As for this interview, could you have possibly been any more sycophantic? I mean Jesus Christ, I could almost hear you sucking his cock with every word, some of it was just uncomfortable to read...I amazed that you could keep a straight face.

I mean look, I'm not offended by the content of these films at all, and if people enjoy these things then so be it, but what amazes, and even actively grates on me is how massively incompentent of a film maker Roth is, both in terms of direction and script, seemingly utterly unable to create even the barest hint of character or atmosphere in his films, and yet he gets constantly hyped to the moon and talked up so much, particularly around here. He's no Romero or Argento or Cronenberg or Carpenter, hell he's not even a Steve Miner, Sean S Cunningham or a Jack Sholder. He's barely an Albert Pyun...and that's on his best day. Even AICN whipping boy Paul WS Anderson easily wipes the floor directorially with this guy. Hell, even Mr Generic Horror Mediocrity himself, Mick Garris, is far better than Roth has even hinted at being.

If some people are able to like or tolerate his films, fine, but stop selling him as "the future of horror" when the most horrific things about him are his direction and god-awful writing. And reading "social commentary" into an Eli Roth film? Fuck...Off. Next you'll be telling us about the amazing multi-layered complexities that Uwe Boll brings to his filmic projects.

NEXT.

Im predicting Hostel 2 barely cracks the top five box office next weekend.

Well Didnt Stephen King hate all of the changes that Kubrick made to his original source material?

Didnt he come out publicly (not to an Alan Moore level) and state that he was unhappy with the final product?

Hence the reason for the ABC miniseries version of the Shining starring Tim Daly (or the other guy from Wings) complete with Giant Garden Bush animals?

I had some hopes for Cell. Now it looks like were going to get a big honking pile of turd.

POUND SAND:

Thats some funny shit dude...

yeah, King hated Kubrick's Shining, JUST AS ROTH UNDERLINES... but Roth, like most people, liked it. And this reflects badly on Roth??? how exactly?

I didn't watch Hostel for a LONG time because of the TP label... turns out that was a load of nonsense, and the film was actually pretty good. Porn has the barest of plots, to string together a series of gratuitous set pieces, with no underlying message or point. Hostel had far less violence in it than I expected, basically just the last third of the movie... and it made a number of acidic points about economic exploitation, desensitization, dehumanisation, globalisation, cultural arrogance, etc etc. I liked it when someone was playing Pulp Fiction dubbed in Romanian, and they said "How are we even supposed to watch this with no subtitles?". This was a good movie. You want torture porn, it's out there, and it's called "Saw 3". Anyone bracketing that and Hostel together either hasn't seen one of them, or is basically a bit retarded.

Take this interview for instance. Read his comments on how labeling his film "torture porn" somehow mirrors a lack of depth in his critics, since they obviously can't see the profound meaning of Hostel. Then read about the deep and profound ways he got around the accusations of misogyny leveled at him and his film.

If your spider sense doesn't go off when reading that, then you really are Roth's intended audience.

I remember reading something Stephen King wrote about creating horror stories where he described three levels or qualities in their construction, with terror being the purest and most refined level of emotion that could be elicited in the reader. Failing that, one goes for the horror, which is a much more visceral reaction. When even that is out of reach, you just go for the gross-out. Eli Roth doesn't even ATTEMPT terror or horror -- he just goes for the gross-out, which is the lowest common denominator in the field.

Oh, and Capone, where, exactly, is it that torture porn "now has almost become a positive expression"?

Whats the first thing he does when he gets his hand on his "idols" work? Says hes going to change it. I find this incredibly ironic because of the history King has with hollywood changing his shit. Then Roth goes on to quote the biggest example of Hollywood messing with his baby.

Me personally I think the Shining (Kubricks) is one of the best movies ever made. BUT just because Kubrick made changes to Kings work, doesnt mean that the great Eli Roths changes are going to be for the better also.

Sorry? Oh and torture porn is not a possitive expression.

And yes, I do wonder if Eli does love the cock. Apparently you can't have enough of it in a movie, so...

PS - I liked CABIN FEVER. It had actual, real ideas in it. Discuss.

