comment #1

admiralmpj says ...

Dude, you've made me want to see this movie...

The problem is...these people you're talking about, they aren't morons. They're sick. Horror films in America gave up a long time ago on the notion of "giving you a good scare". No, what these freaks seem to get off on (and I do mean get off on) is watching people suffer. These are not people I want to share a theater with much less a country. (Though I understand there are openings at Palin rallies).

These people know what they want, and they know where to get it. Unfortunately, Let The Right One In, isn't going to do anything for them.

comment #2

The InSneider says ...

I think the older man Eli lives with is quite obviously not her father but her friend/lover, and it's Oskar's destiny to grow up to play the same function in her life, until of course, his time comes and the cycle continues.

comment #3

LYT says ...

I was touting Let the Right One In back when it played LAFF. It's entirely possible to enjoy both. And I certainly suggest people see the original before the Cloverfield guy does his remake.

But I will also be in line for Saw 5, primarily because of Tobin Bell. Endorsing real violence has nothing whatsoever to do with enjoying fictional violence.

comment #4

The InSneider says ...

I have to admit, I'll also be seeing Saw V, Thursday at midnight in fact after AICN's Trick r Treat screening. The first saw is quite ingenious, Jeff. The series gets progressively worse, to the point where I was groaning by the end of IV. But I also have to admit that Lionsgate's marketing campaign for V has been decent. The whole you won't believe what happens... I actually believe it. I'm looking forward to a twist or something on par with the original film, which left my jaw hanging when I first saw it. I hate the term torture porn. I think it's bullshit. It's true the Saw sequels have been awful but if this truly is the last chapter, I'm willing to give it a shot. Hopefully they'll bring back Cary Elwes.

comment #5

Geoff says ...

"Most horror fans will be going to Saw 5 this weekend..."

God that makes me want to puke. There are cool horror fans out there.

comment #6

Zach says ...

Perhaps the appeal of "torture porn" is attributable to the fact that people need to satisfy one of their most natural human instincts: bloodlust. And what more perfect way? It's completely harmless (as opposed to murder, war, etc.), not to mention thoroughly entertaining (unless you're a sandy wimp). And while I agree that the horror of today (i.e. American horror) is far inferior to what we experienced in the 70's, I'm not as critical with the Saws and Hostels of today because their intention just isn't the same.

Yours faithfully,
Moron

comment #7

ZayTonday says ...

I can't believe Lionsgate pulled Midnight Meta Train, and awesome movie, and yet is putting Saw 5 out.

comment #8

ZayTonday says ...

I meant Midnight MEAT Train.

comment #9

frankbooth says ...

I was gonna comment that the real problem with the Saw films is that they're completely idiotic and incompetently directed -- yes, including the first "good" one --

-- and then I saw this: "The first saw is quite ingenious, Jeff."

Consider the source. Over and out.

comment #10

huntermdaniels says ...

So what...Texas Chainsaw and Last House on the Left are worthless now just because they're bloody? And here I was thinking they were some of the first and most affecting salvos in the discussion of Americas foreign policy in the 1960's and 1970s.

These films deal with current political issues in ways that mainstream, on the nose features cannot. You decry people for not wanting to see political films about our current wars but then dump all over the only films that are actually dealing with the post 9/11 landscape?

Think about the films for a second.

And sure, I'm bias. I was at the very first test screening of Saw and have since made friends with a lot of the people involved with the films. And you know what? Not one of them is a "sicko" not one of them is a creep. (Okay, Eli Roth was...but Hostel is a different story).

You call it torture porn, but the first few films in the series had ZERO sexualized violence. None. Sure, the later entries have started to bleed into that territory, but that's irrelevant to this discussion because people who dismiss these films were calling them "torture porn" before the sex was even involved.

Yes, I read your article on the use of the "porn" but I disagree. The use of the phrase "torture porn" does in fact connote sexuality that is not actually present in the films.

And too, you ignore the fact that the Saw films are more story heavy than most any franchise I can think of. They aren't like the only Jason films where it was the exact same thing over and over again. These films have an evolving story that the fans actually care about. Look at the IMDB pages. There are a few discussions of the traps, but by and large the discussion is about the PLOT.

These films are no more pandering or low brow than the faux, un-hallenging pseudo-intellectual tripe that you spend so much time fawning over come Oscar season.

Iron Man with its' unrepentant misogyny, racism, ultra-violence and reinforcement of consumer culture and fascist colonial tactics is infinitely more offensive than Saw could ever hope to be.

comment #11

Pablo Villaça says ...

