Pajiba

I've never met Mr. Roth, either. I have also never seen any of his films. but the popular feeling around his previous endeavours is that he is quite the reprobate. Also, his bit part in "Death Proof," may not have involved very much in the way of acting if any of the gossip is true.

Alas, my new "Jeeves and Wooster" boxset will have to keep me entertained this weekend.

The entire premise of the Hostel series is torture and porn. This movie had precious few moments of either. The target demo is men, ages 16 to 24 because anyone else is generally uncomfortable on some level with shelling out 9 bucks to watch other people suffer and consider it entertainment. That doesn't mean they won't, but they'll feel a tad dirty for doing so.

The "torture" scenes were lame and done before. I've seen much better graphic violence in several B rated movies than this commercial garbage. It's like Roth was saving up just to be able to pull off the last scene and get it past the censors.

Which brings me to the porn part of it. Given the demographic, having women protagonists is ludicrous. Does Roth really think that anyone other than gothtards and riot grrrls are going to flock to this movie for the sense of empowerment they get from "the most shocking scene in history" or however else it is being billed in the ads? Without T and A, there is no reason for a guy to see this movie, especially since there aren't any good scenes with the torturers. Hell, Hostel wasn't even really all that gruesome.

No. No, I say, no.

This stripe in our cultural fabric is why I now, for the first time in my hick-originated-but-trying-to-become-civilized life, own guns. That, plus a few other reasons having to do with our national depravity and untrustworthiness, but no. I don't care that it's not as horrifically amoral as the first one. This fucking shit is just not okay. Not okay. This fucking shit is why, if I see someone on our stairs tonight in the dark, I'm sending him back to where his warranty card came from.

"The Hills Have Eyes." "Wolf Creek." "Hostel." And "Saw"s One through Three. WTF? Torture porn, indeed, but when did a significant segment of the populace start getting excited over this shit? And when did it become okay? If you watched this shit when I was a kid, we would have (rightly) shunned you and our parents would have come after you with pitchforks and torches.

Please, Mighty Puh-Jee'-Buh. WTF? These movies challenge my faith in anything. Why is this happening? I'm as numb and helpless as anyone else, but these fucking movies are not helping that.

Unbelievable.

I was really craving the review for this, because I knew it would be hilarious and vicious... and instead you give me this.

Goddamned journalistic integrity. Why'd you have to go and actually watch the movie before you wrote about it? I bet you had some zingers all planned out that you didn't get to use. I want to see them.

I wonder if Heather Matarazzo performed her own stunts. Based on her film career and her scenes in this one, I'd say she's got some issues.

I don't know why I torture myself by watching these types of movies...

I actually kind of liked the first Hostel because I thought the premise was an interesting one and I prefer my horror movies thoughtful, so I was planning on seeing the sequel. Then I saw the "infamous" film clip floating around the internets and I decided that this wasn't for me after all. Now, of all places, Pajiba gives it a largely positive review. Now I'm going to have to see it after all!

I'm never surprised when you all hate a film many people profess to love and which makes a mint; it's an enjoyable part of your schtick. After all, it's in the header: "Scathing Reviews for Bitchy People."
But I'm floored by the suggestion that a movie whose main engine is the torture, mutilation, terrorizing, humiliation and degradation of three female characters has "toned down" its misogyny. May I recommend a work by our good friend Mr. Webster? It explains the meaning and usage of words, and might prove useful in the future.

Hey, guys, listen up.

Granted, Pajiba is "scathing reviews for bitchy people," but stop already with bashing the review. If a critic is going to see a movie and write a review, he is going to tell his opinion, not what he wants the crowd to hear.

I understand that this site is known for it's humerous reviews, (Norbit, Black Snake Moan) but if he liked the movie, then let him say so.

If you disagree with the review, shut up and don't see the movie.

Something is really wrong here. Day Watch was a major disappointment compared to its predecessor while Hostel Part II is actually better? Huh?