This is the question that haunts me about these more "realistic" Gore-fest horror movies. Are they producing the same reactions for both the violence and the sex? Because RAPE is not about sexual gratification, it is about the control and the induced fear that the rapist causes in the victim--and the serial killer mentality is usually sexual in nature--they can only "get off" by taking something from the victim (usually a progression of torture and finally death). My big concern with more graphic, "Torture-porn" films is that what starts out as an exploration of a taboo subject begins to celebrate and glorify it.

Silence of the Lambs is an immersive, creepy mindfuck of a movie--that limits it's gore to as little as possible. In fact the most disturbing thing in the whole movie is the Buffalo Bill dance sequence, even after all of the amazing violence that Lector commits. That is a film that will live forever as a great film, because of what it DOESN'T show.

I am honestly interested and concerned about people's reactions to these films--I am sure I have brought this up before, but I have a real problem watching Rape on film, having known three women in my life who were abducted, raped and murdered ...And most Slasher Movies are rape films, but with knives or garden utensils replacing the rapist's penis.

So, can someone tell me why they like these movies? What is the desired reaction that I am obviously missing?

Funny that a number of people here posing over their digust probably really enjoying something like '300'. Now THAT was a movie for sickos.

"...goes into making the film." Bwahahahahahaha!!! That is the most telling line in the whole interview. That is something only a Uwe Boll says. How about this for an idea you nearly talentless hack, how about putting that intelligence actually INTO the film!!! Sure, it takes some brains to make a flick, but it takes talent to make an intelligent film in any genre.

You know what Eli Roth sounds like in this interview? A university film school student. A STUDENT, not an actual filmmaker. You know the guys; they tend to be the overly talkative and arrogant types at parties that make entertainment references that straddle the lines of pop culture and obscure film. They have an opinion on ever little thing on God’s green Earth and actually believes that every word Al Gore says is true about global warming and then leave in an exhaust spewing VW Bus that they are ‘renovating’. You stand amazed and bored as they relate stories of the trip they took to New York and the brave stand they made for free speech by flipping off the FOX News building…and then, suddenly, two guys in dark suits came out…so he gave them the bird as well before running off. Meanwhile, somewhere in New York, two guys that work for an accounting firm located in the FOX building wonder why the kid with the bleached, spiked, frosted hair, soul patch and sheik, dark rimmed glasses hates them so much.

In the end, this interview came off as Roth saying “I’m an artist and the critics don’t understand the level of detail and intelligence in my films. I am smart, they are not.” Sure Eli, you’re a frickin’ genius. There are so many levels to your films. I can picture you with your crew, setting up a shot, putting a yellow ducky in the middle of the floor before turning to them and giving a diatribe about how this was both a reference to Italian Giallo horror and also represents the innocence lost by the main antagonist of the scene. Then putting a naked man in the shot “…just to fuck with critics.”

Yep…you’ re brilliant. You find levels of commentary in C-grade horror movies from the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s that no one has thought of. You’re the man. Love to hear what wondrous hidden gems of social commentary you found in Evils of the Night or Witchcraft 8: Salem's Ghost.

So, which is more disturbing to you? Rape or Homosexuality?

Anyone for The Care Bears Movie now??? ;p

Your movie allows people to "get off" on violence. Isn't that argument you made?

Everyone assumes the "Tourture Porn" is a "Top" thing. By that I mean it is assumed people's twisted sexual urges are satified by the idea they could touture someone ala "Hostal". I belive the soldiers in Iraq "get off" on your movie by identifing with the fear of being caught and toutured. This is the definition of a S&M "Bottom".

I have read that alot of S&M behavior is not focused on cumming or erections or even nudity. So if this is true, the military people in Iraq that fancy your film might not show the traditional signs of sexuality, but they are "getting off". "Getting off" really means many things, and if all that S&M stuff is sexual without orgasms or nudity, then you are making a film that could be in the horror or porn sections.

I was very disappointed by the first HOSTEL. I had loved the marketing, I thought it was beautifully conducted. The imagery coming out to promote the film gave me the heebie-jeebies. Then, unluckily for Eli Roth, I went to see WOLF CREEK, which opened that previous Christmas day. That film just punched me in the gut. The acting from the leading ladies devastated me. It's a film without gore, by the way. The empathy the actresses made me feel was what scared the hell out of me.