I saw it at Sao Paulo Film Festival this week. And yes, it's a great film.

comment #12

huntermdaniels says ...

That said, anyone standing in front of their theater marquee unsure of what to see would do well to choose LET THE RIGHT ONE IN as it is one of the best movies I've seen in ages.

comment #13

huntermdaniels says ...

Also, that should read, "un-challenging"

comment #14

gruver1 says ...

Wells to Luke Thompson: Hats off, colleague and kimosabe, for being on the train well before I was.

comment #15

Kim Voynar says ...

huntermdaniels wrote: "You call it torture porn, but the first few films in the series had ZERO sexualized violence. None. Sure, the later entries have started to bleed into that territory, but that's irrelevant to this discussion because people who dismiss these films were calling them "torture porn" before the sex was even involved.

Yes, I read your article on the use of the "porn" but I disagree. The use of the phrase "torture porn" does in fact connote sexuality that is not actually present in the films."

I don't disagree with everything you wrote, hunter, but you're wrong on this count. The term "porn" in this context has a sex-neutral meaning, as in food porn (in which one lusts over photos of particularly tasty cinnamon buns, chocolate cake or pot roast), shoe porn, purse porn, etc. It's about the lust incited by the object being used, not about the object itself having a particular sexual nature or function.

"Torture porn" refers to films in which graphic violence, human torture, prolific blood-letting and the like are used in a such a way as to allow the viewer to voyeuristically experience the thrill of the violent act.

You're right in that it's a proxy for the blood-lust inherent in our nature to a greater or lesser degree, depending on the person, just as sexual porn allows the viewer to experience through watching others whatever particular sexual kinks he might have that, for whatever reason, he's not acting on. Or not acting on as much as he'd like.

But "torture porn" does not, by extension, require that there be sexualized acts involved. It's what you, the viewer bring to the viewing experience that makes it porn, really, more than what's printed on the film.

comment #16

lazarus says ...

I was going to point that out, Kim, but you beat me to it.

I don't understand how someone could write out that long of a defense, and a fairly coherent one at that, while still completely misunderstanding the terminology they're talking about.

These films are crap, by the way, and this is coming from someone who is currently sampling and enjoying the films of Dario Argento.

comment #17

huntermdaniels says ...

hmmm, interesting point Kim. And I suppose you're right. Authorship is dead in some sense. I mean, I don't care what Bradbury says, Fahrenheit 451 is about censorship, you know?

But at the same time, the obnoxious stance of implied moral and intellectual superiority contained within almost every article to ever use the phrase "torture porn" would seem to imply that these films were literally pornographic. As in, the people watching were aroused, sexually.

And that argument fits some films. Certainly the likes of Captivity, Hostel: Part II and even portions of the extended DVD cut of Saw IV could fit this criteria. But, this description is far more befitting of films like Silence of the Lambs or 300.

Also, while I abhor sexualized violence, (double major in Film Studies and Women's Studeis) it can be used for a point. Hellraiser is a very erotic film. The sequels all fail because they don't grasp this. Se7en too is an extremely sexually violent movie. Same with the Alien franchise.

Come to think of it, the phrase torture porn is a summation of most of the work of Alfred Hitchcock. His films were about torturing women, cutting them up and putting them in pieces. It's all there, down to the way in which it is shot and edited (or should I say, cut).

The hatred these films receive is outsized and unearned. Yes, Let the Right one In is a brilliant and cerebral film. But that doesn't mean that ALL horror films have to be made in it's image.

Meanwhile, Welles heaps praise on Superbad...a movie about and encouraging teenage date rape as an acceptable and normative way of life. A film so deeply naive that it has a third act plot twist where we discover that women are capable of having sex drives.

comment #18

val says ...

It seems more moronic to me to call it "torture porn" I don't know who came with it, but it's a stupid term, there have always been gory exploitation films, what's the big deal?

comment #19

The InSneider says ...

Dear Frank Booth, blow me and then go fuck yourself. The first Saw kicked ass. Are you telling me you saw that ending coming? Cuz if you are then you're a lying piece of shit. The sequels may be reprensible crap appealing to the lowest common denominator (myself included) and the new one may be too but you haven't seen it yet so shut the fuck up and get off your righteous throne of indignity. Seriously, I will run you over with a tricycle.

comment #20

Rothchild says ...

The first Saw is a gigantic piece of shit. It's designed for idiots like MiraJeff.

Hunter, you're really projecting a lot on to Superbad.

comment #21

Rothchild says ...

Also, Let The Right One In is the best movie of the year so far. If it's anywhere near you go check it out.

comment #22

huntermdaniels says ...

