Entirely Random and Unimportant Razzie Predictions

Because I'm bored and I like torturing myself by wading through the murky depths of filth. But, I didn't even look into the movies still to be released, these are just from the movies already released in 2007! Scary though, huh? We'd barely be able to get a passable Oscar lineup by this time, but the Razzies have enough for two ceremonies!


WORST PICTURE
Daddy Day Camp
Hostel Part II
I Know Who Killed Me
Norbit
Who's Your Caddy?

Or Evan Almighty or Delta Farce or Hannibal Rising or The Reaping or Captivity or...

WORST DIRECTOR
Roland Joffe, Captivity
Brian Robbins, Norbit
Eli Roth, Hostel Part II
Fred Savage, Daddy Day Camp
Chris Silvertson, I Know Who Killed Me

Or Joel Schumacher (The Number 23) or CB Harding (Delta Farce) or Don Michael Hall (Who's Your Caddy?) or Brett Ratner (Rush Hour 3) or Tyler Perry (Daddy's Little Girls) or...

WORST ACTOR
Nicolas Cage, Ghost Rider and Next
Jim Carrey, The Number 23
Cuba Gooding Jr, Daddy Day Camp
Eddie Murphy, Norbit
Robin Williams, Licence to Wed

Or John Travolta (Wild Hogs) or Steve Carell (Evan Almighty) or Antwan Andre Patton (Who's Your Caddy?) or Larry the Cable Guy (Delta Farce) or Bruce Willis (Perfect Stranger) Ice Cube (Are We Done Yet?) or Chris Rock (I Think I Love My Wife) or...

WORST ACTRESS
Jessica Alba, Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer
Elisha Cuthbert, Captivity
Nicole Kidman, The Invasion
Lindsay Lohan, I Know Who Killed Me and Georgie Rule
Eddie Murphy, Norbit

Or Diane Keaton (Because I Said So) or Hilary Swank (The Reaping and Freedom Writers) or Halle Berry (Perfect Stranger) or Sandra Bullock (Premonition) or John Travolta (Hairspray) or...

WORST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Cuba Gooding Jr, Norbit
Ray Liotta, Wild Hogs
Rob Schneider, I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry
Justin Timberlake, Alpha Dog and Black Snake Moan
Jon Voight, Bratz: The Movie

Or David Hasslehoff (Kickin' it Old School) or Robert DeNiro (Stardust) or Wes Bentley (Ghost Rider) or Roman Polanski (Rush Hour 3...

WORST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Felicity Huffman, Georgia Rule
Virginia Madsen, The Number 23
Heather Matarazzo, Hostel Part II
Julia Ormand, I Know Who Killed Me
Bijou Phillips, Hostel Part II

Or Sharon Stone (Alpha Dog) or Gong Li (Hannibal Rising) or Meg Ryan (In the Land of Women) or...

WORST SCREENPLAY
Daddy Day Camp
I Know Who Killed Me
Norbit
The Number 23
Wild Hogs

Or Fantastic Four or Hostel Part II or Captivity or Hannibal Rising or I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry or Evan Almighty or Who's Your Caddy? or Epic Movie or Georgia Rule or...

WORST REMAKE OR RIP-OFF
Are We Done Yet? (Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House)
Freedom Writers (Dangerous Minds)
The Invasion (Invasion of the Body Snatchers)
I Think I Love My Wife (Chloe in the Afternoon)
Who's Your Caddy? (Caddyshack)

Or The Hitcher (The Hitcher) or Perfect Stranger (lame thrillers from the 1980s), I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry (do they know it's a ripoff from Strange Bedfellows?) or Becoming Jane (Pride & Prejudice) or Disturbia (Rear Window) or...

WORST SEQUEL OR PREQUEL
Daddy Day Care
Evan Almighty
Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer
Hannibal Rising
Hostel Part II

Or Spider-Man 3 or Pirates of the Caribbean 3 or Shrek the Third or Rush Hour 3 or TMNT or The Hills Have Eyes 2 or...

WORST EXCUSE FOR FAMILY ENTERTAINMENT
Are We Done Yet?
Bratz
Daddy Day Camp
Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer
Wild Hogs

Or Nancy Drew or Evan Almighty or Licence to Wed or Shrek the Third or Firehouse Dog or Pride

WORST SCREEN COUPLE
Cuba Gooding Jr and Whoever is sharing the screen with him, Daddy Day Camp
Lindsay Lohan and herself, I Know Who Killed Me
Eddie Murphy and himself, Norbit
Jim Carrey and the dog, The Number 23
Halle Berry and Bruce Willis, Perfect Stranger

Or the guys from Wild Hogs or Roger Bart and a power tool (Hostel Part II) or Jessica Alba and Ioan Gruffard (Fantastic Four) or Jackie Chan and Chris Tucker (Rush Hour 3) or Tobey Maquire and Kirsten Dunst/Bryce Dallas Howard (Spider-Man 3) or Gerard Butler and his CGI abs (300).

There. That was fun! :/

Glenn Dissects Eli Roth's Plea to Humanity

Sorry to everyone who is already bored witless by this subject, but, I figure, if I'm going to start something I may as well see it through, and that dissecting a recent blog entry on Mr Roth's MySpace profile.

