Kernan's Hostel II review

[Reel_American_Hero]

Not that this matters much, as it seems no one really propogates these forums much anymore, but I have to disagree with a point that Kernan made in his review for Hostel II yet. I thoroughly enjoyed the first film, have not had the chance to see the sequal just yet.

But in that same since, as he mentioned that he did see the first Hostel, and felt during watching the original film that he must make movies in order to keep from actually killing women. When, in that film, the majority of the deaths are indeed of male characters. The only female deaths in the original Hostel are of the two girls that are the bait for the characters to get trapped in the death games of the hostel, and their death was warranted I felt, they were clearly not innocent victims in that.

The one female victim in the first Hostel film did have a brutal eye gouging torture scene, and yes that was brutal, (some other people might say uncalled for).

My point in all this as that would people still complain about the 'torture porn', as they say if the victims were all white american males, probably not. I don't see why certain groups of people should be exempt from being characters in a horror movie, it's only when a victim in such films isn't of the w.a.m. variety, that there's such an uproar, oh how could they do this.

I can understand though, that this violence isn't everybody's cup of tea, and that's cool. But I've been a huge horror fan in all it's types for years now, and while I do enjoy the occasional bit of ultra violence, I'm a perfectly sane, and normal 27 year old man. It doesn't take a twisted person to make these movies, and I doubt that it stems from some deep psychological trauma in Roth's mind. He's making movies that aren't the standard 'WB cast in peril' family friendly horror movies. Which is a good thing, as that's what everyone else seems to want to make these days. They're made for people that have a taste for that kind of thing, and that doesn't make us any less sane or normal then the people that don't prefer that.

It's just a movie, fictional entertainment. It's not for everyone, but getting back to my original point, outside of this movie, which I'll review once I get back and have the chance to see it, nowhere in Eli Roth's ouevre has there ever been anything to suggest that he hates women any more than Tobe Hooper, John Carpenter or any other horror director. Unless the point is that they all must have something wrong with them to make the movies that they did.
_________________
Now you know, and knowing is half the battle!

[Kernan]

You say you saw the original? Because I'm not sure you did. Both of the young Japanese girls died. Brutally. One was tortured then for good measure crushed by a train. The other women in the original existed solely to be nude. If I had wanted to watch porno I would have gone to the strip club. Oh and of course once those women were allowed to put their clothes back on they were hit by a car.
Hostel Part 2 only takes the mysoginy to lower depths.
I love horror movies too. I have heaped all sorts of praise on the Saw movies. Those films brilliantly combine scares and a brain. There is a point and purpose to the violence and gore and while it can be excessive the purpose, the philosophy behind the violence still works.
What purpose can be divined from the violence of Hostel or Hostel 2? Roth creates characters that he does not care about, films them with little skill and puts them in motion simply to lead them to the slaughter. Is revulsion the point? Disgust?
Wes Craven, John Carpenter, even Tobe Hooper to a lesser extent, are skilled filmmakers who create tension with their cameras, develop characters that are memorable and craft scares that are really scary. They don't pretend cultural relevance in the way Roth does.
Why do we remember Craven and Carpenter and Hooper? It's not because they disgusted or offended us. It's because they genuinely worked to frighten us, to expose our fears and our nightmares and carry on a filmed dialogue on the things in our society that are truly frightening. If you can find anything beyond loathing behind the work of Eli Roth I would love to hear it. And please don't just parrot what Roth himself has been saying. He can invent subtext all he wants, I watched the movie there is nothing there.
_________________
Kernan

[Reel_American_Hero]

Here's where I disagree, yes both of the Japanese girls were killed in the movie, one of them was off camera though, so I don't see how you count that as being depraved. And secondly, of course all the women in this movie were mostly naked, partly it was eye candy for the lesser among us, eye candy that which I enjoyed mind you. And secondly it was because where these guys were at, these European sex clubs and the like, that's the type of women that would be frequenting such places.

I don't think we're going to find an empowered free thinking scientist in a place like that do you? No, you're going to find exactly the kind of women that were at those places.

I don't see what's so wrong with every now and again a movie coming out with female nudity. Is there any socially redeeming factor, no, but it's all in fun though, not misogynistic in my view at all. And again, more than half of the victims in the original Hostel were indeed male characters, nobody complained when they were brutally killed though. It's only when gruesome on screen violence happens to those who don't fall under that category that it seems to be an issue for some reason.
_________________
Now you know, and knowing is half the battle!

[Kernan]

Look, I'm no prude. I have no issue with nudity in film. What is at issue here is not just the content of Hostel and Hostel Part 2 but the pervasive attitude of mysoginy that surrounds both films. It's not just that women are treated like meat but contextually, look at how carelessly these characters were crafted. That goes for both the male and female characters. Roth's care is only for how he is going to torture these characters. The torture is all that Roth cares about, not story, not aesthetic, just torture and that is pretty twisted.
Leigh Whannell, James Wan and Darren Lynn Bousman put so much thought and care into telling a complex, philosophically based horror story that even the thinnest character has a purpose well beyond their gruesome demise. That is what gives them the cover to make Saw as brutal as any horror movie in the market, because it's about far more than merely causing revulsion.
Take Nightmare On Elm Street as an example. Nancy is a terrific character who earns our sympathy quickly and deepens the emotional connection to the characters around her. As the bodies pile up our emotions are flared because we give a damn about these characters.
Roth has no care for his characters and he seems to want us to be equally dispassionate toward them, seemingly; so we too can enjoy their demise as much as he does. That is simply perverse.
_________________
Kernan

[Reel_American_Hero]

Okay, that I can agree with to a point. In Hostel (haven't seen the second yet so I can't say I have any type of opinion of my own it good or bad) the characters are solely there to alternately get naked and die horribly or just die horribly. But in his first movie, Cabin Fever I felt that those were characters you could care about somewhat. It's just when he hit his Hostel series that he focused more on what he percieved as the audience wanting to see, all the thrills (to some people) of the horror genre with none of the characterization or subtext that other films had.

Some people, like myself enjoyed it, others from that point on just declared Eli Roth a hack (no pun intended). I think we'll have to wait to see his adaptation of Stephen King's 'Cell', something that should hopefully have characters we care about as well as some pretty sick stuff going on in it to see just how Eli Roth as a director is now with a few films under his belt.
_________________
Now you know, and knowing is half the battle!