Hush, you. I can't concentrate on the, erm, "matter at hand", when you talk.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the first "Hostel" focused solely on the torture of young men (by other men), not women. As sick as the scene sounds, maybe Roth is just giving women equal time.

I would argue there's a real difference between Carpenter's "Halloween" and torture porn. (Rob Zombie's "Halloween" is likely to be another story.) "Halloween" can be boiled down to fear of the dark, fear of the bogeyman. Yes, people are killed, but they aren't tortured or mutilated. I think you also have to give Carpenter points for discretion; it's a very scary movie that isn't gory. Today's "horror" is a totally different story.

Jeff, my dues for the fuddy-duddy club are in the mail. In fact, reading this piece gives me hope for you, and I'll be sending you some information about joining the vast Right Wing Conspiracy. In all reality, there are two forces at work here, both of them equally bankrupt morally and spiritually. One is what I call ?immoral capitalism,? that is, the kind of capitalism that will do anything for a buck. That ranges from cultural corruption like gangsta rap and Roth?s whack-fest to the Ford Corporation not changing the Pinto?s gas tank design. The other has to do with the vast spiritual emptiness of much of modern society, where the average person is deeply disconnected from a meaningful contribution to the world. While working on a farm was hard, even brutal work, one could see the tangible results of their labor. If the cows didn?t get milked, nobody had milk. If the crops were not weeded, etc. How much glory comes from the work many of us do to survive? This leads, I suspect, to an aching hole in the soul that people try to fill with almost anything: food, sex, drugs, sensation (such as the Roth/Tarantino junk). Maybe age, and bruising collisions with real life (loss, death, heartache, yet with the occasional real success) help one gain a different perspective on what is meaningful and valuable.

Jeff, my dues for the fuddy-duddy club are in the mail. In fact, reading this piece gives me hope for you, and I'll be sending you some information about joining the vast Right Wing Conspiracy. In all reality, there are two forces at work here, both of them equally bankrupt morally and spiritually. One is what I call “immoral capitalism,” that is, the kind of capitalism that will do anything for a buck. That ranges from cultural corruption like gangsta rap and Roth’s whack-fest to the Ford Corporation not changing the Pinto’s gas tank design. The other has to do with the vast spiritual emptiness of much of modern society, where the average person is deeply disconnected from a meaningful contribution to the world. While working on a farm was hard, even brutal work, one could see the tangible results of their labor. If the cows didn’t get milked, nobody had milk. If the crops were not weeded, etc. How much glory comes from the work many of us do to survive? This leads, I suspect, to an aching hole in the soul that people try to fill with almost anything: food, sex, drugs, sensation (such as the Roth/Tarantino junk). Maybe age, and bruising collisions with real life (loss, death, heartache, yet with the occasional real success) help one gain a different perspective on what is meaningful and valuable.

ernie is right. Two of Carpenter's early films, Halloween and The Fog, most likely wouldn't even be rated R if they came out today. The violence is quick and/or discreet, and it is not bloody at all.

My point about Halloween being brought in, in additiona to being a big fan, is that the victims are just as likely to be men as women. The boyfriend killed in the kitchen and the driver of the stolen truck (not shown on screen), in addition to the 2 women who bite it. By they way, Michael Myers kills a dog, on screen, in Halloween. Most likely by choking it, so I think that theory about dogs being killed goes out the window.

I would go earlier than Carpenter and Halloween. I think Wes Craven's Last House on the Left would be a more appropriate comparison to Roth's work. Roth actually has the same song playing in the beginning of Cabin Fever as Craven has playing in Last House. That was 1972 as well, so Roth is not starting this or finishing it. Craven's film has roots in Bergman's 1960 film The Virgin Spring too, so I think we should be more careful before we say this is a new phenomenon.

I just don't think it's about sex. Saying these movies are about sex is like saying rape is about sex. It's about power. The power to "buy" another person to simply torture and/or kill him/her. Hello, those photos from Abu showed us that we love to torture. Always have.

Let's take it easy everyone. We seem to be giving Roth more credit that he deserves. All he is doing is pushing the limit in the hopes of making a quick buck. Yes, its despicable and these kinds of films deserve to fail miserably but I doubt if they will since people (some) like to be shocked.

I think Ernie hits the nail on the head. There are essentially two separate, but interrelated, tracks here. There is the "horror movie" track, which seeks to scare through various means, only one of which is gore. Then there is the "can you take it" track, in which the audience member proves his fortitude by watching something horrible without looking away. The first may include the second, but not necessarily. Films like Carpenter's Halloween may induce a cringe, but they use a minimum of gore in doing so. His version of The Thing is another matter.

The second track goes back way before Halloween, to French Grand Guignol, Dali's Un chien andalou and the films of Dario Argento and Herschel Gordon Lewis. But the state of the art in special effects is such that the bar is repeatedly raised. Thus, we get "torture porn." Since films like the original Evil Dead, the aforementioned Thing and Stuart Gordon's Re-Animator can produce the endurance factor without introducing a torture aspect, I would argue that there is no redeeming factor to the torture porn genre. It makes explicit not only misogyny, but also misanthropy on the whole.

What is sad is that films like Halloween and Psycho get lumped into the same group. It's also sad that today's audiences and, apparently, filmmakers equate the first group with the second and think that torture equates to horror, which simply isn't the case.

"One line that will never be crossed is dog torture. "

Man do I hate to bring this up, since I'm hoping it's fake, but some Cambodian family eats a dog in Faces of Death part 4.

The most successful of these would-be shocking films, like "Man Bites Dog," "Irreversible" or "The Devil's Rejects," all play on notions of the audience's complicity by cleverly, subversively shifting tone and moral allegiances. Eli Roth's agenda is much more cynical. He seems to think he's winning a one-man battle to return '70s-styled horror movie sex and violence - boobs and blood, basically - to the big screen, when if fact he's doing something totally different. His films aren't scary. They're not even disgusting. They're soulless, witless and boring, which is what ultimately makes them offensive. They're not anything to think about so much as self-satisfied indulgences to sit through, which misses the whole point of movie making.

Now, if Hostel 3 turns out to be about animal torture, that’d be another matter entirely. If Roth had balls and really wanted to push boundaries, he’d go the vivisection animal testing porn route. I’d be curious to hear him defend that the same way he’s been defending what’s he’s done so far. Funny how much we’ll put up with from fake human victims and their fake tormenters, but how little we’ll put up with when it comes to fake pets.

I read an interview of Roth's in some guild magazine. He talked how he went to the same ristorante as Fellini did and wrote Hostel II while he was in Rome. That he would put Hostel II and Fellini in the same sentance made me chuckle. The dude thinks he is a filmmaker.

When you read the interview, it's clear he has issues. He also knows people are going to be upset about the torture "because something abou women getting tortured makes it worse."

Until one of these movies flops, Hollywood will keep churning them out.

Eli Roth makes puerile, corrupt and sadistic pictures. Anyone who claims to enjoy them is also puerile, corrupt and sadistic. End of story.

I had to skim this post in a vain effort to miss Jeff's reckless use of spoilers, but there's still one conclusion that needs to be discussed. Parent/grandparent-aged men who complain that Hostel is crossing a line of good taste are playing directly into Roth's hands. It's like the White House investigating Michael Moore. Some people want to see films that cross lines and expose their audience to unfamiliar cinematic scenarios, PARTICULARLY if moral watchdog types are crying foul. Roth is like Marilyn Manson. The more outrageouos his work gets, the more it frightens old people and the more it appeals to its core, teenage audience.

This also reminds me of something John Lennon said to a hostile reporter during his "bed-in" with Yoko. I'm paraphrasing, but he said "...you want safe, palatable, middleclass revolution, but I'm giving you the real thing." Well, people like Jeff -- who know virtually nothing about horror -- want safe, watered-down horror (ie. The Omen re-make!?!), whereas most real horror fans want to see something new, real, shocking, and terrifying. How a horror film can be condemned for being disturbing is beyond me.