So I went into Hostel thinking, this is going to be the SICK version of WOLF CREEK. I wondered if I could even handle it. Problem is, HOSTEL doesn't come close to being scary to me because of two reasons: the actors were terrible and not just in the torture chambers. Secondly, the tone of the film was akin to its special make-up effects: amateur hour. I thought the blow-torch eye gag everyone talks about was laughably bad. And forget about the ending: Hollywood at its worse. I walked out thinking Quentin and Eli had a good laugh on me, lying through their teeth about how brutal and realistic their little, unbearable shocker would be... nothing in it is any better than FRIDAY THE 13th PART IV. That movie had Tom Savini serving up the blood, and every single one of his gags is more realistic than what is in HOSTEL. But there were some great, creepy sets in HOSTEL, beautifully lit and photographed. I wish it had been in the hands of a better writer-director.

That being said, the film was a giant leap forward from Cabin Fever. So I'm kind of hoping HOSTEL II will be that rare sequel that is better than the original. Although this whole talk about the last kill in the movie going down as one of the best ever... well, sounds like deja vu. That's what they were saying about the first one, and nothing delivered. The word of mouth also seems to confirm this fear. Oh well, but I'm still looking forward to seeing it on DVD. I certainly will not being paying $10 to see the censored theatrical version. No way.

I wonder if there will be bannings ala the Transformers bashing.

As for Roth, what an utter artistic douchebag and mentally challenged egotist. The very idea that Roth is trying to approach -- no, actually DEFEND -- tripe like the HOSTEL films and his hack level of writing and directing by using the old defensive fallback of "I'm making a social commentary here, people!" is so fucking laughable it actually hurts. Reading this interview literally...I'm not kidding you, LITERALLY...made me laugh out loud over how ridiculous Roth's pretentiousness was, right down to his whole defense of telling a DP or even his upcoming CELL Class A-level writers that he'll let them submit their ideas, but then it's going to be his way or no way. Which is basically like saying "Well, we could do it good, or do it shitty. I vote shitty! So nyah! I'm the brat in charge, so shitty it will be!"

CELL was a fun read and I can see it being an equally fun movie thrill ride. If there's any justice in the universe, HOSTEL will bomb or be SO critically reviled, the studio will find a way to temporarily backburner CELL over "creative differences", thus giving them a chance to fire Roth and actually bring in someone with TALENT.

"Maybe Eli's next movie should be about ...

by Kraken Jun 3rd, 2007 02:09:47 PM

The Green Eyed Monster. I think a lot of you guys would relate to it."

Jesus, talk about missing the point entirely. Kraken, you didn't happen to accompany Quint on his set report, did you? Because otherwise I don't see why you would bother sticking up for a guy for whom the majority of this board shares such vehement hatred, especially when you don't have an actual argument regarding his worth as a filmmaker. Do you see this many people shitting over talkbacks concerning movies like "Hot Fuzz" or "Knocked Up"? No? I think that may be because some people have genuine TASTE. If you truly think it's envy that drives most of the posters here to speak out against Eli's horrible film, then you're only fooling yourself.

The fact that Eli Roth even mentions "The Shining" as one of his favorites while he has apparently made no effort to create something of equal effect...well, it speaks for itself.

Having to rely on the graphic hyper-realistic torture of people for your shocks is not the sign of a great auteur.

You express an opinion that is all over boards which deal with horror films. My question is this: do you and those who share your views truly think these films are inventive? What world do you all live in?

Any person sitting in front of the TV for 8 hours a day (that's only the national average, BTW), will be exposed to the same kind of thing, and far, far worse, when the News comes on, especially if it's the local news, where they're only happy with their day if they have a rape or a murder to report on. It's especially good for their ratings if they can do a video walk-through of the bloody crime scene ("brought to you by McDonald's").

If people think the behavior found in HOSTEL is disgusting, I really wonder what they think about their neighborhoods. Have you looked up to see if any child molesters live in yours, for instance? Here's what REALLY scares me: the real world as seen through these eyes, for instance: www.mapsexoffenders.com.

Movies like HOSTEL are a walk in the park next real life, in my opinion.

Of course, if you see any amount of subtext and meaning in these films, then I'd love to hear it.

But I disagree, Eli. Why, the social commentary that porn makes about gender stratification and the empowerment that is given to overtly open women over others is indeed a telling diatrabe on morality as well as historical societal constructs.