Not at all Rothchild.

Superbad is a movie about 2 young geeks who decide to buy alcohol for the sole purpose of getting girls so inebriated that they lose the ability to think clearly and will thus be more likely to submit to sex acts.

This, my friend, is rape.

It is ethically rape.
it is morally rape.
it is legally rape.

It is no different than if the movie were about a 12 hour search for some roofies.

Also, InSneider, I guessed Saw really early on. I saw the the finger move when they pulled the tape recorder from the corpse's hand. I also did the quick run down of "who's least likely" and came up with the dead body. I mean, post-modern tinged non-linear narratives almost HAVE to end with a plot twist.

I actually think that part 2 is a vastly superior film. Saw is interesting but it fails in several basic ways. The narrative is too convoluted and things just don't really make any sense. There is no reason for Jigsaw to do half the things he does and the acting is atrocious.

However, the sequels have built on that in a way that is actually quite fascinating and intelligent. I mean, if Welles was asked to come up with a way to extend Saw into 6 features, he couldn't have done it. I guarantee you that.

And sure, the films are dumbed down, but if you're paying attention, the verisimilitude speaks to something greater. Furthermore, if you look at the narrative of the later films you will see that the filmmakers are actually playing off of the audiences expectations of what a "movie" is.

They use movie logic and then turn it in on itself.

For example, the "games" in the later films became more complex and grotesque. The fans wrote this off as simply par the course for sequels. But, in part 4 the screenwriters used that and turned it into the main thrust of the plot. Actually, that entire film is a predicated upon the concept that an audience will accept that two images are related if they are placed alongside one another.

Sure, the films aren't smart. And the acting and dialogue leaves one wanting on occasion, But, these films are culturally significant and worth examining from a film theory perspective.

comment #23

Chase Kahn says ...

I appreciated the first SAW when it came out, it was low-budget, genuinely scary, and although horribly acted, provided enough jolts and twists to warrant it as a cult favorite.

Now with SAW V, you'll have to put up with the 17 year old "Awww, dude!!" attitude, lauding at how many ways the human body can be eliminated. It's lost its appeal entirely for me...

comment #24

Rothchild says ...

Hunter:

1) It's a comedy.
2) They got the beer because the girls needed their help. That was their way into the party.
3) Jonah Hill's character's rant about being "that mistake" is an offshoot of his insecurity and self-loathing and also a joke. This is confirmed in the finale during his drunk rant.
4) Michael Cera gets the option of hooking up with a drunk girl and turns it down.
5) It's a comedy.
6) How in the hell did you compare Superbad to Saw? If you knew Mottola and Rogen in the way you "know" Bausman you'd probably say something different.

comment #25

huntermdaniels says ...

They didn't get the beer to impress the girls. They got the beer to facilitate access to sex. Not because the girls would think they were cool for getting beer but rather because they were looking to prey on the girl's inexperience with alcohol.

The fact that it's a comedy doesn't matter here because the filmmakers seem to have no awareness of the nature of the joke. If it had been a dark comedy about 2 wouldbe rapists, i probably would have laughed. As it is, the joke is just unintentionally about rape.

The scene where Cera says no to sex is unimportant because the women are so underdeveloped as characters that they come off as little more than props. This isn't a character reveal, it's a contrivance. it's halfhearted and a moment that is emotionally unearned.

How did I compare Superbad to Saw? I was just the first movie that came to mind when I thought of questionable editing. No one doubts that the Saw films are over-cut, what with their reliance of flashbacks to sequences that occurred 5 minutes ago.

But Superbad is just on a whole other level. I mean, most of the student films I've seen were better shot and edited. A flat, boring look (sans the excellent opening credits), near constant jump cuts, no respect for the 30% rule, nor any thematic reason for it to be broken. When it gets down to brass tax, Superbad was not only offensive, it was poorly made. But it doesn't have a 900k budget, 18 day shooting schedule and first time directors working in LA to explain it.

And I think I would be critical of Superbad even if I were chummy with Molotta and Rogen. If you'll note, I haven't been uncritical of the Saw films. I've said some less than kind things here. I gave IV a negative review.

I'm actually reading both films from the same detached perspective and looking at them more deeply than others are willing to.

As a sidenote, try Can't Hardly Wait on for size. It's an infinitely better variation on the themes of Superbad. Only, it's, you know, good.

comment #26

huntermdaniels says ...

Also, I gave Dead Silence a 2 out of 10.

comment #27

MartinBlank says ...

Believe me, I'd love to see Let the Right One In this weekend, as would many other horror fans, but it's only opening in four theaters, none of which are anywhere near me, or many other horror fans.

