I'll go so far as to say the term "torture porn" is holding us back as a people, because it helps curtail any intelligent discussion about violence in movies, or violence in society. This is because the words "torture," and "porn," illicit deep seeded, emotional reactions in most people. To a greater extent, the word "abortion," does the same thing. Is that a word that can be used with a group of people without it starting a fight? Pretty soon, what follows is a lot of "Fuck this, and fuck that!" And where does that get anyone?

Part of the fun of Horror films for me, has always been the debate (just like the one raging on these talkbacks), that can follow a good shock, or a film's failure to deliver it. At their best, stories allow us to examine a part of ourselves and talk about them.

Since that guy coined the term "torture porn," the debate has deteriorated, if not been completely snuffed out. That's nothing to be proud of. It discredits the entire subject of violence in storytelling, and why there has been a real need for it in human society since the dawn of man. But how do you begin to discuss how you feel about it, if someone has already insinuating that anyone who likes the subject is either a sick serial killer, or a sex maniac, or both? It makes a position hard to hold, and puts a lot of peer pressure on people to agree that "torture porn" movies are bad, bad, bad, and they shouldn't even be made. With that argument, you can't even mention a classic like the original TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE. And that's another thing that bothers me about the journalists: they are presenting this "subgenre" as something new, and to me, it betrays how limited their education is. I sat through the "dinner" scene in TX CHAINSAW, and it's more gruesome, more graphic, and more violent to me, than anything in HOSTEL. It's done with great skill, with barely a use of special make-up effects, and in my opinion, Eli Roth is trying to achieve that kind of artistry, but he's falling short. Anyone who thinks his idea of what a "shocking Horror flick" is, is ignoring movie history.

And I'll tell you, if there is one thing I dislike more than storytellers who think they are smarter than I am, it's critics who think they are smarter than I am. Like the dude who supposedly coined the phrase "torture porn." In this case, I think we're dealing with an individual whose outlook on the world is desperately repressed, and poorly informed, and with two words designed to sell articles, he is repressing us all. He's getting help from other average folk who can't think for themselves, too, and I got beef with that kind as well!

I'll resist this kind of ignorance by never using the term to describe Horror films. The great ones deserve a better audience, and I aim to be a part of it.

...as in, he thinks he has balls. so, really, 'nuff said. Subovon, you tried real hard with your argument, but you sound like a 20-something in a film class type. Maybe read a Grimm's tale or two, the real stories that would put Eli to shame, and get back to us. At this point, you sound like a kid who hasn't read H.G. Wells or seen a Hitchcock movie. Eli is FAAAAAAAR from 'artistry'. Unless you're German or Japanese and like to be pissed on because you lost a war. Seriously! What's up with their porn?

And, hint to all future film makers, everyone who has seen your film (Note to you Subovon) is a critic! And being the local jackass, philistine, paying my hard money to see a movie-type...I think Eli is a total hack! It seems many here feel the same way as well.

And bongo123, I don't mind gore...as long as there is a PLOT!!! Stranger in strange land falling into a strange situation, is not a damn story! It's a basic idea, the follow through is where the cop out comes in unless you have TALENT as a storyteller! Eli doesn't, hence so many here thinks he's the second coming of the Holy Craptacular!

Seriously, this is one guy, that unless you are being paid for (I'm looking at EVERYONE at AICN), I can't understand why you'd watch this pricks movies. He is so the American Uwe Boll! The only way you can tell the difference between the two's movies is that some had more blood than the others. They both produce the equal amount of crap, but one poops it slightly more 'artistically'.

Face it, Eli is an asshole. Ed Wood had more visionary ideas for low budget movies.

You know, Subovon, I think you missed the point there. Isn't the point of torture porn to elicit a deep-seeded emotional reaction, be it disgust, revulsion, horror, fear, or (God help us) excitement and/or lust? And if it is, then why is it suddenly redundant to discuss it in emotional terms? Come ON!

