Hostel 2 and the state of Horror Films in General

[CharlieDontSurf]

I think the torture porn aspect is a result of Roth liking to link porn/nudity with extreme violence.
In the above scene both girls are naked and Roth makes sure to highlight every inch of their naked bodies...then the torture and murder begins but he still plays up the sexual aspect with the girl rubbing blood all over her breasts etc.

The main problem with Hostel is its cheap and crass...its about a couple of homophobic douchy Americans who go to some Hostel in the middle of no where on the advice of a stranger(yeahhhh) in order to score some pussy, which apparantly isn't anywhere nearby.

Then once they get there it turns into a lame titty flick until the torture scenes begin which aren't suspensful or scary but simply dull.

This continues on and on till the end when the main character does something no one would ever do.

The directing was poor/most of the scenes were poorly written and had god awful dialogue...but there were a couple of interesting moments, which having listened to Roth talk about writing the film, were most likely accidental.
The theme of American using poor Europeans and vice versa...the American businessman and his scene at the end in the locker room.

The problem with the sequel is its the same exact same movie...just using girls this time and making the violence more extreme and sexual.

Saw at least tries to attempt to create a crappy story with each of its sequels.

these recent movies are all crap even within the horror genre. They are poorly written, have meaningless one dimensional characters and aren't even scary or frightening.

Hostel 1 & 2 / Wrong Turn / Cabin Fever / Hill Have Eyes 2 / Saw 2 & 3 / TCSM 1 & 2 etc etc

[Kimbell175113]

Blarg,

Oh, it's explicit and gory, alright. Just for a few tiny bursts; we were referring to the time alloted to the torture scenes, not their intensity.

People seem to respect exploitation films from 30ish years ago, and act as if they have some merit to them. What is different about Hostel, besides its popularity? (actually, it's ten times more 'life-affirming' than most exploitation films)

Here's what the movie does, on a basic level: it shows menace in the opening scene, then for the next two-thirds of the running time, shows some kids having their way with the European continent. During this time we "know" something terrible is coming, and audiences like that feeling of suspense. It also adds depth to their adventures, as we're the whole time thinking about what could happen and "do they deserve it?". Of course there is torture in the end, because there has to be, but you can certainly show something in a film without glorifying it.

Come on, in the end, the torturer gets his punishment (in the original script, Paxton kills the guy's daughter, which would really work there on a sick level, but I can see how audiences would have misinterpreted that).

I get mad about 24 glorifying torture, because the protagonist often does it, and is 'right,' and the world is better off. In Hostel the torturers are bad, the victims are 'real' people, and the senseless violence visited upon them is exactly the thing they fight against, exactly the thing the man is killed for in the bathroom in the final moments.

Yes, people, and a lot of them, watched Hostel to see torture, but that's not the fault of Roth and it doesn't make it a bad film. People like things for terrible reasons all the time.

[Blarg]

The way it was advertised really pointed up the sick misery and torture big time. That couldn't have been accidental.

[Dominic]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's my problem: most of the people who criticize Hostel haven't seen it, and most of the people who like it do so for the wrong reasons.

I like Hostel, and I like Eli Roth, but I rarely say that because I know the associations people have.

First of all, there's no way that Hostel was "fill[ed] with gore and violence." One of the reasons I liked it was that it harkened back to an older, slower style of filmmaking, where the whole point is that there are only two or three really insane scenes, and the rest of the film is supposed to either misdirect or increase the tension or whatever.

Cabin Fever (depending on whom you ask) and his trailer in Grindhouse showed that Roth is a thoughtful director with some knowledge of the history and structure of horror, not just the stories but the meta stuff, too. To me, it was obvious that Hostel was on a slightly higher level than Saw or the generic horror that's churned out monthly nowadays, but I guess it wasn't like that for everyone. I thought there were some very well done thematic elements going on in the first Hostel (ugh, I can never sound authoritative when I write critically like this) with regards to the attitudes of the Americans toward Europe, the fact that he shows us how assholish these guys are then gets us to sympathize with them anyway (and are we right to do so?). The (imo) well-executed tone changes and the fact that he DIDN'T stop to overexplain the specifics of the torture business.

I realize that many smart people hate this movie, and I don't even think that they're wrong to do so or that I can change their minds, but I do truly believe that Hostel is way way better than the standard horror, and that it's possible to find things in there that you can't in Saw or a Japanese remake.

I'd like to hear private joker's opinion on this one, because I know he knows what he's talking about but I have no clue whether he'd like this movie or loathe it.

Adding more: this wasn't my favorite horror film of '06, it had some big problems (the writing, mostly), and is certainly no classic or anything, but the "torture porn" label is totally unfair as a way of dismissing films, is all I'm sayin'.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kimbell, I respect your thoughtful opinion on Eli Roth, and his movies, even if I disagree completely. Here's my take on Hostel:

Hostel

[Peter666]

I saw both Wolf Creek and Hostel last year, and reflecting back I feel rather depressed thinking about Wolf Creek and how that resolved itself, but satisfied with Hostel. This is not a critique of the quality of film making, but the simple visceral reaction.

Wolf Creek gave the true feeling of horror, but how entertaining is that? Hostel, like exploitation films, allowed the protagonist to get revenge. And revenge is sweet. Thus, if given a choice between the two, I would rather watch Hostel, even though the other film is more expertly made. Does content trump quality?

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
I saw both Wolf Creek and Hostel last year, and reflecting back I feel rather depressed thinking about Wolf Creek and how that resolved itself, but satisfied with Hostel. This is not a critique of the quality of film making, but the simple visceral reaction.

Wolf Creek gave the true feeling of horror, but how entertaining is that? Hostel, like exploitation films, allowed the protagonist to get revenge. And revenge is sweet. Thus, if given a choice between the two, I would rather watch Hostel, even though the other film is more expertly made. Does content trump quality?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wolf creek was good until the 2 idiot chicks dumped the car over the cliff, for no apparent reason, then decided to hike back to the lair and take another car. Wtf? My bud and I decided they deserved to die for that one.

I didn't watch the head-on-a-stick part. Heard it, though. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

b

[fyodor]

Loved Peter666's comment in Dom's thread. Totaly cracked me up. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Of all the films discussed here the only one I have had the misfortune to view was Saw. When it started out I thought at least one of the guys was intentionally acting bad in an effort to portray a character who wasn't a very good actor. I assumed his motivation was to make it obvious that he was trying to fool the other guy. Alas it wasn't nearly that deep.

[Combusted]

That chick in the clip had a strong blood fetish

[4 High]

I enjoyed both Cabin Fever and Hostel and look forward to Hostel II. Im glad the horror movie industry is finally starting to move back towards rated R fare. For a while, the only mainstream horror films were PG-13 Ring rip offs(Which they still produce en masse).

[pindawg]

If you watched the nsfw clip above then you don't need to see the rest of the movie. They tried for too much character development and it was just a snooze fest until the last 20-30 mins.