Gee, funny that! We ALL can play this "social commentary" game to defend what is nothing more than crass, talentless moviemaking to make a quick sell-out buck.

On a lighter note, one of the best lines I ever heard about porn came from the late Richard Jeni in a stand-up routine he did, where he was talking about the time he actually hosted the AVN porn awards in Vegas. Jeni noted, "Have you ever noticed that when a porn movie is over that no one ever says "Gee, that's funny. I didn't think the story was going to end THAT way."

Sites like these publish *whatever* they can get, that's all. Roth is smart enough to make himself available to them, so they post his stuff. I don't think it's all that much because they like the guy (although they obviously do). He's just giving them great headlines.

Stallone did it very, very well with ROCKY, and look: his buddy Bruce Willis is following suit to promote his PG-rated "Live Censored of Die Hard." The only way to curb this as a reader, is not to talk back or even log on (they can measure the clicks, folks). But personally, I'm having a grand 'ol time on here!

It is interesting to me that Slasher films evolved from crime dramas, wherein someone punishes the guilty murderer by film's end to the apex of horror, the fantasy Slasher film of the 1980's where Freddie, Jason or whoever is an extreme metaphysical being who is the one punishing the "guilty", usually subconsciously enforcing the morality of the culture (killing promiscuity, vice, what-have-you).

So, what do these new films represent? Apathy?

If you can answer these questions, I'll take you seriously. I am truly interested in why this type of film is popular...

I mean, isn't this site supposed to be about film passion, even if it runs contrary to the views of Harry himself? I am not trying to start any problems--I just want to know if people bother to think about WHY they like these films...

I think you make a valid point about generalizing the audience of horror films. People who jump out of planes with a little tarp in a backpack are often labeled totally insane. It's the extreme nature of the subject that blinds people to understanding the appeal. As a horror fan (and a roller coaster freak who'd like to parachute, one day), I love a good rush, and I like to be scared a lot! I'd rather not get mugged, however, so Horror films are the safe alternative. I think of them as roller coasters, but I'm always hoping one will transcend the genre and be something great, like PSYCHO, THE SHINING, SILENCE OF THE LAMBS or SEVEN.... And notice how the best of the genre are hybrids. You can totally argue THE EXORCIST is a drama. It's the acting that scars me to death in that flick. But you can't tell that to a bible-thumper who thinks the devil lives in the celluloid.

I think the Hostel movies compound this problem because they're like a bad Disney movie: pre-fabricated and devoid of artistic integrity, and the least experienced audiences are capable of perceiving this, even if they are not conscious of it.

Remember when 8mm came out? I made a choice NOT to support a story about a "real" snuff film--and I choose NOT to support Hostel. But, I am not asking people who like the films not to see it--I am just questioning why they do. So, thanks for answering, TheHorror. Anyone else want to pony up why they like graphic horror films?

Yeah, I say I won't spend any more money on Roth's dreck. But then I did enjoy the SAW movies. But then again, they felt like movies that were aware of their own cheesiness, and in the end walked that fine line between cheese and horror very well (see also SCREAM). But Roth? I think he actually believes his own bullshit with all this blah blah subtextual hidden message blah exploitation it's really like a giallo flick blah Jordan Ladd looks sexier covered in blood than not blah I am sick. Get over yourself. CELL is your last chanch: don't fuck it up!

I'll be thankful to any storyteller who can scare the hell out of me. It really doesn't have anything to do with gore. TEXAS CHAINSAW ('74) and WOLF CREEK, have almost no blood at all in them, but they are graphic, and they churned my stomach. I loved them in sort of the same way I loved the roller coaster "Texas Cyclone" for lodging my stomach behind my eyes at Astroworld (RIP, baby).

On the other hand, one of my favorite movie is RE-ANIMATOR. It's also one of the goriest I've ever seen, even if it didn't scare me at all. The special make-up effects are worth the trip unto themselves. I think it shows how complicated the issue is. But one thing is for sure, a film can be graphic without being gory, and a gore fest can be great without being scary. Also, a graphic, violent film about the worst that humans are capable of doing to each other, can be completely respectful of the audience. And that's what I'm looking for when I go to horror shows.