Calm down, socalled, and this extends to those of you complaining about the seeming approval of the film. As Jeremy (the reviewer) said, the movie isn't a masterpiece, or even a really good film. It is just a considerably improved film compared to the original and its brethren. And compared to Eli Roth's other work, this one has much less misogyny and more character development, and marks a maturation for the director, which I would like to believe is a good thing. It was not the film that Jeremy (the reviewer) expected, and he expressed that, but that doesn't mean he suddenly approves of torture porn. Just because a turd is polished up doesn't make it any less a piece of...well....

In fact, this could spell the end for such films, if done right. If this particular film does well, then it could show that a) audiences are growing the hell up and demanding more from their entertainment and b) that horror movies don't have to be vapid exercises in sexual release through mind-scarring homicide in order to be successful. If it fails, then studios might be convinced that such films are no longer the moneymakers they were last year, and be reluctant to fund any more. It could be a victory for the tasteful either way.

What breaks my heart about this flick is that Heather Matarazzo was involved. I know I don't have a chance, doesn't make me crush any less, though. Why did she have to be in this?

"Torture porn, indeed, but when did a significant segment of the populace start getting excited over this shit? And when did it become okay?"

right on, socalled and brett.

That this upcoming generation of younger folks is (rightly) seen as a likely audience for movies that depict the brutal killing of women as porn, makes me terribly unhappy and enervated. I can only hope that the kids beneath them have a little more humanity.

Jeremy, movies like this--and their popularity--are atrocities. What if the premise were to drool over black people getting cut up and mutilated specifically by whites? Would it pass as legitimate entertainment, and its detractors told they had "sand in the vag"? No, there'd be an outcry, and rightly so. So where's the outcry when it's women being dismembered?

You get props from me for naming it as misogyny. But I've pretty much got to take them right back for excusing it as "less misogynist tan the first". Why is any hatred of women tolerable?

Reminds me of that old Stephen King story, "Apt Pupil". The teenaged male main character blackmails a Nazi war criminal he finds into telling him "the gooshy stuff". In the story, written 20 years ago, the kid is portrayed as a sick, doomed monster. I'll bet he'd have been a big fan of torture porn.

People people...have you even seen this movie?

I COMPLETELY agree with his review. I just got back from it....and I UTTERLY loved it.

The torture/gore is very much toned down save the last scene which is gore against a male.

I enjoyed the characters, and I rooted for Beth and I didn't feel bad about it.

This was an EXCELLENT film in Eli Roth terms. And I really did feel like Eli went out of his way not to be misogynistic.

Again, you can't call this movie torture porn in my opinion--you really can't. The violence is way toned down save the last scene and probably...the "vampire" scene. Other than that...nothing at ALL compared to Hostel 1.

And yep. I'm a female.

Just saw Hostel 2 and Rise The Blood Hunter back to back. Rise shares a disturbing scene with Hostel. I guess BDSM is the must have ingredient in a horror movie this summer.

Go see Rise the Blood Hunter if you have an itching desire to see Marilyn Manson, sans makeup, and Nick Lachey in the same movie.

people, calm down. it's an opinion (and a valid one, at that). and the majority of the review is a relative comparison to the first "hostel". get off your high horses and see the movie before you criticize, or don't see the movie at all and shut the fuck up.

and by the way, "torture porn" is SOOOO last year. it's "gore-no" (or "gorno" for you non-hyphenates, as i espoused in a discussion of some worthless flick a few months ago...).

Thanks, anyway, but I think I'll pass on Hostel II, for several reasons. For one thing, I've had my fill of pointless splatter films and then some; I was tired of the genre even before they went the torture-porn route. For another thing, here in the KC area we just had a horrifying abduction/murder case of a local teenager (the Kelsey Smith case, which made the national news), and even if I were in a mood for another cheesy horror flick, I have no desire to watch a bunch of teenage girls killed off on screen this close to a real-life tragedy.