As for the abortion thing, same difference. It is an act that carries huge emotional tolls: guilt, horror, fear, regret, mourning, as well as (sometimes) relief, elation, and gratitude. You can talk emotionally about a subject and remain intelligent about it. But I can see how you would think this wasn't possible from a large percentage of these posts on these last few Hostel TBs. Hang in there Sub, this is the best ongoing TB conversation I've had in ages - even though, as a Roth hater, I apparently "suck dicks" (thank you for that, Spaz2K).

Actually, I think Spazatronic 2000 is only jealous because I'm not sucking HIS dick. But whatever.

As if we didn't have enough evidence that sexual thrills and torture / murder aren't totally intertwined in roth's sick flicks...

Seriously, still waiting for an answer. Why do you fans enjoy these movies? Discuss.

"What bothers me is when shithead people think because Harry or someone else on this site has a different opinion, it somehow gives them the right to personally insult the person they do not agree with." - DamnYouMB, direct quote.

You absolute fucking hypocrite! You are HILARIOUS! Ahahahahahaaaaaa!

QED - We can never take anything further you say at all seriously. What a complete moron. do you even READ your own posts before you post them?!?!?

I'm not demanding an explanation of why you enjoy these movies, I just genuinely want to understand what I'm missing out on by NOT enjoying them. You say it isn't rocket science - so what is the enjoyment factor for you? I understand you can't talk for eveyrone who loves these films, but what's your take?

And as for taking these films seriously as art - in response to a lot of intelligent, well thought out criticism of them over the last few days, Roth went and got spanked on stage. Well, there's the intelligent riposte I expected from Roth. Now I expect you to call me a traitor to the west, a goddamned commie pinko gay liberal leftie faggot who sucks dick all day, rather than effortlessly shooting down your lame-ass retorts every few minutes.

And I'M the dumbass? For fuck's sake.

And then there's Spazatronic 2000 - the antithesis of intelligent conversation.

Let's agree to disagree, and we're all better people for it. See, other Talkbackers, this is how it's done. MB and I are mates again.

I see your point about hating the guys in H1 - I felt the same watching the jocks etc get it in the Elm St movies, that's what made you root for Freddy in all the sequels. That I get. But not in the HOSTEL movies.

But still, good talking to you. Now where's that Spaz2K?!?!? >:p

The word is DESENSITIZATION, Spaz. Go look it up. The troops don't need more horror, they need some time away from it. And the world of professional psychology definitely doesn't need you. Unless it's Dr Phil - go over there and feel free to take a drill and some duct tape ;p

This is really the worst thing I ever experienced on AICN. Have you guys lost your mind or WHAT THE HECK IS WRONG WITH YOU??? DAMMIT.

The troops deserve better than that.

The catharsis argument works to a point. I just think that the link between the rise in torture porn movies and the rise in torture used as a tool for extracting information by the US is an interesting, and potentially scary, link. Like I said, people with the opportunity to ACTUALLY HURT people are wtaching these movies. Do I believe that watching Elm St means someone will go Freddy and kill people? Maybe. Probably not. But it's easier to tie a guy to a chair and drill him to death than to make someone levitate up a wall, across a ceiling, and hack them to death in mid air while invisible. Fantasy is fantasy. While HOSTEL is fiction, it doesn't look or feel fictional - that's the point of these movies. The original TCM was designed to look and feel real. Ditto CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST. And they are all the more powerful for it. Twenty five, thirty years on from these movies first surfacing, society in the West is way more violent and less safe. Coincidence? A highly coincidental one, if so. You can't keep denying these links. Do I think these movies should be banned? I don't know. I'd be happier about the HOSTEL movies if the kills didn't look as if they could be actual murders downloaded from YouTube. But they do look like that. See what I'm saying? In the SAW movies - which are repulsive enough - at least the ADD editing, weird-ass green lighting and stylistic camera movements give you enough distance to feel comfortable in the fact that they're fiction. HOSTEL blurs that line. Why would you want to feel, when watching a movie, that it JUST MIGHT BE real? What's the attraction of that? I've been exposed to "snuff" clips on the net before (by so-called mates) and without exception been very distressed by all of them. Where's the enjoyment in watching real death? Where's the enjoyment in watching movies that try to emulate movies that show real death? Isn't fantasy death enough for you?