I don't think Eli would understand where it's coming from AT ALL.

Good luck tomorrow, buddy!

The first 20 minutes of SAVING PRIVATE RYAN are one of my favorite experiences in a movie theatre. It was one of the hardest things I've ever sat through.

It's a perfect example of horror. It's faithful to real life, it's disgusting, suspenseful, and a great artistic achievement that is respectful of its audience. It's also a great example of frightening, graphic horror that is gory, and I couldn't think of one in my last post. It's great you came up with it, because not only is it from a war movie - not a horror movie, but also because it's from one of the great filmmakers around. It epitomizes why I love horror films: because I love great stories, and it ultimately does not matter what the subject is, or what genre it fits. Cheers!

Seriously, though, great post, and I second your argument. If Eli wishes to sell sick to sickos, at least have the balls to own up to it. You can at least say that about Uwe Boll, the talentless fucker.

I honestly am grateful for this Talkback and the opportunity to have a dialogue like this.

One of the reasons I love the original TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE is because it *is* realistic. To me, it looks like a snuff film. Kind of like one of the survivors didn't turn off his 8mm camera. I enjoy the safety of the theatre when I watch these films, and of course, I know in the back of my mind that the people onscreen are actors. But the movie is so well done, that while I'm suspending my disbelief, I can forget it's a movie. The actors are so good that I empathize with them, and it's a real rush! Kind of like the first and highest drop on a roller coaster. Some part of my brain is going "Aw, hell, no way I'll survive this fall!" It's part of the fun.

The problem with HOSTEL 1 is that it is the work of someone who is clearly trying to go for that kind of storytelling, but who has neither the talent, the experience, or the patience necessary to achieve his goal. I mean that script is something that must have been written in an afternoon. He's taking shortcuts out of ignorance, or laziness, or both (my guess is both).

But then, hey, it's only a movie!

I mean isn't it the first thing any horror kid does with a camcorder a hotdog and a bottle of ketchup?

Loved Hostel but Part II is an aimless, pointless, sickening check casher. Sorry.

Roth is a hack.

"these guys are a bunch of fucking pussies that want to go see some faggy movies with their boyfriend and blow them in the theater" -Spazatronic 2000

how can you expect anyone to take you seriously if you make a feeble attempt at a coherent point later?

poor BrightEyes has trouble typing "soldiers" and "following" correctly...so how can I take his opinion seriously? what are they teaching kids these days?

TB'ers like Ninja Master and others that are able to articulately explain their position, and coherently cite examples, are a dying breed.

"dude your a fag!" and "Fuck Eli Roth!" are similarly useless arguments. personally, I think the discussion of intent is more important than the end product. people are tortured in Hostel. fine. we all know that. the question is what was the director intending, and what was the audience getting out of it? I'm sure there were people who got off on it. and I'm sure there were people that were truly disturbed by it. and that would be fine, if it were an art installation. but film is not a medium in the same regard as modern art. you must have a specific audience, and you have to have a somewhat cohesive story. you have to be SAYING something, not just showing the audience something, backing away and going, "alright, you guys make something of this". even movies that are very subjective, weird and confusing, (let's say Crash by Kronenburg for example) still have a story, and there is some authorial intent.

Roth may claim that in retrospect for Hostel, but it wasn't really there. it seemed like a student film where the student was saying, "fuck the textbooks, I'm gonna kill the main character, linger on this too long, cut this too short, etc.) and as is almost universally the case with those types of student projects, all it does is reinforce the old adage, "you have to understand the rules before you break them"

if you look at the posters and promotional material for Hostel, it was all about the torture and how obscene and disgusting it was. "he he he look what we're getting away with showing you!" as Vern pointed out, maybe the torture doesn't take up much screen time, but it was THE DRAW of the movie. Roth knew it, the studio knew it, the fans knew it.

Hostel (and I'm sure the sequel as well) are not horrendous, immoral pieces of the ethical puzzle that is contributing to the degradation of american culture. they're simply pieces of bad art. art is not supposed to be cathartic, it's supposed to be good. it's supposed to advance us somehow. Hostel is just a little piece of food stuck in your teeth that you can't get out. it's annoying and bothersome, but it will eventually go away. meanwhile, enjoy the rest of your steak.

