I think Bill's been very generous in letting us talk about
movies at all, so I'll not try his patience other than to say
HOSTEL got its rep not by being good but by making an awful
lot of money. That's my perception anyway.
Hope you have some fun with Hard Man. I certainly had fun
writing it.
Al
--- In
rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com, "GB" <mnc_fb@...>
wrote:
>
> 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).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 04 Jul 2007 EDT