What are the answers? Over to you, spaz2K.

There's a world of difference. If you're gonna do torture porn, at least give the distance between making a documentary and making it fictional. My argument is that Hostel is too realistic, ergo it excites the real sickos. And the acting & script were shit. But all the work seemed to go into the torture scenes. Hardly the case with Lethal Weapon - I doubt in reality anyone could snap a guy's neck with his feet after the electric shocks Mel took in that scene, but it was so OTT as to be almost cartoonish. See also Starship Troopers: great fun as OTT as it was, but make that a documentary style, hyper-realstic movie, and it'd freak me the fuck out. The tongue in cheek is necessary. It's the style that's at fault, not the content.

And we're still calling those who disagree with you gay? Dear oh dear. Duckie.

Don Murphy was right about you all along. You really are a worthless turd. I cant believe I actually wasted time going over there to defend you and this site, not too long ago. What a waste of my fucking time. Defending a loser fucktard with huge titties, who does absolutely nothing at all except shit on his ass eating breakfast nachos @ 1pm. I cant imagine the horrible trainwreck of a life you would be living if this site hadnt taken off in popularity. Can you imagine what life for you would have been like if you needed to rely on an actual skill or creativity? Maybe you could have turned into a video store clerk or maybe a movie theater employee working for minimum wage? Thats about it though. I hope you say a little prayer at night for your tiny bit of good fortune in an otherwise pitiful life.

I guess the only way you get to sleep at night is thinking about your 7000 myspace friends after furiously masturbating to some obscure german horror movie thats only available on Betamax while looking at your naked picture of Eli that Im sure is in a folder on your desktop.

Don Murphy was right about you Harry. And you know what? Ban me if that makes you feel any better. Because i wont take the time out of my life here in NY to come back to this p.o.s. and create yet another screen name.

good day whore.

Roth fanatics: is there not one among you with the balls enough to admit that you watch these movies to get off on the sickness? That you secretly woder what it would be like to commit these acts without guilt or consequence? We have Tourist up there bragging that he's seen a number of real deaths on screen - why the fuck is this seen as a GOOD thing? The moment you realise that it's possible for this to happen in real life (ie when you GROW UP - every male kid of 13 or so enjoys the sick shit, but grows out of it when they realise what pain death can cause, due to losing a pet/friend/family member close to them, THAT'S when this sick shit becomes more than just an exercise in gore. Eli seems to genuinely enjoy watching realistic suffering on screen. I LIKE gore - I can watch the SAW movies (badly made as they are) for the inventiveness of the kills, but the style of the movies removes them one step from reality. Likewise the Elm Sts, Friday 13ths (LOVED Jason X!), Hallowe'ens etc. What do I hate? Devil's Rejects, Hostels, original TCM, Hills remake - because they aren't about catharsis (working out your own frustrations by identifying with the killer(s) or victim(s) on screen) but about making you feel very, very bad when you leave the theatre. Freddy Krueger killing jocks - fine. They're cartoony jocks and cartoony kills. But HOSTEL is about fucking assholes treating others like fucking assholes getting killed by fucking assholes then surviving only to be killed by more fucking assholes in Part 2. Where is the merit? What is the point? And why, if it's a movie for appreciators of the art of SFX, does the tone of the movie have to be realistic? Why not stylise it (like SAW movies) or give it a plot (like CABIN FEVER had)? Why make it a movie that (a) revels in the hyper-realistic kills, (b) obviously identifies with the killers, and (c) is made by a man who OBVIOUSLY gets off on the violence himself? Tell me that Eli Roth wouldn't be impressed by someone killing someone for real in the manner of a HOSTEL kill. He'd be whopping it up. And so would some of you sick fucks.

