First I must warn y'all - this is written by a half-awake me, just pouring out thoughts as they come, and doesn't really have a throughline - just brain vomit. Continue at your own risk...
So... anybody seen Hostel: Part II? Judging by its receipts no, nobody has. I try to seperate myself from box office discussions because honestly, I don't give a flying fuck about what movies make and don't see it as any sort of barometer of a film's actual worth, since most every movie I've ever held most dear was a flop. But ocassionally I get drawn into the tired discussion of why something didn't do well in theaters - a discussion I always enter against my own will because, again, I cannot stress this enough, I really mostly don't give a flying fuck (Brokeback's success was an aberration in that I followed its daily receipts like a crackhead) - like when Grindhouse didn't do well I just really couldn't fathom why it wasn't doing well... still can't really; basically, my argument came down to something like "mass audiences are morons" and I stand by that claim.
Anyway, all that ramble aside, I have nothing to say on why Hostel: Part II didn't do well because the news that Eli Roth is going to take some time off to go relax and work on some scripts makes me very happy indeed, because after seeing Hostel: Part II my main thought was, man, Eli needs to work on his scripts. It's the same problem I've had with both his previous films and it held true, and maybe even moreso, in this case: he has great ideas and he executes (har har) them well, but there's no there there... ya know? Something seems off, like the glue that's supposed to hold these films together is only saliva.
In both of his previous films, I have found them better with a second viewing so perhaps that will hold true again for Part II. And I certainly didn't hate the film, it had a lot of good pieces - I'm not even going to get into the claims of misogyny because frankly if you argue that you haven't even watched the film - but the shift in tone here, where Roth was obviously drawing off his experience making the Thanksgiving trailer and nearly everything is played for laughs... it played strange. I felt even more uncomfortable with its shifts in tone - one minute a little boy's head gets blown off and the next there's an oops moment with a buzzsaw... both we're supposed to be horrified by but the shifts in tone kind of negate how one's feeling, if that makes sense. What we're supposed to take seriously is undermined. Which, taking one off balance, being sloppy like this, it's a staple of low budget horror that Roth subscribes to faithfully, and his work with David Lynch is still rearing its head in his work - we're not quite sure how to take some of this shit, and that's both good and bad, I think.
As for the much bemoaned end of civilisation the violence supposedly represents... god I have nothing more to say on this topic. Roth obviously romances the MPAA with his grin and charm and I have no argument against this film deserving an NC-17 because that seems like the way to keep out the fools who litter the screenings of these films I attend, but I have the fortune of living in NYC where I'd still get to see an NC-17 film and if I were in 97% of the rest of the country it wouldn't be that simple and I'd be pissed off. But again, like with the first film, Roth doesn't show us anything worse than I've caught in 30 year old movies you can get off of Netflix, or flipping through a picture book of Medieval times (Elizabeth Bathory anyone? Anyone?). And if you don't want to watch it, then don't, and move the fuck on. Last time I checked, a couple of horror movies weren't blowing the limbs off our soldiers in Iraq. I'm the last person to argue "it's just a movie" but there does come a point where one's argument about a film's supposed effect on culture crosses the line to hysteria and several of the critics out there have confused shrieking with any sort of valuable assessments.
.
So... anybody seen Hostel: Part II? Judging by its receipts no, nobody has. I try to seperate myself from box office discussions because honestly, I don't give a flying fuck about what movies make and don't see it as any sort of barometer of a film's actual worth, since most every movie I've ever held most dear was a flop. But ocassionally I get drawn into the tired discussion of why something didn't do well in theaters - a discussion I always enter against my own will because, again, I cannot stress this enough, I really mostly don't give a flying fuck (Brokeback's success was an aberration in that I followed its daily receipts like a crackhead) - like when Grindhouse didn't do well I just really couldn't fathom why it wasn't doing well... still can't really; basically, my argument came down to something like "mass audiences are morons" and I stand by that claim.
