Articles
Advice of the Day (Forum)
Books (Forum)
Druidic Ramblings (Forum)
Dumb Ideas (Forum)
H-Town (Forum)
Links (Forum)
Movies (Forum)
Music (Forum)
Opinions (Forum)
Photo Albums (Forum)
Prose/Poetry (Forum)
Questions (Forum)
Video Games (Forum)
Member Login

Username

Password

Register Here

Forum
 

Forum posts for Eli Roth can go Fuck HImself

Relax man....
Posted by Miguel on Jun 04, 2007
I don't know why you get so wound up about silly movies.

1. Hostel, Turistas, Wolf Creek, Hills have Eyes etc. are NOT snuff movies and are not trying to be snuff movies. You either have no idea what a snuff movie is, or you have not seen any of the movies you are railing about. Probably both.

The only real stab at a "fake" snuff movies are the Japanese with the Guinea Pig series and some of the "Virgin's Guts" type movies. The first Guinea Pig movie was so bad that Charlie Sheen saw it and called the FBI on the movie, forcing the directors to make a behind the scenes follow up showing how they did it. The Faces of Death movies purport to show some sacrifices or deaths, but its all fake.

Believe it or not Hostel and the Hills have eyes all have a plot, characters, dramatic tension and release, laughs and a moral theme to them. More on this below. I haven't seen Turistas, Wolf Creek or even much of Saw, but I would rent them with no issues if I was bored.

2. You are also wrong about Eli Roth originating this, most of these kind movies owe more than a big debt to 70's revenge flicks like Last House on The Left, I Spit on Your Grave and even the original Hills have Eyes. This new crop of movies is a bit more nihilistic, but they are financed by major studios with clever marketing schemes and target audiences etc. etc. They are about as truly offensive as farting in public. The originals were always made on shoestring budgets and were a labour of love for the director/writer. Wes Craven did Last House on the LEft for example and then went on to be a moderately famous genre director.

In fact I am more offended by movies which always feature a wise black narrator who is invariably Morgan Freeman. (million dollar baby, Shawshank Redemption)

3. Now, this reason for this new slasher crop is two-fold.

First of all, the torture thing is as topical as it is horrifying.

More than that though, we're living in a world that is afraid of religious zealots who want to kill us for reasons too alien to comprehend. That's why you have all these torture-porn flicks where we never even see or understand the slasher. That's what makes them different from the slasher movies of the 70's is that we never understand what makes them tick, we just know they want to torture and dismember us because we're attractive young North Americans....

4. Imagination and horror can be produced by showing someone who appears to be genuinely terrified and torturing them. It is indeed nauseating and can be an exercise in endurance....but lots of great art is.
(American Psycho, SUNN OOO)))), Merzbow, lots of performance art). I'm not saying any of the movies you mentioned are great art, but they deserve to be looked at respectfully just the same. Dont hate on something you haven't even seen, read or heard.

At least a couple of these films are about torture for revenge's sake, and that has a fairly distinguished pedigree that goes back all the way. Shakespeare's "Titus Andronicus" has a more complicated plot than "Last House on the Left" but there's a certain similarity to the structure, and the violence is just as graphic and extreme... (The rapists are chopped up, baked into a pie, and fed to their mother).

In summation: relax, it's just a movie...everything is going to be alright.





Fuck
Posted by phduffy on Jun 04, 2007

I forgot to mention that Eli Roth (the fucktard) made what was by far the worst of the previes for Grindhouse. The other previews were fun, over the top, and hilarious. However, since Roth doesn't seem to be able to breathe without making stupid offensive crap, he created an overly long, unfunny preview for "Thanksgiving". I mean JC, look at fucking Machete and Hobo With A Shotgun and then look at Thanksgiving. Thanks again Roth.

I have not seen Hostel, Turistas, Wolf Creek, or Hills have eyes. However, the scene I saw from Hostel II was a very blatant attempt at a snuff-like film. Oh yes, I know it's fiction and therefore can't be snuff, so I should have used snuff-like. Which is obviously better.

Now, I have seen Saw, and there's a world of difference between Saw and the clip from Hostel II that i watched. Saw presents tension, suspense, and eventual murder. While Hostel presents porno torture death.

There is also a huge difference between movies from the 70s and what Roth does. Roth casts actresses who can believably beg and whimper for their lives, and technology has advanced to the point where the blood doesn't look fake, the deaths look real. Fuck, I have no problem with violence, I loved Grindhouse and I like UFC, one of which presents stylized violence, and one of which is real violence.

Morgan Freeman is also wise and black in March of the Penguins.

I find it interesting that you just called American Psycho great art. I'm not sure how it's at all comparable to what we're discussing, but okay.

The rest of your points are just saying that sometimes art is gross, or that it has a long tradition. Okay. Interesting point about Titus Andronicus. When they performed it, the didn't actually eat humans, they used props which were quite obviously not human. I mean, Oedipus Rex is a famous story, that doesn't mean that a mother-son acting combo should film it and actually have sex for reality's sake.

Posted by Miguel on Jun 04, 2007
When I watched Grindhouse people were laughing and enjoying Thanksgiving just as much as Machete. I didn't get to see HObo with a shotgun though, stupid theatre.