And third: Like Jeremy, I despise Eli Roth. Unlike Jeremy, I still despise him, and not just for the gleeful, gratuitous butchery, brutality and misogyny for its own sake that he seems to revel in (although that's reason enough to despise him.)

Roth is a guy who professes - in various interviews I've seen in the media - to be concerned with America's image in the world. And how does he portray his fellow Americans in his films, particularly the Hostel series? As boorish, arrogant, corrupt, insensitive assholes who deserve whatever we get, no matter how horrible it is. Wow, and the Slovakians were actually upset at how they were portrayed in Roth's films.

Apparently the same holds true for some - most? - of the protagonists of this film as well, based on what I've read here and elsewhere about it. I got the same sick feeling from the first Hostel that I did when I saw online excerpts from the snuff video Al Qaeda made of Daniel Pearl's murder, because both films seemed to have the same message: You are obscene and you deserve a horrible death.

And, moreover, the makers of both videos reveled in the butchery they displayed on screen, whether horrifically real or merely horrifically simulated; butchery which was committed for either a political purpose or simply for its own sake. Which is why I shut off the rented DVD of the first Hostel in disgust long before it was over...and why I have no desire to see the current one.

And never mind the domestic audience for films like Hostel; I'm horribly afraid that there's a huge market overseas for movies in which young, pretty Western girls - particularly American girls - die horrible deaths...a market that Roth is perfectly, knowingly willing to exploit to line his own pockets.

No, this isn't a free speech issue for me. And it's not a political left-vs.-right issue either (although I'll admit to conservative leanings, for what it's worth). What this is is an issue of an arrogant, wannabe bad-boy filmmaker expecting us to patronize his films, even though he feels nothing but contempt for his fellow citizens, ourselves included.

It's an issue of right and wrong. And the right thing to do, in my opinion, is to refuse to watch anything Roth is involved in, as a matter of principle. Or even to give the despicable bastard the time of day.

Well said Wes. I couldn't agree more.

Well said Wes. I couldn't agree more.

Wes, you rock, and I appreciate for your observations and well-written explanation. Great post; refreshing to read. I'd like to not watch this movie with you!

What do you know, another Mo. Hi!

I'll definitely take a pass on this one, just because I've never been into scary movies, let alone carnography (my favourite torture-porn synonym I learned from Pajiba!). Just wanted to say to Jeremy, you're a better person than I to take on this assignment, given your opinion of Eli Roth. Impressively fair-minded review, but not so objective as to take all the fun out!

Oh great, now I'm going to watch this movie. I don't mind horror movies, but I too hate Eli Roth almost as much as I hate M Night Shayamalan (who I hate so much that I've ranted about him enough times to learn how to spell his damn name!) and now I will probably enjoy Hostel II? Up is down, black is white, nothing makes sense anymore!

And by the way, could you guys in the comments section have made it any more obvious that the film ends with a guy getting his junk cut off? I haven't heard or seen anything about the film (on purpose), but just reading this page made the ending far too obvious.

I suppose steaming dumps like 'Hostel' 'Saw' etc are a mild improvement on the tired po-mo irony of the countless product that imitated 'Scream', but where's the ideas?

This is just more of the same. As for 'torture porn' being passe, how about 'splatterwank'? Saves ambiguity.

Spoilers here:-

In both movies there's a 'homoerotic' torture/murder. In the first one it's an older man tormenting and offing a young man, both of whom it is hinted at may be gay. The boy keeps his shorts on: the man is fully clothed.

In the second one, a young woman is hung upside down, naked. An older woman, naked, hurts & kills her then bathes in her blood. Now how is this better? Roth gets to have his cake and eat it: you still get tits and ass, but unlike the first film you get blood in the same scene as the tits and ass, and you get to see the owner of at least one pair of tits die - with those tits on view! Girl on girl action with sadistic murder. Eli Roth's honorary membership of NOW must be in the post already.

Both movies have probably-gay characters directly involved in the annihilation of the protagonists. First movie, it's the Dutch would-be surgeon mentioned above. Second movie, it's the artists' model. See, dudes and, uh, bitches? Those nasty queers are out to get you.