@ Vitesse98: the idea that there's anything clever about playing on the audience's complicity is arguable at best. The audience-complicity message is a shallow one, and the pop approach of the films you mentioned has had little to say on the subject. Oliver Stone had no more to say about it in Natural Born Killers. Ridley Scott had no more to say about it in the repugnant Hannibal.

In fact, Hannibal was so disgusting because of its cynicism... it's entire raison d'etre was the supposed popularity of Hannibal Lecter. I don't know if the book has the same problem at its root, but Scott takes the audience's "identification" with Hannibal and then, though probably seeking to "play it" as some kind of pop-crap social critique, indulges the violence w/o showing its greater consequences. The audience is consequently just as brutalized as the characters, but without the context to come away with any moral or spiritual lessons.

The question I have for this forum is, how did the concept of identifying with violence vicariously evolve into something fun? I was at the E3 video-game expo a couple of years back and was shocked that 99% of the games had their idea of fun built around violent acts. Even Namco's Hello Kitty game, ostensibly for younger girls, had the Hello Kitty character beating the crap out of aliens with her purse.

The market is saying that aggression is fun. Violence is a release. Escape from violence is a rush. Yeah, these things are probably true under certain circumstances. But a healthy culture would teach us there are alternatives even *under those circumstances*. There are other ways to project and measure and feel power, even viscerally.

"...you want safe, palatable, middleclass revolution, but I'm giving you the real thing."

What . . . By sitting in bed? Bold.

You're obviously not familiar with the story, Jesse. The revolution was in what they were saying, not what they were doing. The idea was that, by lying in bed, they could get journalists to show up and report on issues and ideas that weren't being covered by the mainstream press (ie. what they were saying). And the point isn't that this was some kind of bold, obvious stab at revolution that could be easily labeled and dismissed, it was genuinely odd and enigmatic, forcing people challenge their status quo assumptions and putting them in a questioning state of mind. Regardless of their message, that alone was a revolutionary act.

You're obviously not familiar with the story, Jesse. The revolution was in what they were saying, not what they were doing. The idea was that, by lying in bed, they could get journalists to show up and report on issues and ideas that weren't being covered by the mainstream press (ie. what they were saying). And the point isn't that this was some kind of bold, obvious stab at revolution that could be easily labeled and dismissed, it was genuinely odd and enigmatic, forcing people challenge their status quo assumptions and putting them in a questioning state of mind. Regardless of their message, that alone was a revolutionary act.

"As sick as the scene sounds, maybe Roth is just giving women equal time."

right, because they're long overdue.

i think about that 18 year old girl that was just kidnapped over the weekend and what hell she's probably going through and why roth wants to contribute more female torture to the world.

one of the pimps on aicn giddily refered to HOSTEL as "frat horror" -- which makes sense given that the kind of people most likely to get off on this would be frat boys and their ilk -- like roth.

it's a tough question, but like poland, i feel for the actress who to earn a living has to dance naked before this little boy. but the vitrol towards HOSTEL 2 on aicn has been extreme and i hope it plays out when the film opens.

I really hope I didn't just see someone compare Roth to Argento. For shame! Hostel was garbage, it was an ugly and simple-minded movie, which is the opposite of a great Argento film.

I've always believed that a great horror film needs a hero, or at least someone to root for. There has to be an element of hope set against the horror. Hostel is just about people torturing and murdering each other. There's no hope for the characters, well, besides the hope that they will be murdered in an inventive fashion. This pushes the audience into a dark place and I really don't think anyone benefits from that.

All my favorite horror flicks (Evil Dead 2-3, Dead Alive, Romero's Dawn of the Dead, Slither, Tremors, Nightmare on Elm Street, Phantasm, Dog Soldiers, Alien) have a protagonist to act as a foil against the enemy. Someone who has the capability and desire to take on the bad guys, or at least the brains to figure out what everyone else has missed. Without this element, a horror film is incomplete.

If you are going into a movie just to see people being tortured and murdered, there is something seriously wrong with you.

Yes, I have been over at AICN where Harry Knowles has been swamped by people critical of the wall-to-wall HOSTEL 2 kiss-ass coverage there, with Knowles having to resort to banning some of the zillions of negative posters. It seems that the consensus over at AICN is that liking Eli Roth and his rancid pictures makes you about as as hip as a seventy-six year-old Sinatra bobby-soxer. You force-feed peope enough bullshit and eventually they get sick and throw up.

Don't misunderstand, Bocephus. Roth is clearly not in Argento's league. Hell, to paraphrase QT, he's not even playing the same sport.

I merely meant to point out that some forms of shock horror, of which Argento is clearly a practitioner, preceded Carpenter's Halloween. Argento, like Mario Bava before him, is a master of giallo, the Italian horror genre that depends more on visual shocks than implied horror. I didn't mean to imply that Argento is a practitioner of torture porn.

Did you get to see Argento's recent entry in the Masters of Horror series, Jenifer? Talk about shocking. And yes, the monster in that movie disembowels and eats a pet cat. Dario's still got it.

Have any of the people bashing Roth here even seen Hostel 2? And why not look at Roth in perspective? Compared to the mindless, unwatchable junk that is the Saw franchise or any of the horrible horror remakes that have been released in recent years, Roth's films are surprisingly complex and coherently-crafted. As for the complaint that there are no heroes in Hostel, why can't this be seen as, God forbid, an original idea. Roth is very deliberately putting the audience in the middle of a conflict with no comfortable resolution (no matter who wins, some form of evil/corruption survives), which is obviously relevant to the Bush Administration vs. terrorists dynamic. And even if you don't buy that, a case can certainly be made that the young American characters in that movie are naive and experience some form of moral awakening -- at least the one surviving character does -- which is mixed with the ambivalent, Peckinpah-esque twist that he needs to commit a horrible act of violence in order to transition into this new sense of enlightenment.

In any case, the female protagonists in Hostel 2 are likable, heroic characters... but that won't stop people like Bocephus from later criticizing the film for allowing bad things to happen to good characters. As long as horror filmmakers deal with unpleasant subject matter, squeamish audiences will find a moral reason to object. They'll complain, as Gnome does above, that torture is being used to give an audience pleasure. But if this is true (I don't think it is; the torture in Hostel is very deliberately unpleasant), where do you stand on a film like Saving Private Ryan? Is that film using brutality to offer its audience pleasure? Of course not. Like Hostel, it's using brutal violence to lend a sense of weight and credibility to its drama. And don't give me the tired non-fiction defense. WW2 was real, but the characters in SPR were completely invented. In fact, a case could be made that SPR is more exploitative than Hostel because it uses the resonance of real suffering to give weight to a fictional scenario.

I'm a fan of horror films, a fan of "Hostel" and I actually DID like "Hostel Part II" (or at least the DVD of it I purchased on Canal Street), but I kind of agree with Poland about that scene.

I'm usually the "cop" in these situations with my friends, advocating for the artists that are hurt by the act of stealing intellectual property. I.E. buying screeners on the street, downloading the movies off the net...etc

But in this case, I've made an exception.

I hope Hostel 2 gets "Soul Plane'd" times 10.

Yeah, horror films always try to wring 'fun' out of things that are icky and gruesome and sometimes kind of disturbing, but usually they know when to differentiate or are very careful how they combine the two.

The problem with the Matarazzo death scene is, it wants to be shockingly funny and elicit whooping and "OH MY GAH!" in response to the hot european woman rubbing blood all over her tits while moaning orgasmically-- however, I found it difficult to partake in the "fun" in this scene where this teenage character we've grown to like a lot and pity, is crying and screaming things like "Mommy!" right before her throat is cut.

