotations, for me it fundamentally is an issue of perspective and fairness. I see Roth and his movie being unfairly singled out and not given proper credit for what he does well. That's been my position from the beginning. Yes, this is a forum for this movie, specifically - that's why it's unfair. DP didn't run a column for how bad The Hills Have Eyes II was and I doubt that he'll run one for how bad Captivity will be, marketing issues aside. Roth gets attention because he's a media whore, which distracts from the movie itself.

let me see if i have this straight. it's unfair to single out this movie, even though it's only being singled out because the director is a media whore.

somewhere, mudd's robots are going wild.

I don't see how that's illogical. The director being a talented promoter has nothing to do with the content or form of the film.

but it does have something to do with it being singled out. something you are claiming is unfair.

Then review the man...not the movie.

sorry, i haven't seen the man. according to you that makes me unqualified.

in any case, i have no problem with the man. i have a problem with the specific choice of the specific scene.

how you find it acceptable to review anyone by how they promote themselves baffles me. it's like judging howard stern the person by what you hear on the radio. yeah, it's a part, but not the whole. where's your sense of fairness now?

You're confusing the issue. My point is, people are unfairly criticizing the movie. What kind of person Eli Roth is and how he promotes it are irrelevant to that issue, just like Mel Gibson's alcohol problems have nothing to do with Apocalpto and Roman Polanski's flight from justice has nothing to do with The Pianist.

no, you're confusing the issue. i'm not people, i'm me. i'm critizing a scene in a movie. it's been just you and me here for quite some time now, jeff.

and your examples lack parallel construction. mel gibson's drinking and roman's flight from justice have nothing to do with filmmaking, let alone the quality of that filmmaking. promotion does.

I don't follow your point. Roth being on TV and radio shows has nothing to do with the content of his movie and does not make it more worthy of criticism.

By that logic, we should be talking about Fantastic Four since that comes out this weekend and has the current biggest advertising push.

only if you want to talk about promotion in films.

many elements go into the making of a film. promotion is one of those elements.

now, sure, today you could argue that alcoholism and crime also are elements. but, geez, i don't think that would be very fair.

I still don't follow your point. I don't consider 'promotion' as something, like cinematography, editing, and acting, that goes into the making of a film.

so, i take it you've never been to a film market then. most films start as promotion. that's where the funding comes from.

No, I never have (thank god) and the funding for Hostel 2 came from the profit on Hostel 1, and even if it didn't I still don't see your point.

well, why start now?

I'm just trying to get you to explain yourself without my putting words in your mouth. I _think_ the point you are alluding to is that Roth sold his movie by telling investors 'it's gonna have girls getting killed, and they're gonna be naked' and the Lionsgate people said 'here's ten million dollars!' Which, while crass, _still_ doesn't really mean anything as far as the content of the finished film, in context, is concerned.

The fact that Eli Roth comes across as an arrogant, borderline stupid self-promoter who changes his story about the depth of his movie in every interview (today Elvis Mitchell could be heard sucking him off on NPR) is no reflection for me on the fact that this movie is contemptible and hateful (to its audience almost as much as to women).

i don't have a point about promotion. you brought it up. i just said it's inherent in filmmaking. you disagreed.

Oh, I thought we were arguing opinions, not facts.

we were. then you started talking about reviewing the man.

(that was to DP, not hh)

I brought up promotion because it seems like Roth is being slammed because he happens to give himself a higher profile than other similar directors. Hendhogan, you're the one who seemed to take the conversation into a whole other direction. If you don't have a point about promotion...why go on for so long?

why would you address something to DP when it's only been you and me for a couple of days now?

5:34 pm post.

ah, sorry, missed that

Actually, David, if you want to see someone come off as past the borderline of stupidity, read the Hostel 2 promotional interview with Bijou Phillips in the new Stuff Magazine. Pay particular attention to her remarks about the Czech Republic. Can you say "Ugly American"?

http://www.stuffmagazine.com/articles/index.aspx?id=1893

no thanks Joe--I don't think I can look! I hope no one believes the words of a chump, but then on IMDB peeps seem to think Slovakia not only has hostile Hostels but also vampires and currently-for-hire medieval torture dungeons. Many superior level cultural and industrial wonders exist in both countries but they are not likely to get as much press as a violent horror flick.

the bile by dimwitted peeps who believe that CR & SL are backward violent places courtesy of their own low wattage + Hostel movies then made me think that Borat should have been also set in a fictional country. Most americans would not know that Unownistan isn;t a real country anyway and we forget how much power American movies seem to have with their stereotypes...there are many low wattage people who seem to believe stuff without question.

To keep from getting sad about it, I just listen to a Mach piece to brighten my perspective.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPq0weuycyE&mode=related&search=

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)