Anyway, all that ramble aside, I have nothing to say on why Hostel: Part II didn't do well because the news that Eli Roth is going to take some time off to go relax and work on some scripts makes me very happy indeed, because after seeing Hostel: Part II my main thought was, man, Eli needs to work on his scripts. It's the same problem I've had with both his previous films and it held true, and maybe even moreso, in this case: he has great ideas and he executes (har har) them well, but there's no there there... ya know? Something seems off, like the glue that's supposed to hold these films together is only saliva.
In both of his previous films, I have found them better with a second viewing so perhaps that will hold true again for Part II. And I certainly didn't hate the film, it had a lot of good pieces - I'm not even going to get into the claims of misogyny because frankly if you argue that you haven't even watched the film - but the shift in tone here, where Roth was obviously drawing off his experience making the Thanksgiving trailer and nearly everything is played for laughs... it played strange. I felt even more uncomfortable with its shifts in tone - one minute a little boy's head gets blown off and the next there's an oops moment with a buzzsaw... both we're supposed to be horrified by but the shifts in tone kind of negate how one's feeling, if that makes sense. What we're supposed to take seriously is undermined. Which, taking one off balance, being sloppy like this, it's a staple of low budget horror that Roth subscribes to faithfully, and his work with David Lynch is still rearing its head in his work - we're not quite sure how to take some of this shit, and that's both good and bad, I think.
As for the much bemoaned end of civilisation the violence supposedly represents... god I have nothing more to say on this topic. Roth obviously romances the MPAA with his grin and charm and I have no argument against this film deserving an NC-17 because that seems like the way to keep out the fools who litter the screenings of these films I attend, but I have the fortune of living in NYC where I'd still get to see an NC-17 film and if I were in 97% of the rest of the country it wouldn't be that simple and I'd be pissed off. But again, like with the first film, Roth doesn't show us anything worse than I've caught in 30 year old movies you can get off of Netflix, or flipping through a picture book of Medieval times (Elizabeth Bathory anyone? Anyone?). And if you don't want to watch it, then don't, and move the fuck on. Last time I checked, a couple of horror movies weren't blowing the limbs off our soldiers in Iraq. I'm the last person to argue "it's just a movie" but there does come a point where one's argument about a film's supposed effect on culture crosses the line to hysteria and several of the critics out there have confused shrieking with any sort of valuable assessments.
.
Posts
7 comments:
The funny thing with movies that don't make any money is that they become "cult" movies and then in a few years time they're everyone's favourite movie yet they're still sullied with the reputation of being failures.
(Not saying anything about Roth cause I think I've said my last about him)
I think, more than anything, he needs help with dialogue. I love his directing, I totally got what he was doing with the tonal shifts in mid-scene, and I thought the character turns near the end were brilliant. But the words? Meh. I can't even remember one line of dialogue, and I just saw it a week ago.
I'm really, at this point, looking forward to what he does with somebody else's material. I think he might need that basic structure handed to him, and then he can take what great skills he does have and put them into somebody else's material and I think that might do the trick in reining in his weaker impulses. Cell is only a mediocre book, but the meeting of these two minds - Roth and King - may make the material great.
And I didn't say this because I forgot when I typed this post, but I'm actually a lil' glas Eli got a bit of an ego-whupping, because he was starting to worry me in interviews, it started with the "this is the most shocking ending EVER" selling points he was making - step back, Eli, you're talented but you're not horror's saving grace just yet. I like him a lot and he really put himself out there with this flick - interviews everywhere, his name above the title for the first time - and I think that's great and I want him to be successful; I was just worried he was getting a little big in the britches when he really hasn't totally proven himself just yet.
"glas" = "glad"
ja,
I guess I'm relieved to read this from you. From first glance it seemed like you were all caught up in this movie and as a mutual horror movie admirer, I was hoping for more. When you look at Hostel in the scope of horror movies, it seems a bit of a blip and as I've said in the past I'm a bit dismayed that Roth's name has risen so high with so little to his name. He needs to do a lot less talking and a lot more focusing on doing good movies.
Here's my small quam with the MPAA: How exactly are Hostel Part 2, a movie about people being tortured to death, and Once, a musical about Irish street musicians, both rated R?
I agree with you on Hostel: Part 2 100 % in what you said and the grade you gave to it.
I liked the first one better than it, but Part 2 is still a good movie nonetheless.
Post a Comment