Am I so totally out of it? The movie HOSTEL. I really hated it..

That was the impression I got, so I never went out of my way.

 

I loved me some Fangoria around the time of American Werewolf in London and The Howling. Some good horror movies coming out at that time, and tons of special effects makeups by Tom Savini, Rick Baker, Dick Smith, Rob Bottin, etc. I haven't check out that mag for years though.

 

Not into these types of films at all. I've had enough death and insanity in my life, thanks. That's not what I go to the movies for.

 

H G Lewis made some of my favorite American cult films in the 1960s. They are absolutely hilarious. His movies are so bad they're great. Bad acting, bad cinematography, silly gore effects. And sometimes, as in the case of "Something Weird", they're just plain great.

There was a thread here a few months ago about commentary tracks. The only time I've actually sat through an entire commentary track in one sitting is in a couple of HG Lewis films. He comes across as very articulate, kind, witty and charming. Come to think of it, he must be in his mid 80s by now too.

 

The difference is that films like Hostel are purely fantasy driven. It may be offensive to many people, but it's not a snuff film. I didn't even realize that there were programs on TV showing animals being killed. Geez, I'm glad I never turn on my TV!

 

Yes, it's on "National Geographic", "Discovery Channel" and "Animal Planet".

 

For me, that's kind of how I feel about Ed Wood movies, but HGL I just find kind of dull - like how The Gruesome Twosome is horribly padded even at under 70 minutes (that stalking scene with the lame "bones" payoff? Come on!). He goes from bad to good and all the way back to bad again, and it's interesting to note how he seemed to grow more inept with time. To each their own, though, and I admit some of them do have their moments of notable weirdness, like that movie's opening chat between two styrofoam wig stands.

Definitely agree with this - he does give good commentary, and lots of interesting info on the shoots and economics of making and distributing zero-budget indie films. When I watched The Wizard of Gore, I was so unengaged by the film I just re-started it after 20 minutes and watched it with the commentary on. Much more entertaining!

 

I never watch the extras for any movie, but after seeing 'Hostel' I had to.

I found it upsetting to say the least. My GF left after the nasty stuff began.

The only way for me to put it in it's place was to see how it was made and that human beings actually put it together.

I could have switched it off, but the "no way can someone be like that" factor held my curiosity.

I've seen the 'Saw' series and it does have an intellectual thought.

 

I watched this movie a couple of years ago when it came out on DVD. In fact, we've had a couple of locked threads about it here! You may want to do a search.

Steve, i'm afraid that this is the type of slasher movie that is popular nowadays. If I remember correctly, it's about a bunch of American businessmen who pay to hunt and torture humans for sport. It's like a resort for sick people.

I liked the movie, but it's not something I would normally watch. Sorry.

 

The first SAW wasn't bad at all! It was pretty good!


Y'all sound like a bunch of old men!

 

I've seen the commercial and that was enough for me. I can't even watch soft porn CSI.

 

Not that it needed to be, but being a fan of makeup special effects, I thought Hostel could have been much more gruesome than it was. Coincidentally, nothing in it affected me the way the scene in which Joe Pesci's character in Casino is killed, and it's not that graphic in a gross-out horror movie kind of way. I thought that was brutal, and that character was a douche, so why did it strike me that way? Acting & film making skill? Would Hostel have been unwatchable (I know some of you already think it is) if Scorsese had done it? Just because he would have invested it with more gravitas? Discuss.

 

Yep, it had the same effect on me. But even more horrifying was the scene in Goodfellas were Pesci (again!) kills that young boy bringing his drinks. That scene startled me and literally punched me in the gut. It sent a cold coil through my body that was far from pleasant.

 

He was scary in Goodfellas. I was a little relieved when he finally got his.

 

I actually stopped watching The Sopranos because I couldn't take the violence!

 

I mentioned A Clockwork Orange and Psycho because I noticed your "Clockwork Orange" quote earlier. Those are two very disturbing movies because they show the point of view of disturbed individuals, yet they are also great movies. A Clockwork Orange in particular has a lot of interesting ideas - I may not agree with everything the film says, but it isn't just an exercise in getting thrills from violence (although maybe some people might view the movie in that light). Psycho on the other hand seems to just be a thriller - it doesn't seem to have a lot to say, but at least it's subtle and stylish.

If I wanted to watch a movie by Luchino Visconti or Pier Paolo Pasolini then I could just do that - I don't need to see some kind of low-grade Hollywood gore version. Pasolini (and yes, that is the correct spelling) is overrated in my opinion anyway and some of his films also fall into the gratuitously disturbing category.

As for "Crocodile Dundee" That's not a movie, mate. Why not try a decent Australian movie like "Romper Stomper"? Now that's a movie, and yet quite disturbing and violent. Check it out and then get back to me.

 

Not exactly Abbott and Costello, was it?


Evan

 

I think that Silence of the Lambs was the moment that the cult of the serial killer somehow became acceptable to the mainstream. There had always been fringe people like Sonic Youth who were interested in Charles Manson and stuff like that, but Hannibal Lecter brought this to your local multiplex. I generally don't believe in censorship, but I make an exception for this whole serial killer/torture porn genre of filmmaking.

 

Heads up, people: Everyone has their level of tolerance. But, people, don't assume that just because someone likes, or can tolerate a level of grossness or vulgarity in some of today's movies, that they are somehow less a sensitive, caring human being, and nothing like you are. The same goes for reality shows.

 

I have to confess that I do assume that anyone who voluntarily chooses to watch a movie like Saw or Hostel is perhaps less of a sensitive, caring human being than they ought to be. I fail to see any redeeming value whatsoever in watching even fictional accounts of people being tortured to death. Maybe we do have an innate urge to watch scary movies such as Psycho that manage to paste a thin veneer of "art" onto our atavistic urge to watch other people suffer or die, but the post-Silence of the Lambs movies in this genre cross lines that should not be crossed, imho.

 

Not everything has to be socially redeeming and life-affirming. If that is what a person wants in their life, that's OK. But, some like to watch, read, and listen to things that seemingly have no value. To me, everything has some value, even if it's not apparent.

If I like SAW, for instance, how does that make me a less-sensitive, caring person? What if I like gangsta rap? It does not mean I identify with the sicko. How do you know I don't identify with the victims of that sicko? See, you should not assume anything! Life is not cut-dried, and simple. people, like most other things in life, are complex.

 

Some of us are able to separate art from reality.

We should be more concerned about keeping real human beings alive throughout the world than keeping characters alive in a movie.

By the way, I think we get it by now: you really didn't like Silence of the Lambs. It's okay.

 

I get that. I know that I watch and read things that others would deem to have no value. Like I said before, extreme violence and torture are an exception to my general belief that anyone should be able to watch anything they want. Child pornography would be the one other subject that I would put in that category.

If you identify with the victims, why would you want to watch them being tortured? I still don't see what good (in any sense of the word) these fictionalized depictions of torture create.

 

Right now, someone out there wants to censor the same things you like. So, who will be the one who decides which things get censored? You? Me?