The problem is, this scene isn't repulsive because of the violence, but because of Roth's decision to go in that direction. Maybe this was the reaction he was going for, but it doesn't jibe with the tone of the rest of the film for me, or the first one for that matter either.

I've seen the Hostel films and I don't see how anyone could view them as anything other than disturbing and utterly hollow. From every interview I've read, Roth doesn't have anything to say, he is just trying to see how much he can get away with. I won't deny that he is a talented filmmaker who gets his vision on screen; but what a fucked up vision.

I just don't see how anyone can defend, justify or intellectualize this type of brutality against women. I don't understand how this is entertaining.

from aicn's mirajeff on the moral complexity of HOSTEL 2:

"But I for one, look forward to spending money to see Weinerdog get cut open like a Thanksgiving Day turkey, and am even more excited to see a hot naked chick bathe in her blood."

nuff said.

I wonder what makes this so different from Man on Fire, which I recall Jeff kind of enjoyed. It's okay if Tony Scott has Denzel cut peoples fingers off with garden sheers and cauterize the wound with a car's cigarette lighter, or shoves plastic explosives up a guy's ass... what, because they deserve it? Hell, the great revelation in that movie is that Dakota Fanning is still alive, which, if you ask me, robs the film of any claim to moral high ground over something like Hostel.

The fact is that, in the first Hostel, at least, and many of the other films in the 'torture porn' genre, the violence in the first two acts merely sets up our bad guys as REALLY bad, far more deserving of their third act fates than Scott's kidnappers. They're basically revenge films, just told wildly out of proportion. And I think, just like in a Tony Scott film, the appeal is visceral, not sexual.

I like most of the so-called "torture porn" movies, but there are at least two horror films that crossed the line for me (though I still support the filmmakers' right to make them) -- I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE and Dave DeFalco's CHAOS. The former, because it played its extended, realistic rape scene partially for laughs, then offered only a fleeting moment of vengeful catharsis at the end. The latter, because it wasn't especially skillfully made but was loaded with really nasty stuff, and never had any dramatic tension -- there was no question but that the villains would get away with it, and then the movie has the nerve to try to position itself as a cautionary tale, rather than an excuse to show forced-cannibalistic-vomit-soaked-rape.

The Saw movies, however, are more character based than people give them credit for -- I really like the work Tobin Bell does as Jigsaw. They're also essentially an extension of the old playground speculative game "Would you rather..." (i.e. "Would you rather chop off your hand, or chop off your foot?").

Haven't seen Hostel II yet, but all of Eli Roth's films so far have been too campy and over-the-top to get righteously indignant about.

"And even if you don't buy that, a case can certainly be made that the young American characters in that movie are naive and experience some form of moral awakening -- at least the one surviving character does --"

I like "Hostel", but I don't see the same moral awakening in that character. Most of what he does after his brush with being tortured to death is about getting revenge; something he still would have sought with an immoral heart.

(To be clear, I'm not quibbling wth the decision to off a likable protagonist, but to clearly revel in her pain and death, and deciding to cut between her snot/tear covered face screaming 'mommy' and a hot babe using her screams to cum. This scene is the definition of 'torture porn' to me-- I have no doubt some men in the theater will be getting stiffies during this sequence.)

From the Joblo.com review:

"Wait till you see that blood bath incident. It had me grinning and popping wood for some reason... at the same time?!? Yup it’s shrink time...again…"

Your reaction is most likely what Roth is going after... better to be controversial (and rich, I suppose) than boring and irrelevant. You can call him tasteless (and it sounds like this is certainly the case), but the amount of amateur psychoanalysis I'm reading about this film in connection to its director is laughable.

Good job bringing in Saving Private Ryan and Man on Fire. Those movies push the envelope to make the audience squirm.

Hostel 1 has a hero. He escapes and punishes the baddies who torture him and others. Also, there are women being tortured in Hostel 1. Hello! The Asian girl "saved" gets it pretty bad with a blowtorch. Do people just bash these movies without seeing them and then also bash them without putting them in context?

Torture is personal, so it hits home as more violent or "sick" than thousands slain in other films. The violence in Kill Bill is "cool" or "ballet," but Roth can't torture? The scary part of these movies is that people in this world actually get off on this stuff in reality. At least the audience and video gamers are getting off on the idea of it only.

Or not. I feel dirty either way!

Posted by: Ian Sinclair: "Anyone who claims to enjoy them is also puerile, corrupt and sadistic. End of story."

Generalizations like this don't make any sense, you know that, right? I'm not even a fan of Eli Roth, but I'll gladly err on the side of personal taste and individualism in art appreciation, rather than your sort of stupidly broad and prudish bullshit. People say the stupidest shit in response to transgressive material, I swear...

Yeah. I don't think Roth is genuinely misogynistic like some claim. I think he just crosses what limited boundaries there should be, even for a horror film.

(And once again, I DID like 'Hostel Part II,' I just had issues with the Matarazzo scene. The cock-chopping and other scenes in the third-act jibed just fine with me)

"Generalizations like this don't make any sense, you know that, right? I'm not even a fan of Eli Roth, but I'll gladly err on the side of personal taste and individualism in art appreciation, rather than your sort of stupidly broad and prudish bullshit. People say the stupidest shit in response to transgressive material, I swear..."

Really? I think he makes perfect sense. And frankly, being completely turned off by a film like this is not prudish or stupid, it's a logical and honest response.

As someone who saw the first Hostel, I hope it's as gory/bloody/disturbing as you say it is. It is, after all, just a movie. I see films like this as a chance to escape, see fantasy on the big screen. And nobody gets hurt. I'm sure it will turn off people, but I think it might be number 1 next weekend. I, for one, am tired of the franchises, and the summer's only just begun. I understand Roth is going to film "Cell", from the Stephen King book. I wonder how gruesome that will be. Zombies unleashed on the screen. It will be interesting to read people's reactions after the movie is out.

"Regardless of their message, that alone was a revolutionary act."

I understand what you're saying, JD, I just don't buy it. It was an anti-war protest that just happened to have more media coverage. It didn't end the war, and the world is in a much darker place than it was before The Great Nap of Peace.

The word "revolution" is used WAYYYY too much.

As for Hostel: I watched the torture scene Poland is describing online. The online reviewers proclaiming their arousal at it are kind of creepy, although in their defense, how often do they see tits?

Movie Watcher, NO chance it comes in first. It'll be very very lucky to come in third, but more likely to come in fourth, behind "Ocean's Thirteen," "Surf's Up," and "Pirates"... A $20 million weekend sounds about right.

"I like "Hostel", but I don't see the same moral awakening in that character. Most of what he does after his brush with being tortured to death is about getting revenge; something he still would have sought with an immoral heart."

It's subtle -- and, as I mentioned, there is some ambivalence -- but the idea that he tries to save one female victim of exploitation after earlier exploiting women himself seems intended to convey some form of awakening.

"I understand what you're saying, JD, I just don't buy it. It was an anti-war protest that just happened to have more media coverage. It didn't end the war, and the world is in a much darker place than it was before The Great Nap of Peace."

Okay, but my point wasn't really about Lennon, it was about his remark to a journalist re: sugar-coated acts of rebellion. Whoever mentioned Kill Bill is right. Cartoonish violence is respected, no matter how grotesque, because it isn't real or meaningful beyond the boundaries of the movie theatre. But those who create real, disturbing screen violence are condemned for being too sick. I say this as someone who does not enjoy realistic screen violence, but feels it has cinematic validity. Some of you write about this subject as if Roth is really torturing these people... and let's not forget the real world torture that so many of these same moral watchdogs are so quick to forgive and forget (ie. Abu Ghraib).

Mostly nonsense from two guys (Poland and Wells) who don't understand the movies they're talking about (or who haven't seen them, in the case of Wells).

