HNT
Grizzled HMaM Vet
Horror in General & Everything Else Moderator[/i]
Kiss my tuchis
Posts: 6,296
|
Hostel
Feb 4, 2008 11:51:17 GMT -5
Post by HNT on Feb 4, 2008 11:51:17 GMT -5
I find it interesting that you thought that Roth had taken the idea as far as he could in the original, LAz. HAve you seen Hostel 2? I recognize that most people don't care for it nearly as much as I do, but I really thought that exploring the concept from the POV of the bidders and customers of the torture comany was very interesting. The whole bidding format was interesting, and it was amazingly disturbing to see the torturers as basically regular guys with some horrifyingly dark impulses. Pair that up with the fact that those character's actions completely subvert the viewer's expectations, and you have a truly interesting exploration of the banality of evil. Although it might be a bit wierd to invoke HAnnah Arrendt in discussing Hostel 2, I do think that it is warranted.
Not to mention, in a truly interesting turn of events, having female protagonists actually lessened the amount of sexism and exploitation. WOuldn't have expected it, but it made the movie much scarier and more fun.
|
|
Lazario
Zombie Flesh Eater
BANNED FOR FLAMING
100%
VOTED OF THE ISLAND!!!
Posts: 409
|
Hostel
Feb 4, 2008 12:19:08 GMT -5
Post by Lazario on Feb 4, 2008 12:19:08 GMT -5
Did you even understand the point of the original film? Because first of all, there would be no sequel if there were no original.
Second of all - fun? A movie like Hostel wasn't supposed to be fun. So if you think that hurt it as opposed to the sequel which was more traditional in most ways (aka- not as special as the first movie), which made you have fun with it - I don't think you get it.
Third of all, if your comment about sexism and exploitation was in reference to the original film (meaning the female characters here lessened the amount from the first film)- that was very much the point of the first film. The characters are sexists and are exploitative. Therefore, they then are put in that position themselves.
And lastly, in regards to Hostel II's subverting expectations, I didn't think there was anything unique about that. I've found it's been done before. Several times if I recall. So in just about every way, Hostel II is falling back completely on traditional elements of the exploitation / torture film. Which makes it much less ambitious than the original film. Which was much better and more effective, regardless of how fun it was for viewers like you.
|
|
HNT
Grizzled HMaM Vet
Horror in General & Everything Else Moderator[/i]
Kiss my tuchis
Posts: 6,296
|
Hostel
Feb 4, 2008 13:29:12 GMT -5
Post by HNT on Feb 4, 2008 13:29:12 GMT -5
I think that the films had two seperate focuses. Both were comments on our society (and by society I am speaking globally and not merely nationally). In the first Hostel, we are confronted with images of torture that are meant to invoke Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, and other elements of US foreign policy. Not to mention, there is something to be said for the obvious commentary on American exploitation of the third world by subverting those expectations and turning them back toward the Americans.
THe sequel had a different aim. It served as a commentary on the fact that those who are capable of the most heinous acts of violence are regular people. They are your friends and neighbors who have dark secrets. That message was served by focusing on the POV of the torturers, and making them ostensibly normal people, who had dark secrets that would not be readily apparent to most who knew them (even their own families). Not to mention, the commentary, present in the original as well, that money purchases a degree of absolution for indefensible bahaviors, is hammered home even more effectively in the sequel.
I agree that "fun" was probably a poor choice of words, but this is an effective exploitation film. I think that it is a worthy heir to the 70's classics of the genre. MOreso even than the original
|
|
|
Hostel
Feb 4, 2008 15:59:09 GMT -5
Post by 7 on Feb 4, 2008 15:59:09 GMT -5
I'm glad you pointed that out HNT, that is what I took out the films as well, the idea that money can buy immunity - and does. I recently watched the films again, and that abomination of human rights they call Blackwater was really the only thing running through my head the entire time.
I wouldn't call Eli Roth the next Vonnegut (not by a long-shot) but I think he took that idea and really developed it well.
|
|
Lazario
Zombie Flesh Eater
BANNED FOR FLAMING
100%
VOTED OF THE ISLAND!!!
Posts: 409
|
Hostel
Feb 20, 2008 9:52:38 GMT -5
Post by Lazario on Feb 20, 2008 9:52:38 GMT -5
I think that the films had two seperate focuses. I agree. The first movie found a good point to make and made it to an audience that was largely jaded or else we wouldn't have people like you saying it wasn't effective. The second film fell back on cliche, and through that cliche managed to convince people that it was smarter and making a more broad commentary than the first film. I happen to think what people feel the message of the sequel is is close to being obsolete. The first film was good enough so that it didn't warrant a sequel. Plus, I think people like you who weren't satisfied with the original film just wanted a sequel so you could say something was better than the original. I don't buy any of what you're saying. I saw it and was completely unimpressed. Just because you're an intelligent viewer who is socially well informed and you saw something good in the movie does not mean Eli Roth was on the same page as you are. I think Hostel was basically a fluke in the guy's career. If we are to judge him on the three films he has made thus far, I would say he lucked into Hostel (part 1) and that Cabin Fever and Hostel II are overrated (which they clearly are), but neither rose to the occasion. Sometimes a director is just really onto something. Perhaps Roth was cashing in on the talent he keeps buried in his subconscious. Because Hostel worked. But it worked on a very personal level. We didn't need a lot of conjecture on what the business side of this whole thing would be like. And coming up with a sequel just to do that is stupid and pointless. Because now... where's the tension? The suspense? It's not in Board Room Meetings and Online Auctions. The simple truth is, no matter what heavy-handed stuff you thought was brilliant, this sequel is still about 3 Americans traveling to Slovakia. Basically the exact same thing the first movie was. So we know exactly what to expect. A few little twists and turns cannot justify another 95-100 minute movie about this stuff. If you didn't think the first movie was worth much- I think you didn't pay attention. But hey, who cares what I think? If you didn't care before, why are you going to care now?
|
|
HNT
Grizzled HMaM Vet
Horror in General & Everything Else Moderator[/i]
Kiss my tuchis
Posts: 6,296
|
Hostel
Feb 20, 2008 17:19:32 GMT -5
Post by HNT on Feb 20, 2008 17:19:32 GMT -5
Yay, I'm stupid .
|
|
|
Hostel
Feb 22, 2008 3:39:13 GMT -5
Post by GP on Feb 22, 2008 3:39:13 GMT -5
You showed remarkable tenacity to fight your corner this far HNT but at last you finally succumbed to the reality that all are stupid in the presence o..... no, wait... BOLLOCKS to that tool. Hostel WAS fun! Hostel 2 WAS interesting for its change of focus and CAN be justified simply by the fact that people ENJOYED IT!!!
|
|