I just happen to think that's a bad thing. Excuse me all to hell for giving a shit. All you torture porn fans: go buy an island, take some power tools and heavy weaponry, plenty of duct tape and A LOT of Kleenex, and go fuck each other up to yor heart's content. Get it all out of your system, boys. The fact that you even feel the need to defend this sick shit is enough ot make me wonder why the fuck I care so much about humanity as a whole, it's so obviously doomed to fucking failure. You bunch of fucked up freaks.

Eli Roth is a sick bitch. You are his sick bitches for watching this shit. And Eli will build a nice large house by enabling you all to watch his sick shit. How depressing is THAT?

(1) Fun, unpretentious story

(2) More comedy than horror; strictly for the fans only!

(3) My finely attuned English sense of irony. As for horror authority? I'm a fanboy like most of y'all, but I'm just trying to get by, is all. Inside my squishy little skull (thanks for that, pwn). This from a guy named after something kids send to each other while Playing world of Warcraft. Jeezus. ;p

It seems that I am now the poster boy for Torture Porn Prohibition, so I'll simply say: FUCK HOSTEL! FUCK ROTH! FUCK Y'ALL!!! AHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAA!!!

Glad to see someone else take up for WOLF CREEK. And you know, if I'm not mistaken, it was made for a million bucks, four times less than the first HOSTEL. Although, I do give credit to the set design of the first movie (haven't seen the second). I thought it was dank, creepy, and effective. I liked that. The rest was disappointing, though. And the actors... wait, sorry to call them that. (But then, I've seen none of their other work, so maybe it was all Roth not giving them anything to work with. The script sure didn't help them with their lines!) The second, or what I've seen of it looks a little over the top, to me. That's a nice bathtub she's got that naked chick covered in blood... but does it make sense in the flick? Dunno, I'll pass judgment when the UNRATED DVD comes out.

How slow WOLF CREEK is at the beginning is a common complaint. I've always chalked it up to short attention span. You think the film's last third is a mountain of cliches? Can you think of anything more cliche than men kidnapping and raping women? I think the reason it's a cliche, is because we do a good job as a society of blaming the woman ("she asked for it," is another cliche), and then looking the other way (say, towards a commercial break). I think that aside from the catharsis of shock, and horror, the filmmakers were after some of that. They're not *telling* you they're making a statement. Instead, they show you how ordinary days, for ordinary people, can suddenly end with violence and death... and then the world keeps turning (coming up next: see Keifer Sutherland torture his ex-wife to find out where she hid his goddamn car keys!").

Also, it's essentially a remake of TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE, and it's not hiding it. So maybe the cliché is implied? 'swhat I thunk, at least.

I'm going to Google and see if this is the first site that gets the hit for Hostel 2

I don't understand.... the MPAA tells him his film will get an NC-17, which is like saying, "Sorry, we're doing what we can to keep it from being released widely, unless you sensor your flick." Then, instead of saying "You gotta censor this, this and that," they say "the areas of concern are here, here, and here." "Areas of concern." HA! I love euphemisms, always good for a good laugh, like being politically correct!

So He sensors his flick, exactly in the way they want (I presume, since he ended up with an R), and he calls that a "discussion?" Someone explain that one to me, please.

Someone also explain to me how Bruce Willis can say that LIVE CENSORED OR DIE HARD can be as "hard" as the first, R rated movie, except that it's rated PG-13, please....

The very condition that allows censorship to function, is that there can be NO argument. It's either OK, or, it's not. Period. So it sounds to me that Eli thinks having the phone number of the people at the MPAA who are handling his "account," and doing what they want, is what he calls a "discussion." He even mentions he has no influence on them - none at all. And then I'm asking... so what part of that is a "discussion," if only one side is listening? Does he actually believe what he's saying?

This guy really makes my head hurt...