Wells: "I'm wondering if there's a line of any kind out there, or whether we've passed in a moral-spiritual realm in which lines have basically ceased to exist."

It depends on what your definition of 'drawing a line' is. If you define it as not seeing the movie in question, then yes I have a line and I probably won't be crossing it for Hostel 2 and I expect most movie goers feel the same way. That's a pure guess since I haven't looked up how much the first Hostel made and even if I did I couldn't say with confidence it represents a minority or majority of movie goers. If anyone wants to say I'm full of shit on that point, that's fine.

Anyway, if you define 'draing a line' as not allowing the movie in question to be made, then no, I don't have a line there.

In my perfect world, people like Eli Roth or whoever can make the sickest, most degradingly wretched, steaming pile of noxious shit their damaged little brains can conjur up, but nobody goes to see them.

Also in my perfect world, Scarlett Johansson and Jessica Alba would be having a nude pillow fight in my office right now, but that's not going to happen either.

It made $46m theatrically and certainly tens of millions on video.

Or less than a third of what Wild Hogs made.

JD: "How a horror film can be condemned for being disturbing is beyond me."

So, I guess genre is everything. "How a snuff film can be condemned for filming actual deaths is beyond me."

Movies are not made in a vacuum. They are a part of the time they were made in.
In the era of Alu grab and Guantanamo, in an era where the USA is taking a page from the third Reich when it comes to "enhanced Interrogation techniques" (enhanced interrogation techniques" is a decent English translation of the Gestapo euphemism "verschaerfte Vernehmung" which was the code word for torture in the Third Reich)

Mr Roth thought in an age such as this, rather than examine torture and revenge as a phenomenum, it was high time we "got wood" from it. The problem is we wern't getting sexually excited enough by it.

I'm not for censorship, but my lord.

Socially irresponsible doesn't begin to cover it.

hey, as long as troops dig it.

i think about the disturbing hotel room scene in THE DEVIL'S REJECT'S and how zombie shot that where there is no snarking about the victims, and i found DR artful if not morally queasy. but zombie wasn't laughing behind the camera.

whereas roth and co seem to really give each other high fives for their frat-infantilism. and i can hear roth getting a boner as he films his torture. i dunno.

Jeffmcm, I'll be interested to hear what you think of Hostel 2 if/when you see it. Since you're a fan of the genre, but also a mostly clear-headed, rational individual I trust your opinion of the movie more than a Wells/Poland on one hand or the guy Monument quoted on JoBlo.com on the other.

And JD, is the only thing that elevates Roth's work above Saw and the others you mentioned the fact that you perceive a relevant subtext in the Hostel movies? If you saw them as just horror for horror's sake, would they still be acceptable? Does a horror film have to 'mean' something?

I think what is bothering people is the thought that Hollywood is embracing the Italian cannibal film aesthetic, as it were. The problem isn't that Hostel II has been made, but that it has been taken out of its plain brown wrapper and is being marketed like any mainstream film. What is interesting is that over the past quarter century, home video has significantly expanded the interest and appeal of genre movies, to the point where this sort of marketing campaign may well be viable, much to the consternation of those who would rather look the other way.

"Some of you write about this subject as if Roth is really torturing these people... and let's not forget the real world torture that so many of these same moral watchdogs are so quick to forgive and forget (ie. Abu Ghraib)."

You hit upon something for me . . . the primary thing that turns me off from all of the recent "torture porn" is that torture is such a pertinent issue in the world right now . . . To use it as entertainment obscures the disastrous effects torture has had on us as a nation.

Of course, this is not criticism of the movie's actual content, so I'll be moving along.

How is it that watching it is better than partaking in it? Even if you say that you're not going to ever do something like torture a person, aren't you in some way saying that it's okay for it to happen?

It's like saying you want to kill your boss - you probably won't do it, but the seed is there and you've acknowledged that under different circumstances you could do it.

Jesse: by that logic, war movies should be looked down on because war certainly kills more people than torture, yet many millions of people went to be entertained by the movies of Spielberg, Eastwood, etc.

Aladdin: I'll give you a choice, would you rather eat your own fingers, or watch a film in which someone eats their own fingers? Because there's an obvious difference.

There are multiple questions in play here. Is it "ok" to enjoy Hostel-type movies? Is it merely a question of the quality of these flicks?

Is it "ok" to make movies like this? (Again, or is it just a question of the quality & "subtext"?)

Is it "ok" to distribute these movies to the public? i.e. is ok to create this kind of flick for people who enjoy it?

Well, here are some hypotheticals. Those of you answering yes to the above, regardless of what you think of quality issues, what would you say if you found out US troops were being shown the Saw and Hostel series as part of their training?

What if US interrogators were being shown these films as part of their training?

What if we found out al-Qaida fighters watched these films as part of their training?

Would any of the these scenarios change your answers to the first 3 questions above? Would any of them cause justified public outcry against the filmmakers?

I'm guessing the attitude is that it's all fun and games until someone loses an eye, and even then...

Yes to all, and none of your hypotheticals would change anything. You can watch The Battle of Algiers to learn how to both fight - and fight against - a militant insurgency. You can watch Schindler's List to learn where a civilian population would find hiding places from an armed police force. You can watch American History X to learn how to curb-jaw someone.
But the desire to do those things comes first. Plus you can also read a book to gain all of that information.

Given the choice between the two, I'd pick neither. Obviously, I like my fingers, so I'd rather take the viewing of said film.

I don't necessarily have a problem with torture onscreen. It's going to be uncomfortable for me to watch, but I do think the attitude behind the camera has a lot to do with my intellectual response. Is it a fetish or is it a place from disgust? I don't get the latter vibe from these types of films though.

No matter how the film is missused, I'm still ok that it exists.

Torture is still wrong, but a film simulating torture is not.

Marketing a film that simulates torture to minors on the other hand, I'm not ok with. Though Hostel 2 is appropriately rated, you can't tell me the filmmakers aren't counting on underage kids seeing it. How do Hostel 2 supporters feel about that?

the us army trains soldiers on video games based on DOOM.

Chris: "So, I guess genre is everything. 'How a snuff film can be condemned for filming actual deaths is beyond me.' "

This is a deeply clueless comment. Snuff filmmaking is not a genre, it's a criminal act. As long as Roth is simulating acts of violence and not actually perpetrating them, his moral ground is no more suspect than any director who makes gruesome gangster films (Scorsese) or war films (Spielberg). You're literally equating the filmmaker with the acts perpetrated in his movie. Should we treat Francis Ford Coppola like he's Don Corleone or Quentin Tarantino like he's Vincent Vega?

Christian: "And JD, is the only thing that elevates Roth's work above Saw and the others you mentioned the fact that you perceive a relevant subtext in the Hostel movies? If you saw them as just horror for horror's sake, would they still be acceptable? Does a horror film have to 'mean' something?"

No, a horror film doesn't have to mean something and the subtext of Hostel is not what distinguishes it from the Saw films, etc. Unlike the Saw films, Hostel demonstrates a great deal of structural savvy. Roth builds dread, defines his characters, keeps them active, and surprises the audience. The Saw films just throw a random set of generic, undefined characters into a room and show bad things happening to them. People forget that Hostel actually subverts pretty much every one of its premises and there's a genuine sense of both development and out-of-left-field surprise. The film even exhibits a welcome sense of humor in a few key moments and a really strong, controlled visual sensibility. It's not for everyone (obviously), but it's simply better than most of the other horror films that are being made right now.

And Gnome de Guerre, you are a typical censor. You believe that society is filled with violent psychopaths who are just waiting for a movie like Hostel to show them how to enact their fantasies. But violent people don't need movies to show them how to be violent. The American military is going to torture innocent people whether they watch Hostel or Mary Poppins. It's what they do.