First movie, a cash-for-killing client moves to perpetrate some atrocity on a restrained youth using a chainsaw, but whoops! Slips and merely cuts a few fingers off.
Second movie, a a cash-for-killing client moves to perpetrate some atrocity on a restrained youth using a chainsaw, but whoops! the electric flex is too short and pulls out the socket, though not stopping before it chews up the unfortunate victim's face. Laffs galore!

Wes alludes to the ugly-Americanism in the movies that may be giving foreigners ideas* (now there was a thread that could have been usefully explored in these movies, but Roth hasn't got the brains or, it seems, the interest). There's the possibility to bring in how resentment grows from the failure of expectation: setting the eponymous hostel in a rundown backwater of the ex-Warsaw Pact could have been a sneaky way of showing that when you tell people that adopting your way of life will bring them some kind of idealised lifestyle, and they wind up worse off than under the old regime, they won't be happy. A better filmmaker might have gone there.

* I'd question that - although his character synopsis of Eli Roth is right on the money - as Mr. Bush's foreign policy does far worse to poison opinions of Americans than a thousand Eli Roth movies ever will (in the most virulently US-hostile nations they wouldn't even get a theatrical release due to female nudity, 'social dignity' type laws etc). But that's a different debate.

Okay, it doesn't seem to be soaking in yet. While Wes has indeed expressed his opinion quite well, it still seems too many of you are getting the wrong idea from the review.

First and foremost, nowhere in the review does he say you HAVE to see the movie. His point is that if one were to see it, he would hate you a little less. You can still feel free to completely ignore the flick if you wish.

Second, key words here: Compared to its predecessor. If the movie IS better than the first (as far as actual storytelling and characters are concerned), that is a GOOD thing. That is progress. It isn't a huge leap, but it is enough to give a rabid Roth-hater like Jeremy pause and a little hope.

Third, to Wes in particular, Jeremy never said he stopped hating Roth. He only said the movie wasn't as bad as he thought it would be. How does that translate to him suddenly liking Roth?

My point, you ask? Yes, Roth is still a sick bastard. But it seems that he is actually getting better and may become a human being. And when someone says something to that effect, it isn't very fair to launch into them as if they betrayed some sacred trust. Stop with the righteous indignation, because it is being wasted. Unless you just wanted to impress everyone with your posting prowess.

Not that anyone was confused or even cares, but I feel I should point out that the second comment in the thread was by me, not the Jeremy who wrote the original review.

Just in case people thought the comment was his.

Oi, not meaning to go after the reviewer . . . it's distressing to me to see these movies recognized at all -- more of in-the-moment reaction to there even BEING a "Hostel II."

Sorry, Jeremy, ragging on the reviewers is not my bag, man.

Robert, re the "Jeeves and Wooster" boxset: purchased at mytweedjacket.com, no doubt?

I hate torture movies and would never see this one, but I had to drop a line and say, that review was excellently amusing. Thanks.

Reading over the comments, I can't help thinking that much of the same was probably said about Friday the 13th and many of the other early slasher films. Horror movies generally involve people getting killed by some psycho(s) for no particular reason. The fact that the victims in this film tend to predominantly female does not make this misogynistic.

Even in the most violent horror movies, the focus is generally on the prospective victims. We follow them throughout, watch how they deal with the assaults from the victim and and root from them to survive. There's a similarity there to, say, films about the Holocaust. There are terrible atrocities committed and many innocent people are victimized, but we watch for the incredible acts of courage and resistance, the triumph of the human spirit and the improbable survivals. Where horror movies cross the line into celebrations of violence is where we lose the sympathy for the main characters and the film actually comes to celebrate the slaughter/torture. That seems to be the main thread throughout the comment thread here, but I'm not sure it's a fair indictment of Hostel (I haven't seen the sequel). The premise of an entire town conspiring to lure tourists to their violent deaths is appropriately depicted as monstrous and the latter third of the film involves the survivors fighting to escape.

