Al:
I guess this might open up a new debate. Namely, the nature
of so- called "independent" films that cost millions of
dollars and are produced and distributed by the same moguls
who are responsible for all the other blockbusters. HOSTEL's
budget might not seem big compared to films like Jurassic
Park, but they are still infinitely more expensive than the
movies from the '70s it is esentially stealing from. The only
difference is that while most of the latter were almost
universally dismissed as rubbish (and the quality of the few
good ones that came out is only now being acknowledged),
HOSTEL was overwhelmingly praised (and hopefully it will take
less time for people to realize what a sham it was). I know
HOSTEL 2 hasn't gotten much rave reviews but I guess that's
because it's the same thing all over again. The same goes for
SAW trilogy, which is one story remade twice (I guess you
could say the same about the Scream trilogy as well as other
horror series). I think the case of Guy Ritchie's films is
similar, his taste in movies being almost as bad as his taste
in women.
I might have overstated my case when I said people were
calling HOSTEL genius, but I still believe that for a
glorified torture fest it garnered a lot of undeserved praise
(and this coming from someone who enjoys both classic horror
films and newer stuff such as Rob Zombie's).
-GB.
(BTW, I bought Hard Man this morning. I look forward to
reading it soon).
--- In
rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com, "al_guthrie65"
<allan@...> wrote:
>
> I have to ask... which critics are calling Roth a
genius? I know
> Stephen King recently called HOSTEL 2 'interesting
on an artistic
> basis', but I suspect he was being kind. I've
certainly not seen
> much in the way of good reviews -- quite the
opposite, in fact. And
> which movies did Roth make on big budgets? He's very
deliberately
> avoided making movies on big budgets and it's the
fact that his
> extremely low budget gorefests (CABIN FEVER was made
for $1.5
> million; HOSTEL for $4.5 million -- tiny budgets;
HOSTEL 2 was $10
> million, which is still tiny by today's standards)
have made so
much
> money that's spawned so many imitators. The same was
true of SAW,
> which was made for about two dollars and a button
and grossed (that
> being the operative word) over 50 million in the
US.
>
> Al
>
> --- In
rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com, "GB" <mnc_fb@>
wrote:
> >
> > Charlie Huston is probably my favorite writer
of the new crop and
> > I've been recommending him to every
Spanish-speaker I know who
can
> > read in English. I also used to enjoy Rex
Miller back in the day
> > although he's not exactly new (BTW, I've been
waiting for someone
> to
> > collect his short stories and any unpublished
stuff he might have
> > left behind. I'd love to know if there are
other Eichord stories
> > around).
> >
> > It's not the violence (or the ultra-violence if
you will) in the
> > stories that's wrong. Sometimes you need
exactly that to tell a
> good
> > story. For instance, I don't think the cat
torture scene in
> Huston's
> > Caught Stealing was unnecessary, as shocking as
it was. For
> starters,
> > it served to illustrate the viciousness of the
thugs Hank
Thompson
> > was up against. American History X is another
such case. I don't
> > think you could tone it down and what the
characters did in the
> movie
> > is just the type of things skinhead and ghetto
gangs do in
certain
> > situations. The same goes for the shower scene,
which as we all
> know
> > is pretty common in prisons
everywhere.
> >
> > Movies like Hostel, Saw, the Texas Chainsaw
Massacre remake, etc.
> or
> > the wave of noir films from the UK such as Guy
Ritchie's, Sexy
> Beast,
> > etc. are different in that they genuinely
strike me as the
product
> of
> > a teenager who thinks he's being cutting edge
by devising over
the
> > top scenes. The violence doesn't shock me, it's
just that it
seems
> > unnecessary for story purposes as well as
unrealistic in itself.
> You
> > don't really need to have experienced things in
your life to talk
> > about them but I think that if you're going to
make violence an
> > integral part of your work, then you should
justify its inclusion
> > within the context of the story (you could do
without half of
> > Hostel's torture scenes and the story would
remain the same) as
> well
> > as make it more realistic. Nonetheless, what
bothers me the most
> > about these works is not that I find them
worthless (other people
> > might enjoy them and more power to them) but
how critics almost
> > unanimously fawn over the supposed "genius" (is
there a more
> overused
> > word these days?) of Tarantino and his clones
or people like Eli
> > Roth, who's basically producing slasher films
with a bigger
budget
> > than their predecessors from a few decades
back.
> >
> > -GB.
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 04 Jul 2007 EDT