the sheer brilliance of that argument leaves me in awe.

these are the kind of mental giants that pay to see Roth's movies. And unfortunately, there are a lot of them out there.

make you proud?

Spaz, you have made enough mistakes in other talkbacks to justify the comment, trust me brother.

and in the other talkback, I wrote a lengthy and detailed argument about why I thought Hostel was a useless movie, and what did you do? you called me a fag yet again, and ignored every point I made. so don't complain about the "Roth-haters" not having any ammunition. YOU are the one ignoring it. someone says, "fuck eli roth" and you say, "fuck you, faggot!". both of you are being idiots. I had a legitimate gripe with the movie, and seeing as how you seem to have a brain the size of a chic pea, you just sidestepped it.

and not for nothing, but saying you have nothing against "gays" while you throw around "faggot" as the funniest insults you can come up with...well, that's a bit like calling me a nigger and saying, "but hey, I love the blacks!"

Next, let's all state our opinions, and then dismiss OTHER people's opinions because OUR opinions are obviously fact. Oh, and we'll also call each other 'faggots' while we do it. Yeah!

And then, to sum it all up, let's all threaten this site with a boycott, and THEN POST AGAIN FOURTEEN MINUTES LATER.

Seriously, some of you are the dumbest wastes of flesh EVER. Do us all a favor - go graduate from junior high, and then after you do that, kill yourselves. I'm fairly certain that evolution will take at LEAST a half-a-step forward if you do.

"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"

and then a few hours were suprised when no one took you seriously. are you still not getting the connection here? if you spout off like an idiotic middle schooler, you will be treated as such. it's pretty simple.

I just watched the director's cut of "Payback." Now there's a first-rate film.

Well, it's neither. Why should anyone want to see a friggin nobody (aka director-wannabe) getting whipped by butt-ugly "females"?

That's not the dumbest thing I ever heard but it comes pretty close.

funny

Sure it's obnoxious, or as regularfacetoht said, "the middle finger in word form." But it's no less obnoxious than some of the posts put up by TB'ers over the years.

I'll bet the obnoxiousness score is actually pretty even between AICN and the TB'ers. Which can only mean that things are probably going to get worse before they get better.

So... Quint, Massawyrm, Harry, stop lapping at the Eli Roth trough! Enough with the Hostel & Hostel 2 threads! ...Take my wife, please!

There, I said it. That ought to be good for atleast a couple of more Hostel threads. After all... we gotta keep the balance...

And if you don't get why HOSTEL has no redeeming features but SAVING PRIVATE RYAN does, you're definitely not smart enough to keep contributing here. Glad you enjoy the flicks - but at least try to understand what the Roth-haters' argument is before bashing it, eh?

Oh, and FUCK HOSTEL!!!

Yeah...

As Life of Christ movies go, that was the most pointless and unpleasant that I've ever seen. And it utterly missed the point. Case closed.

FUCK MEL!!!

HOSTEL is a movie made for sickos to get hard/cheer/emulate/froth at the mouth over.

Still waiting for the definitive reason why watching a bunch of expertly designed and executed (sic) torture and death scenes, hung together by ropey character motivations and poor scripting, is a valid entry into the sacred annals of our shared favourite artform, the movies. Anyone?

Sack up and admit that if you enjoy these films, on some level, you are sick. Talk catharsis - that's a whole other, more interesting argument. But these movies are sick shit for sick minds. And it doesn't make me a cornholing pussy for having this view. For fuck's sake, formulate a proper defence for this shit. If you can.

My problem in HOSTEL is: what's enjoyable about watching a movie like that, and what's the REAL message in a movie like that? Assuming that most horror movie fans are smart enough to know which point of view a movie is coming from (and I think most are), look at the movies you mentioned. CLOCKWORK ORANGE was very neutral - although you saw it all from Alex's point of view, and his voiceover was very persuasive, there was enough distance from his actions in that film to allow us to make our own judgments on whether or not it's right that he does what he does. When the copycat murders happened here in the UK, Kubrick was so horrified that anyone could has misunderstood his movie to that level that he voluntarily had it banned, which was only rescinded after his death. I'm wondering if Eli Roth, upon hearing of a murder based upon either of the Hostel movies, would be sickened by the thought that someone could has misunderstood his movie to that degree, or would just think "Cool! Exposure!". I'd like to think he'd think the former, but nothing I've read in print about the guy convinces me.

You have a sort of point about the FINAL DESTINATION movies: the point of them are the deaths. But they are obviously fantasy deaths: spooky shadows signifying a force of Death, winding across the screen, causing deaths so convoluted that they are way beyond the realms of coincidence... you'd never mistake them as being something that could actually happen. You are removed from the reality of the piece, as it seems so unreal. HOSTEL, on the other hand, plays its torture scenes like a snuff movie. They look, and feel, real. What enjoyment do you get from them? Is it REALLY just to marvel at the technological wonders Eli has wrought with the SFX team? Or are you actually wondering how it feels to plunge in that knife, or drill that shin?

You're right in the mian with the other movies: people watch them to get scared, see people die, and feel safe. The films that cause sickos to sit up and take notice (and notes) are the ones that are too realistic: stuff like HOSTEL. Sure you can argue that the first movie is a "you get what you give" morality tale: the boys want to fuck European girls then discard them, so the businessmen want to kill them then discard them. Fine. But it wasn't put across in anything approaching an artistic way: it was obviously a "there's the motivation, get it out the way quick, now focus on the lovingly lovely kills". Watch Eli's "Thanksgiving" trailer. There's no investment in it: the murders don't feel real. Nor do they in any of the slasher movies you mentioned: we're talking supernatural bogeymen here (Hellraiser, Freddy Krueger, Hallowe'en). where's the reality in that?

And if the point IS the reality of the movie, then I ask you again: why do you enjoy these movies? Really? Revol: you have a point. In the hands of a Carpenter, a Kubrick, even a Tarantino (who, talkbackers keep on fucking forgetting, CUT AWAY FROM THE COP'S EAR WHEN IT WAS CUT, GODDAMMIT!!!) could have been an awesome, chilling movie, which scared the hell out of you, but didn't feel like it wanted to wallow in the deaths - the concept was enough. Eli Roth seems to want to hide behind the concept, when really he seems to be almost admitting (reading between the lines) to getting some sort of thrill out of seeing people killed realistically in his movie. I wonder... how much real life snuff footage has Eli seen, and did he enjoy it??? That would tell us A LOT about htis man's motivations with the HOSTEL movies.

More than fucking around with a bunch of S&M swampdonkeys on stage, anyway.

And Harry? Fast losing respect for you with this shit, man.

CABIN FEVER was okay, but it's no GODFATHER.

Sorry, off topic. Roth sucks, so do the Hostel movies. That is all.