You saw a trailer, a clip from a movie which showed torture. If I saw a clip from Saw with just torture I could perhaps think it was just disgusting gratuitous crap, but I don't because I know it's just a small clip from the movie.

Everything you said about Saw, applies to Hostel, which I like about 500x more than Saw. Hostel is funny, dramatic, suspenseful and it does have a point to make. Is it a great movie? No. Is it fun? Hell yes.

Snuff movies are filmings of actual murders: nothing more, nothing else. Hostel and Hostel 2 are not snuff movies, and they are not trying to be snuff movies any more than Saw was. They have a plot and characters and all that other good stuff (caterers, a narrative arc!, best key grips, assistant directors!) that goes into a movie.

You haven't seen any of the 70's movies I mentioned, so I don't know how you can compare with authority how fake the violence looks (for example LHOTL is all about rape, and you don't need high tech effects to make it look terrfying) or how well the actresses beg and whimper....

American Psycho the book is amazing art. The movie is a very good movie, but it's not as great as the book. It has lengthy depictions of brutal torture, much worse than Hostel actually. And I consider it relevant, great art. I mentioned it to show how gratuitous, graphic torture and violence have a place in entertainment or art.

I'm not sure what you are trying to get at with your last point. Roth should make his movies look more fake?

Listen, you don't like Eli Roth, that's all fine and good. You obviously got very upset by looking at one 30 second trailer. YOu also obviously have not seen any of his movies, or even many horror movies in that genre. So it's perhaps a little extreme to accuse anyone who has watched it or want to watch it of being a fucking retard...just don't watch it.




Posted by Nerhael on Jun 04, 2007
American Psycho....aren't most of the murders etc actually off screen? I seem to recall the time he beats his coworker to death being mostly off the screen, with just shots of the blood spurting into his face.

I honestly don't recall any other scene in that movie though.

Posted by Miguel on Jun 04, 2007
IN the movie yes, although there are some pretty intense bits. But the book is very explicit.

Posted by phduffy on Jun 04, 2007
I think this will probably be my last post, since as we all know, Miguel and i can pretty much go back and forth forever on these things, and if I post much more it will start to get silly. (Note to Miguel: I still disagree about the Raps and Kobe, and may even respond to your email at some point).

Grindhouse - I'm actually a little busy right now, but I want to see if I can track down people discussing the trailers. The opinion that Roth's trailer sucked donkey balls is certainly prevalent amongst people I've talked to, and at least one review, but that could be far from a concensus.

I don't remember any straight up torture from Saw. The events in Saw are presented in the context of suspense, not tortorous bloodbaths.
We'll have to disagree about the snuff movie point. (Essentially I'm saying that Roth made a movie that would appeal to people who want to see people die*).


*I am not saying it only appeals to those people.

I didn't realize that you were referencing the book. I've avoided the book, since allegedly the violence is based on the real life victims of Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka, and I didn't think I could handle that. Although the person who told me that is about the least honest person I know, so who knows. The movie certainly doesn't show anything on par with Hostel II. And of course, there are differences between novels and books in terms of depictions of violence.

I'm not sure what you are trying to get at with your last point. Roth should make his movies look more fake?
Roth has two choices. He could make his movies more over the top, more stylizied, etc, or he could be a fucktard. That's his choice, and he's made it.

I did not accuse people who watched Hostel fucktards. That's what I called Eli Roth. I suggested that I would be unsure of the mental capacity of anyone who watches Hostel II.

Posted by Miguel on Jun 04, 2007
Yes, we could do this fagdance forever.

The person who told you that american psycho is based on paul bernardo is wrong. The book was published in 1991...bernardo's crimes were not revealed untill a few years afterwards.

Posted by phduffy on Jun 04, 2007
I'm trying to remember other times we've done this:

Lost in Translation
Probably a couple of times on politics
The War in Iraq
We did this offline about service charges at ATMs

Pete, could you add a button that would allow me to sort the forum posts based on number of posts?
:)

Posted by phduffy on Jun 04, 2007
Oh yeah, if we were to do this again, and we were to forget all the previous points, I think you should use Clockwork Orange instead of American Psycho.

Posted by cosmicfish on Jun 04, 2007
Thank you! I love reading your bickering.

I was just dating a guy who grew up across the street from Mr. Bernardo... creepy!

Did anyone else see 28 Weeks Later? I was disappointed.

Posted by phduffy on Jun 07, 2007
Weird, Warren Kinsella wrote a story about this today:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/issuesideas/story.html?id=373ed690-d213-4bc1-bf9f-d84f53220e75

Posted by jessie on Jun 07, 2007
i wasn't going to post this

http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2007/06/eli_roth_has_his_dirk_diggler.html

but i just did. how about that.

WHAT THE?
Posted by Miguel on Jun 07, 2007
For fucks sakes Jessie, if you are going to post something like that:

SAY ITS NOT SAFE FOR WORK!!!!!

I don't want to get fired......

SORRY!
Posted by jessie on Jun 07, 2007
hahaha, thought didn't even cross my mind, i look at everything at work.

so my previous post is very not safe for work. be aware!