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 s