I think misogyny comes into play where the film actively creates the impression that all women are these horrible creatures that actually deserve to be tortured and murdered. From what I've read about this film, and seen in other films of its ilk, that's not the case.

So, wait...Hostel II wouldn't offend me with its ridiculous portrayals of human beings?

Thank goodness I didn't go with my friends then, cause it's not an Eli Roth film to me if I don't get to leave the theater questioning both the American education system and Hollywood filmmaking in the name of all that is good and decent about horror films.

Phew. Dodged a bullet there.

Vermillion: Geez, I don't want to be that jackass grampa complaining about these kids today and their amorality and depraved violent tendencies. In addition to Jeremy, other reviewers whom I also respect have been reasonably complementary to Hostel and Hostel II, e.g., Scott Tobias at The Onion: "To dismiss the Hostel movies as thoughtless "torture porn" of the Saw variety doesn't do justice to the sophistication behind them . . . the film literally considers the cost of human life and the power of money to afford experiences that are supposed to be priceless."

Having said that, I've seen clips from and read detailed descriptions of both films, and I can't help the strong feeling that gleefully graphic vivisection of humans pushes art from social commentary into sociopathy. Even though I won't see "Hostel II," it seems a safe assumption that extraorinarily realistic portrayals of human torture and suffering, at a deliberate, real-time pace, are elemental to the films' existence. I don't have to see it to think that's fucked up -- MINOR SPOILER AHEAD -- just seeing poor, poor Dawn Weiner hanging upside down and naked, waiting to get fileted, is enough to make me question where the hell we're going as a culture.

That the films contain symbolism, political subtext or social commentary is certainly relevant -- about as relevant as the plots required in '70s pornography to keep them from being censored. Was it Whizzer White who knowingly and slyly remarked, "Ah, the relevant social commentary," as the Supreme Court reviewed a film to determine whether it was unlawfully obscene?

I don't for one moment mean to suggest that Eli Roth should be interfered with in making the statement he wants to make. With the intention of being at the barricades to defend his First Amendment rights, however, I can also be a little judgmental about how he exercises them. "You Sopranos . . . you go too far!" (And if my heart-skipping anticipation for tomorrow night's finale renders any of this the slightest bit hypocritical . . . well, shoot me. Just don't make it too graphic.)

Your first two paragraphs are fucking beautiful. When well executed, anger can become an art form, and in those first two paragraphs, you created a masterpiece.

As for the content of the balance, you've actually managed to pique my interest. Problem is, I cannot stand torture porn. My sensibilities are far too delicate for it, regardless of how well done it might be.

re: Robert, DAMN, I wish I had a "Jeeves and Wooster" boxset! Guess I'll just have to catch it on PBS.

Geez, not one Desperate Housewives reference? C'mon!

Yeah, I'm going to disagree with you on this.

I saw all the twists coming from a mile away and did not like the level and style of vengeance inflicted by the survivor in the end.

SPOILER!!

Strangely, of all the conspirators involved, the only one she gets is the only female? But she pays those who organized her friends' deaths?

NO, THANK YOU.

My thoughts are on my movie blog.

Wes and socalled-nicely articulated opinions on what by all appearances (bad horror flick) should not be as complex a subject matter as it is turning out to be.

Being a rabid horror fan, I find Eli Roth's movies icky, useless, and not at all scary nor entertaining. Their appeal and success flummoxes me. I also fear that because of the popularity of this violence porn/gorno/bullshit we are becoming simply no better than the citizens of the later Roman Empire who watched people being slaughtered by animals for sport. Our films use special effects to achieve the same result: audience exhilaration through witnessing gruesome pain and death of others. The torture and death in these movies isn't "real" so we pat ourselves on the back for not being wholly barbaric, but really how far away are we from barbarism?

