Lazario
Zombie Flesh Eater
BANNED FOR FLAMING
100%
VOTED OF THE ISLAND!!!
Posts: 409
|
Hostel
Jan 31, 2008 17:14:38 GMT -5
Post by Lazario on Jan 31, 2008 17:14:38 GMT -5
Watched Cabin Fever a few days ago. It was okay. I wasn't disappointed. But I wasn't entertained either. I couldn't find any of the fun. Nor did I find it as disturbing as everyone seemed to say it was back when it was getting so much positive feedback (which was years ago).
I still think Hostel is a much better film. It's smarter and better made. More focused, more intense.
|
|
HNT
Grizzled HMaM Vet
Horror in General & Everything Else Moderator[/i]
Kiss my tuchis
Posts: 6,296
|
Hostel
Jan 31, 2008 17:35:41 GMT -5
Post by HNT on Jan 31, 2008 17:35:41 GMT -5
I did not like Cabin Fever much at all. WTF was with the "Pancakes" kid? That scene alone was so dumb that it ruined the movie
|
|
|
Hostel
Jan 31, 2008 19:36:09 GMT -5
Post by Jen on Jan 31, 2008 19:36:09 GMT -5
I did not like Cabin Fever much at all. WTF was with the "Pancakes" kid? That scene alone was so dumb that it ruined the movie I think a lot of the humor fell flat, and actually agree about that scene (except obviously I don't feel it ruined the movie) but I still enjoy the film for some reason, and not because I have fooled myself into thinking it is all that great of a movie. I think its because Roth's love of horror films is so evident, and so is his enthusiasm. I never thought it was disturbing really. Just.....entertaining. As for Hostel, I personally feel Roth took on too much there too soon, I don't think he was ready to make the film he wanted to make. And I still don't think he is. A lot of the second half was well done. But the first half was boring, I didn't care one way or another about the characters and I just found my attention wandering much of the time. It just never grabbed me, or disturbed me the way it should have. It made me wince a few times, but that's about it. I liked it when I first watched it, and I still think that its okay....but after watching it a second time, I found it even more disappointing than it was after the first viewing. I still believe he has potential though, and I am looking forward to what he decides to do next. As long as it isn't a remake.
|
|
Lazario
Zombie Flesh Eater
BANNED FOR FLAMING
100%
VOTED OF THE ISLAND!!!
Posts: 409
|
Hostel
Feb 1, 2008 8:31:35 GMT -5
Post by Lazario on Feb 1, 2008 8:31:35 GMT -5
I did not like Cabin Fever much at all. WTF was with the "Pancakes" kid? That scene alone was so dumb that it ruined the movie Oh yeah. That was definitely one of the weakest moments in the film. Though there weren't many individual moments perse. But I remember when I saw that, I was not amused. It had nothing to do with anything, it defied logic, it was unfair to the character, and it really wasn't funny. They sort of did it just to give the rednecks a reason to hunt the kids down. The other thing I think most people would agree is a big sore spot for the movie - Deputy Winslow. "The Party Man!" Yeah...no. He is an idiot. He's not funny. He's not a real cop but he still ends up doing what the other real cops do in the ending. So, to me, that's incredibly unrealistic and screws with the logic of the movie. Unless they're trying to say he was a figment of their imagination and that the fever went right to their heads. He ends up being, in effect, the same mistake to this movie that the Comedy-Cops were to Wes Craven's Last House on the Left. Over 90% of people who see that movie say those cops were a mistake. I can't believe Roth wanted to repeat that mistake. I don't think Hostel is perfect. But it shows a lot more control for Roth. The first half is outstanding. Because you're not supposed to like or care about the characters.
|
|
|
Hostel
Feb 1, 2008 11:38:49 GMT -5
Post by GL on Feb 1, 2008 11:38:49 GMT -5
For me, I thought the film sucked as the torture scenes were incredibly disappointing (and we spend all of five minutes in the whole film centering on it) the make-up isn't all that convicing, and it's way too long and dull for such an unspectacular pay-off. How can we fear a place with such a storied and feared history only to find out more damage is done on the outside rather than in it? Barely watchable, but it's way better than Cabin Fever, which was too in love with homaging the past to come up with anything remotely entertaining.