Movies deal primarily in metaphor. That's why a story about two people who have nothing to do with you can still touch you: you find parallels between their story and your experiences and the sum of those two things creates drama. The same is true of Hostel and it's relationship to torture in the real world. The movie is a response to torture (not an inspiration for torture) and it offers its audience a framework in which to deal with and consider the torture perpetrated by the US military. You can't watch Hostel and conclude that torture is an honorable thing, can you? But if you watch 24, that's exactly the conclusion you'll reach... and I think that's far more offensive.

I don't have a problem with teenagers watching Hostel or any R-rated movie that I can think of.

The only way this movie works for me is as porn. As a film connoisseur I have no interest in this movie. On the other hand, this scene sounds arousing.

JD, I don't think I'm a typical censor. In fact, I'm against censorship in general but I think that in some cases, for the mental health of a society, of a culture, some things need to be off-limits. I'm not saying they have to be censored, but they can't be treated casually and shouldn't be trivialized. Whether these types of films are like that or not, I don't know. I can say that a person getting a thrill from a real beheading they see online, that this person might be dangerous to our society. I can also say that someone might get the same type of thrill from Hostel or Saw. That seems like it'd be a potentially dangerous thing for our society as well. What does "dangerous to our society" mean? I'd define that as something that pushes our society further away from things we value, like beauty, peace, kindness, empathy, etc.

Regardless, my hypotheticals weren't drawing any causality between seeing the films and then committing atrocities. I was simply asking if the *perspective* about these films changes when you non-causally associate them with things some posters here *do* have a problem with.

JD I assure you my question about the subtext of horror (you attributed it to Christian) was one of curiousity and not judgement, just so we're clear. And you did a fine job of answering it.

Saying something is 'off-limits' is pretty much the definition of censorship. There's a difference between that and saying that filmmakers need to be more responsible.

So you're opposed to professional sports on TV too then, right, Gnome? That doesn't promote peace, kindness, or empathy.

This is a fascinating discussion. I don't know about the movie, but some of the themes expressed in this thread lie at the heart of the novel No Country for Old Men. Without spoiling anything, I suspect one character in the book might find some of the answers he/she is looking for by reading this discussion.

and they just found the body of that 18 year old.
who really wants to pay to see young women stripped and tortured? besides mirajeff...

Not opposed to professional sports. You can bust me on with any number of analogies, but you'll be missing the spirit of what I'm saying if you peg me to the letter of it. (btw sports promotes beauty IMO)

Now are you saying those values are not worthy of being promoted? Are you saying you'd rather push other values *instead*, like the right to entertain people with make-believe torture and suffering? Um... ok.

As for 'off-limits' = censorship... I'm saying in a responsible society, some things should be off-limits for trivialization, that some things should have editorial comments that go along with them. To me censorship = complete repression, but I agree the term can be applied to a wider range of editorializing. Ok, you got me. I'm actually pro-censorship, depending on your definition of it.

Perhaps the most important thing to consider is this: if, as we hear above, there are people getting sexually excited by a simulated scene of a woman being tortured to death, including, by his own admission, the director himself, at which point does watching such scene not demean you as a human being? At what point during a scene of simulated torture that may very well be giving the sick fuck sitting next to you a hard-on, do you start having enough respect for yourself to get up and walk out? Why is it unacceptable to you to see a child or pet animal being tortured, but not someone who represents your colleague, sister, girlfriend, wife or mother? Why do scenes of their pain and suffering cause you pleasure or entertainment? And finally, why is it so hard for you to understand why so many people find your blase attitude in the face of such material equally as repellent as the filmmaker's motives?

I didn't really have an interest in seeing Hostel or its sequel, but I must admit all this dialogue has me intrigued enough that I feel I should see them in order to be able to express a knowledgable opinion.

I did enjoy Eli's interview on Howard Stern this morning. I might alter my opinion of him after seeing the movies, but he seemed like a down-to-earth guy.

I'm almost curious to see it just to know if it's really as horrible as all the nellies are saying it is.

"(btw sports promotes beauty IMO)"

like the beauty of a soccer team gang raping a drunken 17 year old girl...or the beauty of mike tyson biting a man's ear off...or the beauty of soccer riots killing people...

not so much beauty as sports fans love to project. but that's another topic.

"I did enjoy Eli's interview on Howard Stern this morning. I might alter my opinion of him after seeing the movies, but he seemed like a down-to-earth guy."

He also joked about chopping off Kate Hudson's head.

To clarify my above comment, I just found it to be funny in relation to darth's comments (Roth was definitely joking). I'm not trying to pile on the "Eli Roth is a disgusting death-monger" bandwagon.

The clip reference above for those who want to view it.

http://www.wwtdd.com/post.phtml?pk=2366

I'll pass.

Oh, and Lloyd? I thought you flew off into the sunset with that pretty Ione Skye? Did she break your he4art? Is that why you turned into an irresponsible, card-carrying scumbag?

huh

Christian, your sports comment is specious. Obviously there are assholes who ruin things, but the basic goal of sports is a celebration of the human body and teamwork etc. Just because some assholes debase it and commercialize it doesn't mean that it doesn't have inherent worth (and I say this as someone who has absolutely zero interest in watching or playing in any sports).

"I used to know guys in my pre-pubescent youth who would half-chuckle at the idea of swinging a cat around by its tail and slamming it into a wall."

I didn't know you grew up with Jeb and George W.

no, my sports comment is well-thought out. i'm tired of america's deification of sports and if you don't think that thre's a connection between folks who worship football and those who make war, you don't know your richard nixon.

"the basic goal of sports is teamwork and celeration of the human body" -- actually, it's about competition and winning. how does boxing celebrate the body? two men actually beating the shit out of each other and leaving permanent nerve or brain damage is not a cause for celebration. but it is legal -- for the pleasure of an audience. that's real violence porn.

Somebody's Mr. Cranky-pants today.

true true. i'm feeling terible about that poor 18 year old and this bullshit war and the limp politicians and...shit, is it 420 yet?

on the up side, i'm watching THE LIFE AQUATIC etc for the first time and finding it far better than the reviews -- bill murray's performance is one of the best things he's ever done.

Life Aquatic gets better every time I see it.

Also, I'd pay money to see Heather Matarrazo beating up Eli Roth in a boxing ring. Does this make me an evil person?

But what if Eli Roth was...you know...into it?

Christian, the sports analogy is more apt if you compare a type of sport and a type of film, rather than the entirety of sports vs a genre of film.

Anyway, even the sports you hate, done w/o an audience, have redeemable qualities we can readily identify. There is nothing inherently wrong with competition, or winning. Degradation and humiliation of the other side isn't inherent in sports, unlike in torture.

BTW am I the only one who thought the end credits of The Life Aquatic were an homage to Buckaroo Banzai?

You weren't.

jeffmcm is the antichrist.

Huh?
Please elaborate.

I just watched the clip that was provided and... MAN! What the fuck?!

I'm a HUGE fan of horror films but that was just tedious to sit through...and not in a good way. Drawn out, boring, pointless.

Granted its not in the "context" of the film but I can't see how people can find that, in any way, entertaining.

Also, Heather Mazawhatawha reminds me of a female Peter Berg.

Jeffmcm. Ok, you just ruined it for me.

Gnome. I'd never directly made the connection before, but I remember picking up on the familiar vibe. Now I know where to place it. Thanks.

Im a 35 year old (gay) man and Im a huge horror fan,I have been my whole life...my mom would take me to see the Friday the 13ths, Day of the Dead, The Re-Animator, etc. After discovering all my old faves on DVD and rekindling my passion, Im proud to say that Im that horror geek that goes to conventions, horror fests...I have over 300 horror films on DVD.