It is interesting to see people actually admit that they enjoy watching people get fake-tortured.

A lot of the people responding to this seem to be sexist, racist, homophobic bigots--which, like violence in movies, is seemingly more acceptable these days (but not discussed).

The appeal of these films, as I understand it now, is to provide a sense of relief that the events happening on screen are not happening to the viewer--and that the thrill-ride "rush" is addictive and harder to come by, the more of these movies that you see. Therefore, the simulated violence, the absurd situations and what they actually show on screen have to be more visceral, graphic and intense in order to produce a "squirm-factor".

It also seems that a large percentage of people like these movies without trying to understand WHY they like them...possibly because they are afraid of what liking the films says about their personality.

Somebody mentioned knowing someone who tortured animals--that is usually the first step in becoming a serial killer. The same disassociation, the ability to make a victim "less than human" is what allows this behavior. The mindset of "Well, they are not like me, they are not a real person--I can do whatever I want to them--I am more powerful and better than them" has fueled violence, rape, hate crimes and genocide for all of human history.

Now, having said that, do I want to tell people what to watch? No. Absolutely not--but it would be nice if people would think more about what drives them, and ask "why" once in a while. If we were a little more deliberate in our choices, there might be higher-quality movies.

Do I hate Eli Roth? Not at all. I don't know the man. I won't be seeing this movie, though--not my cup of tea.

HEY ELI, your movies belong on both shelves:

ELI, Your movie allows people to "get off" on violence. Isn't that argument you made?

Everyone assumes the "Tourture Porn" is a "Top" thing. By that I mean it is assumed people's twisted sexual urges are satified by the idea they could touture someone ala "Hostal". I belive the soldiers in Iraq "get off" on your movie by identifing with the fear of being caught and toutured. This is the definition of a S&M "Bottom".

I have read that alot of S&M behavior is not focused on cumming or erections or even nudity. So if this is true, the military people in Iraq that fancy your film might not show the traditional signs of sexuality, but they are "getting off". "Getting off" really means many things, and if all that S&M stuff is sexual without orgasms or nudity, then you are making a film that could be in the horror or porn sections.

You nailed the whole thing. I've really have first hand knowledge of this shit, and I'm being coy. Coy, on the internet with a talkback handle. Yes, so much to hide, so much shame. You little fucking dingbat Jakes Nel, you're fucking next.

ATTENTION ALL I JUST WATCHED GUINE PIG AND I DON"T WANT TO RAPE CHILDREN NOW

I really didn't mind guina pig 2 because it had low production value. Hostal puts you in the chair...in 5.1. guina pig 2 is silly. All these super low budget films are unconvincing.

Much like Eli Roth is doing when he tries to present his torture porn shit as art. It isn't.

Where's an admin when you need one...

Ad the basis of that posting is to tell us we just dont get it because we didnt see some obscure torture wankfest that isnt even available on DVD?

whatev...

Ad the basis of that posting is to tell us we just dont get it because we didnt see some obscure torture wankfest that isnt even available on DVD?

I cant wait for this movie to tank this weekend...

I just checked the site for that promised second sit-down, and I'm disappointed it's not up, yet. Not that anyone is on a deadline, I know....

It's probably a waste of typing, but I just really think it's off the mark to expect this site to be objective. It's a fan site first and foremost. I don't come here to read the news. I've said it before: I think they're posting a lot of coverage on HOSTEL because Roth is happy to talk to them over and over again to sell his movie. Stallone got a lot of posts too. Those were great ones, too. I think they may even have been the best moments in the site's history, and it's proof Sly is... well, sly.

Think about it this way: remember when Harry got a call from James Cameron about Avatar? He put up a transcription of their conversation, pronto! Imagine if Cameron had called back 4 more times? Don't you think Harry would have added 4 posts to transcribe those conversations? I think so. It's to be expected from these boys, and personally, that's why I like the site. Not that I don't think one should come here without a bucket of salt. Au contraire,

I Kid! I Keeeed!

Once again, thanks to everyone who participated in this Talkback. For a long time I have wondered the who's and why's of these movies appeal. And, although I still perfer a bit of restraint and artful editing in my fright-fests, I do respect peoples right to enjoy what they want--including Grand Guignol horrors...thanks for some insight.