|
|
|
Hostel
Feb 1, 2008 12:09:59 GMT -5
Post by Jen on Feb 1, 2008 12:09:59 GMT -5
I realize you weren't supposed to like or care about the characters, but I felt nothing....and I HAVE to feel something for a film like that to work. I had to at least dislike them immensely....and again, I felt nothing. But maybe that's my problem with Hostel. I'm not much into watching films where almost every single character is unlikeable, I guess I have to be rooting for someone in a film, or I find myself bored by. I just was not emotionally invested. And it wasn't bad enough, or over the top enough for me to enjoy it for that reason. The cops in Last House on the Left, I agree with that, it was a huge mistake.......but, I just don't think Cabin Fever was meant to be taken even a little bit seriously. Or maybe it was, and he is an even more inept filmmaker than I thought. With Last House on the Left, the subject matter was so VERY serious, so I think a mistake like that hurt Craven's film far more in a way than Roth making goofy mistakes in an already goofy film.
|
|
Lazario
Zombie Flesh Eater
BANNED FOR FLAMING
100%
VOTED OF THE ISLAND!!!
Posts: 409
|
Hostel
Feb 1, 2008 13:44:16 GMT -5
Post by Lazario on Feb 1, 2008 13:44:16 GMT -5
Cabin Fever was definitely meant to be taken seriously. Yeah it starts out with the college kids making jokes... But, when they start getting sick... They don't keep making many jokes. It's a serious effect, they get very upset, the tone of the film is serious.
Hostel is not meant to be taken as a torture film. And... most filmmakers who make torture films are not expecting the audience to ENJOY it. That would be sick. People are supposed to be unnerved and repulsed by it.
So, GL, maybe if it disappointed you so much, you didn't go into it in the right frame of mind. Just a thought.
Anyway, the movie totally works. The point was: the guys go out taking advantage of other people, "using" them and expecting that they won't have to pay for their actions. It's very much like the part of Pinocchio where the boys go to Pleasure Island and go crazy, doing a lot of terrible things thinking there won't be any consequences. But it's too late, they're in too deep, there's no escape, they're gonna pay.
The film's also about human-trafficking and reverse-prostitution. The customers to the prostitutes become the prostitutes themselves after having sex with the girls. This culminates in the AMAZING scene where Natalya says, "I get a lot of money for you, and that makes you MY bitch!"
And just when you think the movie couldn't possibly fit anymore into its concept... It becomes fairly obvious that it's a statement against torture and the way its used on people as though they are objects and not people. The point is not to go over-the-top showing all the body parts that were cut up and off and open. That would be stupid. The movie makes its point on a much more effective level. And it also uses a great element of restraint. The ankle-slicing moment actually made me wince / recoil, psychologically thinking I was feeling a portion of that pain. I rarely have that reaction to violence in movies. So, regardless of how little or much torture in the film - it worked on me.
And as for the "Likability" versus "Unlikability" of characters in a movie... Well, horror has this very funny history of a lot of the movies in the genre having some sympathetic characters. But if you buy into the concept of the movie, and you understand and agree with it, it's very easy to get over that. Or even appreciate the movie more for it.
I think it would have been a huge disservice to the movie if it had made anyone / everyone more likable. The whole point would have been rendered useless.
|
|
|
Hostel
Feb 1, 2008 14:45:47 GMT -5
Post by Jen on Feb 1, 2008 14:45:47 GMT -5
My point was, for ME.....I would have had to dislike them quite a bit for the first part of the film. And I didn't, I was disgusted by some of their actions, then annoyed....then bored. I personally think the first half of the film was clumsy in what it was attempting to do. I get the point, I know what he was trying to do and can even appreciate it. I just don't think he accomplished what he set out to do, that's all, and you do. Glad it worked for you, it just didn't work for me, not completely anyway. And since it didn't, there was a lot of the film I just couldn't get into, and so the lack of sympathetic characters, or characters that really made me feel anything but annoyed, worked against it.
And no, I don't think Cabin Fever was meant to be taken seriously, it was too silly for that, and while the characters were taking their illness seriously, it was impossible for me, as a viewer to take it seriously. And I never got the impression that the film ITSELF thought it was a serious, or realistic, "this could happen to you" kind of horror film. I never got the impression he was trying too hard to scare, disturb or even shock with that film like he was with Hostel.
|
|
HNT
Grizzled HMaM Vet
Horror in General & Everything Else Moderator[/i]
Kiss my tuchis
Posts: 6,296
|
Hostel
Feb 1, 2008 16:32:09 GMT -5
Post by HNT on Feb 1, 2008 16:32:09 GMT -5
I agree that Hostel is mediocre at best. I have to say, though, that I think that Hostel 2 is a very good film. Roth made a few changes in the set up and explored the scenario more fully and from different angles. I think he actually is a promising director who jsut might be a little bit too in love with some of his less brilliant story ideas. In any event, if Hostel 2 was any indication, we have only good things to look forward to from Roth
|
|
|
Hostel
Feb 2, 2008 11:50:17 GMT -5
Post by GL on Feb 2, 2008 11:50:17 GMT -5
Frankly, for something that was hyped by how gruesome and grotesque it's torture scenes were, they were really uninspired. Their effects weren't that great (that flaming head thing is both atrocious and highly unlikely to ever happen) the chainsaw goof is exactly that, a goof that was never meant to happen, and it's too dark to see any of the other methods.