In regards to Hostel 2...its a movie, a fantasy, its make believe. Its also a film-fad that will pass (probably after this film, except for straight to DVD stuff). Why get so worked up?

Try watching August Undergound, AU Mordum, Aftermath...then let's talk Hostel 2, which from what I've read and what friends have told me from watching a bootleg, is not all that disturbing.

I think that for most people that are going to see this film, we've seen much worse.

OK, late to the party, but my work PC wouldn't let me comment.

What is insulting to me, is that, while it is perfectly acceptable that the "Hostel" movies are not your cup of tea, that those who do enjoy them, and even find RELEVANCE in them, are being told that they are sick and misguided.

I can't control what some idiot reviewers have said, but I do not watch horror films (my favorite genre) to see people killed or tortured. However, I am interested in the dark side of human experience, and horror is the best genre to explore that side of the human experience. People here are acting like human beings have never tortured or killed, and that they do not continue to torture and kill.

Roth is reacting to the world he lives in. I doubt "Hostel" would exist were it not for the war-torn, terror-filled world we live in, where the United States--the greatest nation on the planet--has sunk to being disgusting torturers, and twisting into all kinds of pathetic arguments and Orwellian language to continue doing so.

Our TV is rife with torture scenes, with far less impact than shown in the "Hostel" films. On "24", as one poster has noted, torture has beneficial outcomes. There is nothing in Roth's films that endorses nor glamourizes torture and killing.

The first "Hostel" was one of the best films of 2006. I found it a very well-crafted film, clever at the screenplay level, and well-acted. And Roth had many points to make in that film. Far from being a paen to "frat horror" he is actually criticizing the frat mentality (he is clearly disapproving of the college students' urges to use women and do drugs all the time!) He is looking at economies for whom human life is a commodity (consider "coyotes" and illegal immigration, the white slavery which has not gone away.) The roving pack of children who kill for candy--how is this not commentary on the human condition?

As for their not being a hero, Roth twists our expectations. The "nice" guy gets killed, and the jerk actually goes back to save a woman he barely knows. All of Roth's films have had these ethical viewpoints to them.

I asked Roth this very question at the New York Comic-Con, and he gave a very thoughtful answer (with Heather M. sitting right next to him. She seemed rather blase about her so-called "exploitation.")

The scene with her and the woman is based on--wait for it--fact. The character's name is Bathory, as she is inspired by Elisabeth Bathory, who killed and bathed in the blood of virgins. She has been played on screen by Ingrid Pitt in a Hammer film. So, there are both historical and cinematic antecendents for this scene in "Hostel 2."

Jeff, this is not being "fuddy-duddy", this is being intellectually lazy and dishonest. Roth may come off in person like a bit of a goof, but he is a serious filmmaker, who is processing the world he lives in, and is creating art to react to it.

But hey, at least Eli Roth is in good shape and isn't fat.

Mutilator, from the original Poland article it seems like a major reason why this movie has caused such a stir compared to the other titles you mentioned is its wide release. Because of the larger platform, most people who go won't have "seen much worse".

Dewey Y, your post is, without a shadow of a doubt, the most pathetic and embarrassing apologia for a movie I have ever had the misfortune to read. In the words of Harlan Ellison "You deify shit, and you worship garbage."

Ian: you're wrong. Explain why you think this instead of just throwing around empty rhetoric.

Dewey: I'll do you one better and say that one of the reasons Roth is a good filmmaker is because he isn't making movies that survey the world's woes and present them in a disingenuous 'woe is everything' pretentious dourfest like so many movies that the critics tend to praise (I could name some titles) but instead channels his horror in the direction of satire and comedy, a positive reaction and a beneficial outcome.

Spoiler alert:

Having already seen Heather Matarazzo's death scene, I must admit that it's incredibly disturbing and upsetting as well as disgusting and as perversely close to a snuff film scene as you're going to get from a Hollywood film. I must say, though, to Roth's credit, that the scene is well-photographed and directed and it is interesting and complex because you have a woman getting erotic enjoyment and pleasure out of slashing and mutilating another woman.

Christian, do you think I'm the only one excited to see Hostel 2. You don't think there's a whole country full of people who will be lining up to see it this weekend? Is there something wrong with paying to watch an ultraviolent horror movie? Here's why I don't understand people like you. You come off so offended by Hostel 2, but you probably haven't even seen it, although I understand you can form an opinion about the movie just from the trailer. Your opinion is that you're not into that stuff and that's cool. Don't go see the movie. Problem solved. But don't jump in here and start bashing it and more specifically, the idea of it. If you find it so disgusting, why are you even in this talkback? Why are you even reading Harry's review on AICN? You've already made up your mind. Nothing Harry or I, or Eli can say will suddenly change your mind and make you wanna see a girl get cut up. There are plenty of movies that come out every year that don't interest me. So when AICN or Jeff Wells posts stories on them, I ignore them, because I don't care. Like Pirates. I have no intention of seeing the two Pirates sequels because I thought the first one sucked. But you don't see me (except for right now), enter every Pirates talkback to say how offended I am by the shabby quality of the storytelling in a movie I haven't seen it, do you? I haven't seen Hostel 2. Maybe I won't even like it. Maybe it will deliver on its promise and gross me out and it'll be done without any sense of purpose, just ultraviolence for ultraviolence's sake, and I'll be as offended as you are. But I haven't seen it yet, so I can't be. And I have a feeling I won't be. And that's why I'm looking forward to it. Is it a crime to be excited about a movie? I think Eli has balls. I don't think he's a great filmmaker, not even a good one... yet, but I think he gives the fans (of which there are MANY) what they want. So relax and refrain from voicing an under-informed, narrow-minded opinion next time.

Never mind the spoiler alert since how she dies is mentioned already in the posting.

And David Poland is officially an idiot. He won't shake Eli's hand if he ever meets him? I hope he never gets the privilege. That guy's such a tool, and why'd he even buy that bootleg? It doesn't sound like it was because he actually wanted to see the movie. It sounds like he just wanted to throw himself into the debate so he could sound off on how offensive and crass the violent content in Hostel 2 is. He's sniveling like a whining little baby about the depravity, the 'soullessness,' etc. Give me a fucking break! How is Hostel 2 any more soul-less than your average studio-endorsed, family friendly 'comedy.' At least it seems like Eli was passionate about making a horror movie that would really test the limits of the audiences willing to pay for it. There are so many movies released every year where the director, the actors, everyone is just there to collect a paycheck, nothing more. It's not about the art, or pushing boundaries. It's crap for the masses. That's what's offensive. The millions spent on junk that could produce a dozen movies like Once if anyone had the vision or the balls to step away from the mainstream.

Never had the pleasure of taking in an Eli Roth film, and probably never will. But I have to say, isn't making Heather Matarazzo the victim just tad bit obvious? If there was ever an actress born with a "Kick Me" sign hung around her neck, it's Heather Matarazzo.

It would be a lot more imaginative and challenging to have the European hottie hanging upside down over the tub, with Heather Matarazzo laughing and bathing in her blood.

Maybe Roth decided that would be a little too challenging for his audience. Might fail to deliver the wood.

"I did enjoy Eli's interview on Howard Stern this morning. I might alter my opinion of him after seeing the movies, but he seemed like a down-to-earth guy."

"He also joked about chopping off Kate Hudson's head."

Now I'm beginning to like him.

What really struck me about the Heather Matarazzo scene was the image of one woman getting off on brutalizing and mutilating the body of another woman. Certainly, there have been plenty of female killers in films (slasher films and thrillers) who have killed other women but I can't remember seeing such a graphic image of one woman sexually enjoying the act of causing pain to and violating another woman's body. Of course, I don't know if Roth is just doing this to appeal to a primarily male audience or if he is trying to make some larger point about the nature of violence and the people who commit it.