As for the misogynistic slant in these movies, one has to wonder if art is simply holding up a mirror to real life. What 18-year-old man has to worry about being abducted from a Target parking lot in broad daylight, raped, and killed? Unfortunately, women continue to be the primary targets of violence in this world, whether by strangers or their own family. Now should Hollywood glorify this fact of life? Of course not. On the other hand, I like to see female protagonists prevail as the next gal, but all the gyno-centric film making in the world isn't not going to necessarily change the fact that I will always have to look over my shoulder when I am out alone.

Now I can't wait to see this movie.

I really appreciate your awareness that the horror film genre has become a cesspool for homophobia and particularly misogyny. It's emotionally exhausting being surrounded by comic book freaks, who are fast becoming the new frat boys in their feverish love for anything that fellates either their ego or hobbies, who maintain that Sin City(don't even get me started) and Hostel are new and subversive examples of filmmaking. Then again, maybe they're right. But I don't think that's a good thing.

Now I can't wait to see this movie.

I really appreciate your awareness that the horror film genre has become a cesspool for homophobia and particularly misogyny. It's emotionally exhausting being surrounded by comic book freaks, who are fast becoming the new frat boys in their feverish love for anything that fellates either their ego or hobbies, who maintain that Sin City(don't even get me started) and Hostel are new and subversive examples of filmmaking. Then again, maybe they're right. But I don't think that's a good thing.

Now I can't wait to see this movie.

I really appreciate your awareness that the horror film genre has become a cesspool for homophobia and particularly misogyny. It's emotionally exhausting being surrounded by comic book freaks, who are fast becoming the new frat boys in their feverish love for anything that fellates either their ego or hobbies, who maintain that Sin City(don't even get me started) and Hostel are new and subversive examples of filmmaking. Then again, maybe they're right. But I don't think that's a good thing.

Now I can't wait to see this movie.

I really appreciate your awareness that the horror film genre has become a cesspool for homophobia and particularly misogyny. It's emotionally exhausting being surrounded by comic book freaks, who are fast becoming the new frat boys in their feverish love for anything that fellates either their ego or hobbies, who maintain that Sin City(don't even get me started) and Hostel are new and subversive examples of filmmaking. Then again, maybe they're right. But I don't think that's a good thing.

Now I can't wait to see this movie.

I really appreciate your awareness that the horror film genre has become a cesspool for homophobia and particularly misogyny. It's emotionally exhausting being surrounded by comic book freaks, who are fast becoming the new frat boys in their feverish love for anything that fellates either their ego or hobbies, who maintain that Sin City(don't even get me started) and Hostel are new and subversive examples of filmmaking. Then again, maybe they're right. But I don't think that's a good thing.

I'm not suggesting that Hostel: Part II become required viewing for the freshwomyn class at Smith or anything...

Oh, please do, Jeremy. Then tell us what happens. Because that would be hilarious.

OK, so not interested in the film per se (torture porn or whatever we're calling it now being my least favourite genre). However, do like the irony of the advert here...'Fly to Europe from $2082'...no hidden charges...expedia.com.au...

nice to see some civilised discussion too...missing from so many other parts of society...

I just saw the film myself, and I must say this review does the reader a disservice by not emphasizing how utterly crappy Hostel Part II is. Even if we put aside the "torture porn" issues, this film was incredibly poorly done. The characters may not have been jackasses, but neither were they interesting in the least. Pacing was terrible. Do not get me started on the atrociously done Jay Hernandez stuff at the beginning...

These movies are not my thing. But, I enjoyed this review, it had everything I've come to expect from Pajiba. Including:

HONESTY

PS: While Wes' valiant defense of our fellow Americans might have a certain flag waving ...uhm..allure, I've had the opportunity to watch my fellow citizen's abroad on many an opportunity and let's just say we are NOT the best of guests and leave it at that.

According to a recent study, Barabado, Americans are some of the best guests, at least in Europe. We came in second, after the Japanese.

I just returned from Hostel II and i have to say i loved it. My favorite scene was the one

*spoilers*

where the guy in charge grabbed a wine bottle and smashed another man's face in, completely crushing his nose. And you could see all of it in gory detail!