Now, before you bring up any other areas, I'm gong to say that there wasn't anything else in this. The first half is just them walking around talking, getting stoned, then one goes missing, walking and talking some more and then some more walking and talking before they finally get to the torture dungeon, and frankly, it's an hour of them doing absolutely nothing of interest, and the film does nothing to keep my interested either when we break away to something else. It's just way too dull for something that has such an unspectacular payoff.
|
|
Lazario
Zombie Flesh Eater
BANNED FOR FLAMING
100%
VOTED OF THE ISLAND!!!
Posts: 409
|
Hostel
Feb 2, 2008 14:35:16 GMT -5
Post by Lazario on Feb 2, 2008 14:35:16 GMT -5
I never got the impression that the film ITSELF thought it was a serious, or realistic, "this could happen to you" kind of horror film. Is that what you think you have to feel in a movie to take it seriously, to feel like it could happen to you? Tone means nothing? I ask only because I am genuinely fascinated by the position you've taken on this film. Did you find the illness itself to be silly? Or, if not, what in the movie was silly to you? Frankly, for something that was hyped by how gruesome and grotesque it's torture scenes were, they were really uninspired. I can't imagine one reason in the world why viewers themselves would give power to Hype. Because that's unfair to the film itself. Hype is stupid anyway. I think people should ignore it and expect only a decent movie. Which is only fair, and something which every viewer has the right to expect. That way you're in a much clearer frame of mind when you judge it (which we all do). Now, before you bring up any other areas, I'm going to say that there wasn't anything else in this. The first half is just them walking around talking, getting stoned, then one goes missing, walking and talking some more and then some more walking and talking before they finally get to the torture dungeon, and frankly, it's an hour of them doing absolutely nothing of interest, and the film does nothing to keep my interested either when we break away to something else. It's just way too dull for something that has such an unspectacular payoff. JOINT REPLY TO BOTH GL and Jen: I'm the first person out there to penalize The Blair Witch Project for doing exactly what you've pointed out here. Yet I haven't held this against Hostel. Why would you say that is? Because I enjoyed it? I have a theory- that most people don't like torture movies. It would be pretty disturbing if they did. It would indicate a sadistric stream in the viewer, and it would be pandering of the movie to do. I don't like to see what looks like anyone in any real pain. And I believe most other viewers see this the same way I do. I think in our estimation, instead we as viewers skip over those scenes and look for something else. I think we're all smart enough to expect a movie that does something that extreme has a point to it. The one place where I think we disagree is- did the movie have a point to its buildup. It's a film very much about human depravity and it wallows in it. As for how the characters weren't unlikeable "enough," that very well might have been done to make them seem more naive. But I can tell you, part of the power of this film in relating its message To Me, was that I swear I knew kids that were like Paxton, Josh, and Oli. They are out there. Everywhere. And they might not say it to your face during the day, when everyone else around them is being civil, but if you're standing in their way on a night of partying, they'll knock you the hell down without batting an eye. The film definitely got this aspect right. What we disagree on is I think, how much we see of their behavior and how that signifies to the audience the point its making about young people today. As for the special effects... With a movie like this, I don't care. It just matters how the moments of this violence make us feel. And again, I don't wince often. In fact, I never do. But I did with Hostel. That's power. That's effectiveness. And I think that indicates a talent the director has for using some form of psychology to connect these moments with the viewer. What he shot works equally well with how the editor spliced these shots together and how the music might have underplayed or overplayed it for visceral impact. With a scene that has this kind of impact... I can't imagine what longer torture scenes with "better special effects" would have done to the movie, other than make it cheap and dilute its messages. One thing's for sure, this movie was not made to be ignored. Even if what I've said about this movie only counts for how it caused me to interpret it, that means it's at least 65% effective. Hostel is mediocre at best. I have to say, though, that I think that Hostel 2 is a very good film. Roth made a few changes in the set up and explored the scenario more fully and from different angles. I think he actually is a promising director who jsut might be a little bit too in love with some of his less brilliant story ideas. In any event, if Hostel 2 was any indication, we have only good things to look forward to from Roth I seriously disagree that Hostel was mediocre. As for the sequel, it was a huge mistake for him. He did everything with the concept that he could in the original film, which was strong enough not to warrant a sequel. And it's starting to become obvious that he never had that much to give horror in the first place. His track record is only marginally better than Rob Zombie's. Which puts him further in the mainstream than I'll bet he liked, and puts the horror genre output for this decade at further disadvantage. Who knows what made him give-in to this awful idea, but what reason could it be other than money?