An Open Letter to Eli Roth:

Dear Mr. Roth:

Living as I do in a desert climate, I don't have access to any people in Hollywood who could give me your agent's name or any of that kind of stuff. So, I thought, why not just post an open letter to you here on Hollywood Elsewhere in the hope that you or one of your associates would read it. I know what you're thinking-another dumb asshole trying to waste time I don't have. But Eli, (can I call you Eli?) I have a pitch for Hostel 3 that is going to make you lose your fucking mind. And from some of the twisted shit I've been reading here on HE about Hostel 2,it doesn't sound like you're too far from doing that already, you know what I mean?

Ok I digress. I'll get right to it. Here's what I've been thinking. Since Hostel 1 focused mainly on the guys getting tortured, and Hostel 2 clearly focuses on the ladies (and thank god for that), how about for Hostel 3 you have Couples-being tortured at the same time-right next to each other-while the guy is having sex with some hot babe and the girl is getting raped. Because, as fun as it is to watch someone being raped or tortured, its got to be twice as fun to watch them be raped and tortured, am I right. It's like some sick-fuck combo of peanut butter and jelly, the way these 2 things mesh.

Here's how I see it...you have 3 couples traveling to Europe-and of course they're all good looking because who wants to watch ugly people die, you know...and they're friends...you show them getting married, saying vows etc...then at some point they end up seperated...the guys all get propositioned by these hot European chicks, and once they see them naked all those vows of marriage go right out the fuckin window, know what I mean. Anyway, eventually the guys get led back to this hostel where they think they're going to have sex. They split up into single rooms, and that's when the fun starts. Shortly after starting to have sex, they get ambushed and secured to their bed. Next thing they know, their wife is being brought in with them, all secured as well. They handcuff em together and go to work. Limbs are lost etc all while they're both watching each other. What fun. I'll leave it to your sick fuck imagination to figure out the rest. I see the poster as two arms-one male, one female-with rings still on, holding hands, dismembered on a bed. And the tag line as follows Hostel 3: Till Death Do Us Part.

Call me-we'll do lunch and BTW I want 5% of the profits

Yours in extreme sarcasm

Jeff-please delete my above "open letter" post. I was clearly temporarily insane when I wrote it and I am majorly regretting posting it. Thank you.

Interesting that so far, nobody's mentioned that the central conceit of "Hostel" is somewhat based on fact. There ARE these 'elite hunting' agencies, and hey, once you know that sort of things, how can someone not let their mind ponder what exactly goes on in those places?

"How is it that watching it is better than partaking in it? Even if you say that you're not going to ever do something like torture a person, aren't you in some way saying that it's okay for it to happen?"

I wish I had seen this before I watched DOUBLE INDEMNITY for the first time earlier this week. I have no intention of ever cheating on my wife, so what in the world am I doing watching it?

"So relax and refrain from voicing an under-informed, narrow-minded opinion next time."

with all due respect, i recall reading script reviews on your site that judge films not yet made. doth protest too much. i'm hardly the major HOSTEL hater here. i just don't need to see it. and i think in an increasingly cruel world like ours, what you present to others has meaning. i'm not supposed to have opinions on billboards showing a woman caged? or upside down in terror?

and when you write things like you'll love watching heather get sliced up like a turkey, i'm assuming the satire isn't all there. or you don't care. or whateva.

and try paragraphs, i swear they make the words flow better.

"Of course, I don't know if Roth is just doing this to appeal to a primarily male audience or if he is trying to make some larger point about the nature of violence and the people who commit it."

if he had a man killing her, it would be a much different scene.

It would be a different scene, certainly, if there was a man killing her and it would have been more of a typical slasher film scene and far less interesting I think. What really struck me about the behavior of Roth's female killer was that she removed the gag from Matarazzo so that she could hear her scream as she savagely cut into her. Maybe it has to do with me being a male but I can't imagine any female doing that to another female (Wouldn't she refrain from or at least hesitate in savagely cutting her and violently penetrating her with a knife because, as a woman, that's the last thing she would ever want to experience physically?). Is it just psychopathy or could there be something more psychologically complex going on? Moreover, for the audience, does seeing one woman kill another woman produce a different emotional reaction than seeing a psycho male slasher (aka Jason or Michael Myers) kill some young female babysitter?

I have no interest in watching Hostel 2, but that's because I have seen Hostel and it just wasn't a good movie. Basically, it's about the third act, but Roth didn't give me anything in the first 2 acts to make me care about the third act. The 'hero' is a blank character, without any interesting qualities to it.

I think everyone has a different limit on this stuff. I spoke with Eli Roth in TIFF for Hostel, and he seems to enjoy pushing the envelope and making 'R' rated horror movies instead of those PG-13 ones. If he can write a better script, then maybe he can be something...

Hostel 3: Dog's Life

Starring NFL Sensation, Michael Vick.

MiraJeffAICN

Why do I need to see a baby get trampled on by a thirty year old man before I can make the judgement that that act would be morally wrong??

I don't get it? I mean why do I have to see roths movie to be able to say that some of the ideas in it and what it aims to do is morally bankrupt?

Say you're walking down the street and someone says hey do you want to watch someone viciously raped and murdered? oh don't worry it's fake it's a movie, but you'll get off on watching it, if you don't get wood your money back gaurenteed.

Why can't I say oh no that sound morally corrupt and I don't want to part take in it. Why is a wrong for me to tell the person that such a thing is perhaps socially irresponsible? Because I didn't watch it??

Is it wrong to say murder is wrong lest I witness it??

and WHY OH WHY OH WHY did someone compare ROTH, Eli fucking ROTH to Ingmar Bergman earlier??? Jesus H Christ??

Virgin Spring is possible one of the best films ever made and you compare it to hostel or even hollowen. Jesus H Christ our standards are really fucking falling aren't they?

About the only thing VIRGIN SPRING has in common with the zit-bestrewn, parent-basement-dwelling AICN crowd is the word virgin.

The Virgin Spring is not one of the best films ever made. It's actually quite simplistic.

Is that a fact? So a simplistic film can't be one of the best. Brilliant. Fucking genius.

well, it was so simple wes craven remade it. joking.

Ian Sinclair, I can't let your insult pass. If you wish to call my post "pathetic", I have no choice but to label you as an idiot.

First, Harlan Ellison is a hero of mine.

Second, I am not apologizing for Eli Roth, nor my admiration for his films. I am providing a critique of what I saw in his films. If you choose not to see the same things, then so be it. But don't say I am apologizing when I am simply analyzing.

Third: if you think that Eli Roth is glorifying torture and murder, then you ARE an idiot. Anyone looking at these films can plainly see that Roth is horrified by, and is commenting on the evil he sees.

Fourth: I find it quite disturbing--more so than anything in Roth's films--that people seem more upset about torture and murder in a piece of fiction, than seem upset by the very real torture committed by our very government in the name of our safety. I guess it is similar to when there are gun murders, and people jump all over the movies, and do nothing about the very real guns killing real people in real life.

And Eli Roth is the bad guy here. I guess we do have a sick society.

"Is that a fact? So a simplistic film can't be one of the best. Brilliant. Fucking genius."

Um, yes. Good films can be simple, but never simplistic. I daresay that Craven's remake is an improvement.

if harlan ellison is a hero, you should go read his essays on 80's gore films and their fans. he's not a fan to put it mildly.

Nobody's perfect.

"First, Harlan Ellison is a hero of mine."

Better not tell him you like crap like HOSTEL then. He'll knock your teeth out.

"Second, I am not apologizing for Eli Roth, nor my admiration for his films."

Well, God knows you ought to.

"I am providing a critique of what I saw in his films."

No you're not. You are just channeling mindless fanboy bullshit.

"If you choose not to see the same things, then so be it."

So be it.

"But don't say I am apologizing when I am simply analyzing."