Another great scene is the torture scene in the barn, when you see the end results of a brutal torture session and the guy's hand is all mangeled and f*d up.

*end spoilers*

Yeah, there was some sweet violence in that movie.

Wait a minute! Am I thinking of Hostel II or Pan's Labyrinth? Jeez, its hard to keep that critic's darling seperate from all the crude, disgusting, vile torture porn that everyone hates nowdays. My bad.

been reading some oscar wilde have we?

Now horror fan, I'll admit that I don't watch that many horror films. In fact I don't watch any at all considering I find them rather pointless. But I can't help but feel there's a difference between those two examples that you so generously provided. Like, oh, artistic integrity. Or worth for that matter.

According to a recent study, Barabado, Americans are some of the best guests, at least in Europe. We came in second, after the Japanese.

Posted by: some guy at June 10, 2007 12:09 PM

***********************************

Ok, I won't argue with a survey ,I can only speak of what I've seen on the Caribbean. Loudness, obnoxiousness, rudeness, ignorance of the cultures, lack of respect. Maybe it was just at those particular times, at those particular places.

Horror Fan makes a good point in that graphic violence is used in mainstream and independent filmmaking for supposedly legitimate artistic purposes. "Pan's Labyrinth" had me squirming in those scenes because of the graphic nature of the torture and violence. I felt del Toro went too far, frankly, but the film was so good I ultimately overlooked that flaw.

More to the point, however, is that the torture and violence were not the fundamental point of the film, unlike Hostel, Saw, and their progeny. The "plots" of those films exist to service the fundamental torture porn esthetic.

Artists sometimes utilize graphic violence to make a point about the subject matter, and "Pan's Labyrinth" was hardly the first. That film's graphically detailed violence pales in comparison to "Saving Private Ryan," "Reservoir Dogs," and more than a few episodes of "The Sopranos." And frequently one could critique these critical darlings for going too far -- certainly the ear scene in "Reservior Dogs" comes close to ruining (for me) one of my favorite crime movies.

Horror Fan, I think the basic issue is whether the torture or graphic violence is gratuitous. Does it serve the larger film or is it the reason for the larger film? There's not a bright line, mathematical answer there, so it leaves room for hypocrisy or fudging to protect films that might share some elements. But whatever Eli Roth's intended commentary, better filmmakers have made similar commentary with far more skill and far less misogynistic, sociopathic content.

as a mid-twenties english lass who enjoys her travels round the world I have to say that in almost all the youth hostels I have ever been in, the majority of Americans I have met have been ignorant arrogant twats. My favourite examples being an American boy my age in St Paul's loudly exclaiming 'Yeah but who the hell is San Pedro?' and the Californian girls I met in the same city who didn't know what the Vatican was (these same delightful ladies also brought men back to have sex with them in our dorm room......with 8 other people in there). I refuse to stereotype - I was born in California and have lived in America and met many many lovely intelligent wonderful people but sometimes you do wonder why certain people bother traveling....

I'm pretty angered and not a little sickened by the idea that there is some validity to Roth's work or that by employing female protagonists/antognists that he's subverting his own rampant misogyny. Lots of horror filmmakers have employed this "twist" and cloaked it as being a statement. The heroine of I Spit on Your Grave may have gotten her revenge, but that doesn't mean the audience wasn't voyeur to her gang rape not one but two times.

I love horror films; I even like giallos, which tend to have a pretty high female-to-violent-death ratio. But something about Roth's "eww cooties" squick towards women and the fact he eagerly shares (with Harry Knowles of all people) his knowledge of a place in Thailand where you can shoot another person in the head doesn't say much about him as an auteur. Or a fucking human being for that matter.

BarbadoSlim:

I'm Jamaican/Canadian, and I think the attitude that prevails when it comes to our little corner of the universe it that it's always portrayed as a totally loosey-goosey 'What happens in, stays in...' manner. I've seen perfectly lovely people in any other situation just lose their shit when I mention Jamaica, for the obvious reasons. I've never been around tourists there though, so I can't comment on that.

z.h.: agree completely.