|
|
|
Hostel
Feb 3, 2008 11:54:18 GMT -5
Post by Jen on Feb 3, 2008 11:54:18 GMT -5
I never got the impression that the film ITSELF thought it was a serious, or realistic, "this could happen to you" kind of horror film. Is that what you think you have to feel in a movie to take it seriously, to feel like it could happen to you? Tone means nothing? I ask only because I am genuinely fascinated by the position you've taken on this film. Did you find the illness itself to be silly? Or, if not, what in the movie was silly to you? No, it depends on how the filmmaker approaches the subject matter. A film can be about something that I may find completely ridiculous, or unlikely to an absurd degree, and make the film genuinely disturbing to me. The Exorcist is a great example. Demon possession is not exactly something I truly believe could happen to me, but the film made me believe it. The people involved made me believe it. Cabin Fever had too much seemingly intentional corniness there. Yes, it all LOOKED pretty good, but otherwise it was just a silly, obvious horror film, the characters were silly, the attempts at humor was silly, and mostly the "feel" of the film was silly. It was like watching a film made by horror movie geek that had suddenly got some expensive equipment and gore effects to play with. It had good energy, and like I said, I appreciate Roth's enthusiasm, but he wasn't trying to make a deep horror film here. There are some films that are unintentionally corny in a way, and you can feel that the filmmaker really was trying to go somewhere with it. Cabin Fever wasn't that way in my opinion. And because of that, no I couldn't take the film seriously. Hostel he really was trying to get somewhere, you can see the difference in his approach to the films. Hostel IS a more mature film. I have said before at other forums, say what you will about the film, it IS memorable in a lot of ways. But again, it just didn't work for me. I needed something to keep me interested in the first half that just wasn't there. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with what you are saying about what the film was trying to accomplish, we just disagree on the effectiveness of the film itself. And since that is something you kind of have to feel while watching the film...well, you felt it and I didn't. Which it why technically, I like Cabin Fever better. I often enjoy films that I don't or can't take too seriously, or that don't take themselves too seriously. Hope this helps you understand my view of the films better.
|
|
|
Hostel
Feb 3, 2008 11:55:40 GMT -5
Post by GL on Feb 3, 2008 11:55:40 GMT -5
If you saw something that you liked, that's great, but I didn't. I say it way after it was in theaters (in fact, just last month to be honest) and had heard and read what was said about it in all the threads on the message boards and around the web, so I expected something that would, if not wow me then to at least offer me a decent time. It didn't happen, and subsequent viewings to see what I had missed didn't do anything much. It's a little better, but not by much.
|
|
Lazario
Zombie Flesh Eater
BANNED FOR FLAMING
100%
VOTED OF THE ISLAND!!!
Posts: 409
|
Hostel
Feb 4, 2008 2:43:00 GMT -5
Post by Lazario on Feb 4, 2008 2:43:00 GMT -5
I say it way after it was in theaters (in fact, just last month to be honest) I saw it last summer. If you saw something that you liked, that's great, but I didn't. I don't like watching people take advantage of other people. I'm not into sex comedies, torture films, or anything you obviously thought this movie was about. I simply think it was very effective in doing what it tried to do. I like what it tried to do. And I'm very hard to convince as well. I think this film did what it did very well, because it made me believe in its message. And I am not easy to persuade. I think to "get" this movie, you need to be able to pick up subtle nuances. And to see through the not-so-subtle ones. I can't believe you missed anything. If you looked, you should have seen it.
|
|
|
Hostel
Feb 4, 2008 11:27:08 GMT -5
Post by GL on Feb 4, 2008 11:27:08 GMT -5
I saw it as a horror film, and I didn't think it was too sucessful, as it bored me with it's inactivity for too much of the time, which coupled with all the unspectacular torture scenes left me feeling very down on it.
|
|