Also, the whole "torture porn" thing is another way for easily offended elders to deplore the tastes of the young. It's been that way forever, and it's especially that way during times of war, fear and upheaval. The kids going to see Saw V have had a childhood in the shadow of 9/11. Of course horror is more graphic now. It has to compete with the very real horror we all saw that day.

People shocked by what's going on in American horror movies clearly haven't seen much European or Asian horror of the last forty years. In fact, I imagine European and Asian horror fans laugh at prudish Americans who inveigh against "sick" horror much the same way Europeans laugh at prudish Americans who faint over the amount of sex in today's entertainment. America is the biggest exporter of violence — fictional and real — in the world, yet Americans have the gall to be self-righteous over horror movies that actually show how ugly violence is.

Finally, depicting people tortured in movies does not always equal inciting enjoyment of that violence. The identification in the Saw and Hostel films is very clearly with the tortured, not the torturers.

comment #28

bmcintire says ...

huntermdaniels:

"Superbad is a movie about 2 young geeks who decide to buy alcohol for the sole purpose of getting girls so inebriated that they lose the ability to think clearly and will thus be more likely to submit to sex acts.
This, my friend, is rape.
It is ethically rape.
it is morally rape.
it is legally rape.
It is no different than if the movie were about a 12 hour search for some roofies."

Except, in the case of SUPERBAD, your claim of rape (which is flat out over-the-top in terms of the story) would collapse under the condition that the girls gave the boys copious amounts of cash to purchase said "roofies" for them.

Your dissection of the SAW, movies, by the way, was probably the most cogent thing I have read about the structure of those films. I've avoided them so far, but am actually intrigued enough by your writing to give them a try. So kudos for that.

comment #29

huntermdaniels says ...

bmcintire

Thank you for the compliment. I think if you're willing to look at the movies in a larger context, you might find quite a bit more sustenance than you would expect.

However, in the case of Superbad, while I can respect your argument, I still disagree.

You see, a girl asking for alcohol is not the same as asking for sex. They asked these boys to produce alcohol and in exchange, the boys could come to a party where they might otherwise be unwelcome.However, the girls are not saying, "get alcohol and anything you want is yours." The argument you have put forth is little more than an extension of "a short skirt means she was asking for it" defense.

comment #30

The InSneider says ...

Rothchild, you suck, and yet, I'm not as upset when you call me an idiot as when Frank Booth says consider the source, as if my opinion is not to be trusted. That said Rothchild, as good as Let the Right One In, it's definitely not the best movie of the year. Don't get carried away with the hyperbole. And Hunter, that was a thoughtful deconstruction of the Saw films. Nicely done, mate. I would never call Saw 2 vastly superior to the original but to the sequels, sure, as 3 and 4 have really been shockingly bad, and 2 did have the pit full of syringes, right? Or am I mixing up my violent death traps? And the acting in the first Saw is campy but in a fun way. Besides Jigsaw, I'd say all of the performances in the sequel have been so awful it's close to embarrassing. But not as embarrassing as Dead Silence, which was a completely worthless film that James Wan should be ashamed of. Continuing, Superbad was funny as shit but it has become a bit overrated. It totally stole Knocked Up's thunder that summer but Knocked Up is 1 million times better than Superbad.

comment #31

huntermdaniels says ...

You are correct about Saw II being the one with the pit. And about Knocked Up's quality.

I do love Let the Right one In. I prefer Slumdog Millionaire and Waltz with Bashir, but it's a front runner for a top 5 films. But then, I clearly have a soft spot for genre fair.

comment #32

Rothchild says ...

People should consider the fact that you're a retard and you're always wrong.

Hunter,

I think you should just stay away from the comedy genre. You have no idea what you're talking about. That's okay, though. We can't be good at everything. I hate the Saw films but I appreciate your analysis. You've put a lot of thought into it and I can't really knock that.

The thing I do appreciate about the first Saw was how much the movie "works" for the budget and shooting schedule. That was incredibly, incredibly impressive. I'm not into the content, plot, characters, or twists, but they deserve major respect for pulling that off. You also have to give them points for making it an annual thing.

I've only seen the first 3, but the second one was probably the most entertaining. I may be harder on the films than necessary because a lot of their fanbase is questionable. You have that Hot Topic Slipknot weirdo crowd in full force. I also can't stand people who talk about the message of the film as if it's this profound and insightful piece of work. There's a level of craft that's respectable, but come on...

comment #33

Rothchild says ...