I'm the biggest wuss who ever wussed out of wussidom. That I will not be attending this film is a foregone conclusion, and anyone who ever tries to get me to a film like this is batshit. It really limits my viewing opportunities. I do appreciate those comments that intelligently discuss difference without descending into flame wars, and sophomoric name-calling. However, if someone starts acting like I just set his tampon string on fire for being a P.C. thug or something, I will cut you like Hungarian noble cuts a hermetically-sealed handmaid, and then I will deny it up and down. Know this, Sandy-Vag. And the 'Jeeves and Wooster' books and series rock my socks.

My punctuation wavered and I'm not happy about that.

I for one thank you for this review. I agree with you completely, and I am glad that you have it the honest chance that it, unbeknownst to us, ended up deserving. I love being surprised like this by movies. In fact, I dare say that is what I hope for almost every time I sit down in front of one.

It is easy to throw around the "Torture Porn" tag, and it is unfortunate that some decent contemporary horror movies get lumped into that category so quickly and dismissively by people who obviously have too many unforgiving preconceived notions. Or who are, for lack of a better word, SNOBS.

Oh, please. We're snobs because we don't want to watch graphic portrayals of human torture or gratuitous shots of naked women? Sorry, but I call it as I see it. If a movie contains torture as well as porn, well, then I'm going to refer to it as torture porn.

Fine, I get it that there is some aspect of torture porn that you enjoy, but that doesn't make you a sociopath. So why is it that those of us who don't enjoy torture porn are snobs?

By the way, I adore horror movies. But I don't enjoy watching torture, and if I'm going to be watching porn, well then I damn well better be aroused by it.

Yeah, the "snobs" thing is pretty weak. I love "Aliens" (which is in fact a horror movie dressed up as sci-fi), "28 Days Later" (as previously established), and many other well-made horror movies, with or without a big "message." I loves me some "gettin'-scared-the-crap-out-of." I don't at all like clinical examinations of the reduction of humans to their component elements with knives, scalpels, blowtorches, etc. Films with the primary goal of depicting such for titillation of the viewer are, mmm, bad, um-kay?

There, I said it.

Oh my god, I was just saying yesterday how much I HATE Eli Roth as well! I was saying that I really wish that people would personally boycott him, and by that I mean I wish the people in his life would decide/figure out how much he sucks and then boycott him. I love Pajiba.

Sarah,

That's weird because, as a 35 year old American man, who speaks 4 languages and has either lived in or traveled all throughout Europe (both West and East), I have always found that the Brits were the most arrogant, haughty and jackassish of all nationalities. Hell, even the French I met were better behaved.

I guess we all see what we were looking for going in.

i can't believe you haven't picked up on the satirical tones of his misogonist, homophobic, frat boy trends. hello, all the characters (SPOILER) in cabin fever die - they're assholes and it's satisfying to watch them die. and hostel was a wonderful charicature of how spoiled american kids act in a foreign country that's lax on drugs and sex. i've never found his movies to be scary, but i think the man is comedic genius.

the reviewer gets points from me for using words like "assholishness" and "general douchebaggery".
as for the review in general, he says that this movie is better than the previous one because theres a different point of view, not because roth actually had anything all that important to say.
when movies like this appear, i am less fascinated with the movie and more with the mind set of the maker of the movie.
i dont find eli roth all that interesting. in fact i find him to be a bit one dimensional. to me he fails to reach outside of his little box and really say anything worth while. its easy to make up a story and add gratuitous violence and sex. and i fully understand about the horror genre and the points of making horror films, but roth's films fail to explore and really shock with any revelation. perverse is okay when theres a point to be made and hopefully some redeeming quality somewhere. roth fails to do these things in my opinion.

"As for the misogynistic slant in these movies, one has to wonder if art is simply holding up a mirror to real life. "

Or, it's just a really bad movie.