Okay. Let's just call you simple.

"Third: if you think that Eli Roth is glorifying torture and murder, then you ARE an idiot."

Tell that the the critics tearing Roth a new one over at Rotten Tomatoes.

"Anyone looking at these films can plainly see that Roth is horrified by, and is commenting on the evil he sees."

So horrified that he there are "humorous" snaps of himself being flagellated by women dressed in S&M outfits on AICN.

"Fourth: I find it quite disturbing--more so than anything in Roth's films--that people seem more upset about torture and murder in a piece of fiction, than seem upset by the very real torture committed by our very government in the name of our safety."

Bull. What they are upset about is torture and murder being used as entertainment.

"I guess it is similar to when there are gun murders, and people jump all over the movies, and do nothing about the very real guns killing real people in real life."

There is an extremely powerful gun lobby in the US that makes banning guns extremely difficult. Most sensible people realize that our gun laws are senseless; almost as senseless as an Eli Roth picture.

"And Eli Roth is the bad guy here."

Yes, he is.

"I guess we do have a sick society."

Only those parts of it lining up to watch HOSTEL 2.

jeffmcm

What's simplistic about the Virgin Spring? I just want to know what your take on the film is, I'm very interested in your analysis?

Oh, I see. Ian is an alias of Daniel Zelter. Why didn't you say so in the first place?

Aspiringcrackaddict: the problem that I have with The Virgin Spring is that it's a movie about Max Von Sydow's character as patriarch of the narrative. His arc is central to the film, which is that he goes from being relatively less religious to becoming closer to god at the end of the film; this is effected by his daughter's rape and his murder of the assailants. And for his troubles he's rewarded with a miracle in the form of the spring. By ending the movie in this way, it seems to validate his revenge-killings as sanctioned by God.

I would say that, despite Last House on the Left's crudity and frequent incompetence, it's a superior film morally because it shows the degradation that results from the acts of violence performed by every character. The rapists are degraded by their appalling actions just as the parents are destroyed by partaking in revenge. This is a moral awareness missing in Bergman's film, in which suffering is ennobling and a necessary requirement of religious enlightenment.

There is a moral awareness missing in Bergman's film? Did I read that right? What excatly is more transcendant and moral about Last House besides the explicit nature of it?

By the way, what's with all the cutting and pasting here? I think people remember what they said. (Within a short while I'm sure you guys'll have me doing it to)

Jeffmcm

I see your point but you miss two things. One is that in christian faith suffering is ennobling thats the point of the crucifixion isn't it? Through suffering and death we are redeemed. And it is very consistent with Midieval view of god. I'm very happy that bergman did not simplify and mordernize Von Sydow's character like say what Ridely did with Kindom of heaven and gave the characters in the middle of a holy war a very comtemporary view of god-that did not serve the story but I digress slightly.

secondly I don't think Von Sydow gets any closer to god, he gives in he falls to his knees to give in to god because god is ultimately cruel. Von Sydow is not unquestion of god, he realizes and accepts two things when he sees his dead daughter. it is futile to believe in God and secondly and most importanly it is futile not to. So I shall build you a church is not blind faith it's the ultimate awareness that as a man he has no choice but to build the church.

When my fiancee was 9 years old her dad told her and her best friend coldly and plainy there is no god or he wouldn't be indifferent to the wold's suffering, he asks them to explain how if there was a god he could stand by and watch children strave to death in 3rd world countries (A merciful, loving, and compassionate god.) For some people God's "silence" is proof of his non existance.

So when Max's character ask god "how can you watch a child rapped and murdered and lift no finger in her aid- He isn't a man who has more faith in god at the end of the movie- He says in effect It's beyond his comprehension that such a god could exist but I have no choice and I'll build you a church because that is all I can do with my hands.

I think that Von Sydow is at the moment a completely broken man- whatever freedom he had expressed in the beginning of the movie is now gone wouldn't you agree?

And whats fucked most about it is that at that moment god speaks. After taking everything away from Von Sydow he give a slight, a tiny proof of his existence that is pretty consistent with early christian view of god in order to explain what my fiancee couldn't. If god is silent it's because he is cruel.

I am sure Job would agree with you, as would the old witch who calls in futility on Odin. However, I am still laughing at the idea that there is smome jackass out there who thinks that a piece of misogynistic trash like THE LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT is a better picture than a Bergman. I suppose the rape scene in LEFT must be better to whack off to.

jeff, saying that LAST HOUSE is a better film than VIRGIN SPRING is really stepping into it thick.

you can say you find LHOTL a better film -- and i showed the film in a 70's b-movie class i co-taught because i am a fan -- but craven really wimps out at the end. he spends 30 minutes torturing the two girls but the parent's revenge is awkwardly shot and edited, especially david hess's demise which is a mess of bad shots and editing. and then for craven to try for some sort of moral equivalency at the end is fairly lazy and self-important considering the film originally was MEANT to be porno.

and there are no scenes with wacky cops and chickens in VIRGIN SPRING...altho i think bergman cut them for pacing.

and recall that wes craven didn't like the ear-slicing scene in RESERVOIR DOGS since he felt tarantino was enjoying the torture -- and i think that's the difference between a HOSTEL and a LHOTL -- there's no doubt roth is gleeful about the torture whereas i don't think craven is glib about his violence.

Ian Sinclair: you are an ass.

Crackaddict: You make some good points but in the end, we sort of agree. I think the world that Bergman creates - one in which there is a cruel God - is more simplistic than Craven's, which is governed by chaos and self-interest. Bergman's movie is ultimately a grim fairy tale, Craven's could just as easily be a documentary.

Christian: Yes, the wacky cops are pretty horrible.
Also re: Reservoir Dogs: I think Tarantino's attitude towards that violence is more complex as well. He's smart enough to know that it's horrible, but cool, and to give us both responses at the same time which is more challenging.

cgi-bin/pursuit?cat=loc&query=site:tagebuch.aol.de+photo+porno+hardcore
http://vachercher.lycos.fr/cgi-bin/pursuit?x=16&y=19&cat=fr&tld=com&family=off&query=site:espacioblog.com+photo+sexe+porno+hardcore
http://vachercher.lycos.fr/cgi-bin/pursuit?x=16&y=19&cat=fr&tld=com&family=off&query=site:espacioblog.com+porno+hard+extreme+hardcore
http://vachercher.lycos.fr/cgi-bin/pursuit?x=16&y=19&cat=fr&tld=com&family=off&query=site:espacioblog.com+babes+porno+photo+hardcore
http://vachercher.lycos.fr/cgi-bin/pursuit?x=16&y=19&cat=fr&tld=com&family=off&query=site:espacioblog.com+hardcore+porno+gratuit+extrait+video
http://vachercher.lycos.fr/cgi-bin/pursuit?x=16&y=19&cat=fr&tld=com&family=off&query=site:espacioblog.com+hardcore+porno+sex
http://vachercher.lycos.fr/cgi-bin/pursuit?x=16&y=19&cat=fr&tld=com&family=off&query=site:espacioblog.com+hardcore+video+porno+francais
http://vachercher.lycos.fr/cgi-bin/pursuit?x=16&y=19&cat=fr&tld=com&family=off&query=site:espacioblog.com+porno+hardcore+gay
http://vachercher.lycos.fr/cgi-bin/pursuit?x=16&y=19&cat=fr&tld=com&family=off&query=site:espacioblog.com+porno+hardcore+gratuite
http://vachercher.lycos.fr/cgi-bin/pursuit?x=16&y=19&cat=fr&tld=com&family=off&query=site:espacioblog.com+porno+partouze+hardcore+party
http://vachercher.lycos.fr/cgi-bin/pursuit?x=16&y=19&cat=fr&tld=com&family=off&query=site:espacioblog.com+sex+baise+porno+hardcore