To be clear, I was calling MiraJeff a retard.

comment #34

huntermdaniels says ...

Well rothchild then we have found something we can agree on. I greatly dislike that whole nu metal-submental scene. (Though, Slipknot is far from the worst offender. Look more towards Cannibal Corpse for what you are really referring to).

And it's true, my sense of humor is skewed. I am a fan of darker stuff. Todd Solondz, Danny Devito, Stuart Gordon. That's my style.

But really, Can't Hardly Wait is a very good film.

comment #35

Rothchild says ...

Ha. Nice, Hunter. Nice.

comment #36

Jay T. says ...

Remember that the average serial killer has a very high IQ... so don't throw around the word moron to liberally. That's all I'm saying.

comment #37

LYT says ...

I love the first three SAW movies, particularly the developing relationship between John Kramer (Tobin Bell) and Amanda (Shawnee Smith). Part 3 ended things nicely, and part 4 was a cash-grab.

I will see part 5 out of curiosity, but have no high hopes. The trailers that implied a fake Christian movie did amuse me, though.

I don't care if people disagree, but I do resent when people impugn the character of horror fans. I am a hardcore pacifist in real life, but love fictional violence as an emotional outlet.

comment #38

Radewart says ...

Didn't Wells write some pretty positive things about the last Rambo movie, which is the king of gratious violence. Also, it fills the bloodlust the "animals" have revenge against the "evil" foriegners.

comment #39

frankbooth says ...

"I'll run you over with my tricycle."

Now that's a threat worth heeding, because it's all too plausible.

comment #40

LexG says ...

SAW.

FUCK YEAH.

comment #41

Gordie Lachance says ...

I guess from now on I will weigh David Ansen's opinions on films in with a little more weight than Jeff's.

Isn't this movie for the same demographic as Pan's Labrinth (another great film that could never have been made in America)?

Does Jeff really think "morons" read subtitles?

Does anyone still use the term "torture porn"?

comment #42

bmcintire says ...

Yeah, if the term "torture porn" hasn't already worn out its welcome, I don't know what has.
Oh wait, yes I do.
"Thrown under the bus" and motherfucking "In the tank." The exit is directly ahead of you, please proceed forward.

Anyway, I watched the first installment of SAW tonight. Y'all weren't kidding about bad performances! Who knew Cary Elwes and Danny Glover were actually terrible actors? And this film didn't do much toward convincing me that Tobin Bell is not a somnambulist.
SAW II is up for tomorrow night - though, weirdly, III and IV are not available for rent from AppleTV, only for sale (no thanks!). What's up with that?

comment #43

markj says ...

Wow, 'Let The Right One In' looks fantastic, thanks for the heads up!

comment #44

Joshua Mooney says ...

I find most so-called "torture porn" laughable. It's obviously fake-- particularly the American stuff. Some Japanese and German films get closer to the reality of "torture porn." But there's a black-market video called "Unabridged Agony" which is much more like the real deal, if you can find it. It's terrible stuff, and I can't say I enjoy it, but then, I obviously do, on some sick, detached, possibly sociopathic level. I don't at all mind seeing humans tortured, but I draw the line at animal suffering. Because animals are innocent. Even when Sissy Spacek's dog gets shot in "Badlands," mostly off-screen, I always cry. Clearly, I have mental problems. Therapy doesn't help, because I'm never honest with my therapists. Oh well...

As for conventional "scary movies," I watched the Hollywood version of "The Ring" the other night, and was reminded that I preferred it to the original Japanese "Ringu." I don't get why this version, with Naiomi Watts, was so panned by horror fans.

comment #45

Howlingman says ...

The Japanese original had me up until the ridiculous "BONK" sound effect when pops clubbed Sadako on the head before chucking her down the well -- couldn't stop laughing from that point in.

Oh, I guess that was a spoiler. My bad. But I though the remake was an improvement in this case, aside from the awful kid actor.

comment #46

huntermdaniels says ...

Ringu works only as a meta-narrative. It's an average film, but it became a cult sensation because the audience watching it upon it's first "release" in America was watching it on...poorly transferred bootleg videocassettes. As such, you end up feeling closer to the story because the lines or reality blur.

It almost felt like you could be watching a sick cursed video.

But, watching it on a crisp, clean, official DVD? Ringu is just sort of boring. Way too much exposition. The mood is on target but there's not much meat to it.

The remake is much better.

comment #47

Valentinus says ...

The hatred these films receive is outsized and unearned. Yes, Let the Right one In is a brilliant buy levitra and cerebral film. But that doesn't mean that ALL horror levitra drug films have to be made in it's image.