----

Friday, June 15, 2007

Last chance to see one of my films...
Current mood: accomplished

Hey Everyone [Hi!],

I'm in Paris [Pretty, I bet], doing press for the French release of Hostel Part II [not Nancy Drew? I bet you secretly went and snuck in a screening Nancy Drew this weekend, eh?], and tonight I'm off to Rome [more pretty] for the last leg of the press tour. After that I'm going to take a long overdue break [I'm sort of sad because that means I'll have to start beating up on someone else], since I've gone from one film to the next without stopping, just to recharge my brain a bit [must...eat...brains...].

I want to thank all of you for your kind e-mails and incredible support [obviously that doesn't include me] for the film. However, piracy has become worse than ever now [thanks for the heads up], and a stolen workprint (with uninished music, no sound effects, and no VFX) leaked out on line [sic] before the release, and is really hurting us, especially internationally [hey, don't blame people because they'd prefer to not pay $12 on your movie. Instead how about yelling at Lionsgate for having a leak in their ranks. If this illegal copy was a workprint and was out before the theatrical release then it was from within the studio.]. Piracy will be the death of the film industry [of course it will be, just like VHS will be the death of cinema, or how DVD will be the death of cinema, or how tv will be the death of radio... oh, wait. Scratch that last one], as it killed the music industry [actually, the music industry is on the rise again. The advent of things such as iTunes has seen the legal purchasing of music increase and the rapid illegal downloading of music decrease. Plus, it was the music industries fault because they were selling music for much to high of a price and people revolted], and while it makes a smaller dent in huge movies like Spider Man 3, it really hurts films like mine, which have far less of an advertising and production budget [I agree with on that I guess]. Not only that, critics have actually been REVIEWING the film based off the pirated copy [that would be Dave Poland?], which is inexcusable [what if he had given you a positive review? Would you mind then?]. Some of these critics I have actually known for a few years, and while I wouldn't dignify them by mentioning them by name [just like Dave Poland now refuses to even look at you when you walk into a room because he thinks you're a sick fuck?], I know who they are, as do the studios, and other filmmakers, and they will no longer have any access to any of my films [I'm sure they're really upset. Plus, if what your saying is true, they'll be able to get illegal industry-fed copies off the street days before their release anyway, so it doesn't really matter which way you slice it!].

What I'm saying is, this is your last chance to see one of my films for a while [this isn't what you've been saying, but I'll let it slide]. If you haven't seen it, go now, because after next weekend the film will be gone from theaters [hey, you lasted longer than Firehouse Dog! That's something. Right?]. There are too many other summer movies coming in [Oh, another reason why your movie flopped, right, I'm with ya!], so basically we get two weeks in cinemas [well, if your movie was better and more people wanted to see it then it'd last longer now wouldn't it?], and then the film will live on DVD [hey, at least you get DVD. So many films that probably inspired you from the '70s are still languishing in DVD limbo land. Movies have been rescued by DVD!]. I am not directing CELL any time soon [it'll be interesting to see how you handle a different type of horror, I must confess], and I most likely will take the rest of the year to write my other projects [get to work then, mister. It must take months to come up this shit]. Which means I wouldn't shoot until the spring, and you wouldn't see a film directed by me in the cinemas until at least next fall. If everyone on my friends list went to see the film this weekend and brought a friend, it would make a huge difference. Bring a non-horror fan - try to convert them [so now you're championing the torture of moviegoers who don't like horror? You think Hostel 2 is the movie to change their mind? Riiight. If you've done your job then these people will be terrified and will never see a horror movie ever again]. It's the only way these films will live. But right now the R rated horror film is in serious jeopardy [well, quite frankly, when was it ever not? It's not like R-rated horror films have been going gangbusters for years. A few hits here and there doesn't equal a trend]. Studios feel the public doesn't want them any more [perhaps they don't. if they did they'd go see them. God!], and so they are only putting PG-13 films into production [even PG13 horror movies are flopping these days. Do some research!]. The only way to counter this perception is to get out there and support R rated horror [give us a good R-rated horror movie and we will, okay]. It's the only message they'll hear [see, pretty much all horror movies are flopping lately. Maybe they'll slow the production of horror titles down, which will lead to less films, which means less mass-saturation, which means more people would take up the opportunity to see them. If one horror film doesn't immediately interest them they have the knowledge that two weeks later another one will be out. Case in point - two weeks after Hostel 2 audiences get the happy cheery sunshine and rainbows and dandilions of Captivity]. People love the movie [yeah, I guess some do], and even though it only cost $10 million dollars (as opposed to the other summer tentpoles which cost $300 million [nice counter attack, buddy]), and has already earned its money back [surely this is another lie. Mr Roth, your movie has only grossed $12 million worldwide as of this moment. If your movie cost $10mil plus advertising - including jetsetting you around fashionable Europe - then no, your movie hasn't made it's money back. It most certainly will by DVD, but until then...], if it's not a massive money earner then they'll just continue to make the same PG-13 films everyone complained about a few years ago [again. PG-13 horror titles are flopping too. It's not about the rating at all. It's about whether they're good movies].

To counter piracy, fans can flood file sharing services with fake Hostel II downloads just so no one can ever actually get the movie [I agree that this would be hilarious for the sods who download crap quality movies, but it's not exactly gonna deter them], but the only thing that really makes a difference is supporting the movie in the theaters. Also - the theater OWNERS know this as well. If horror movies aren't bringing in customers, they're not going to program them [maybe if somebody bothered to make a good one, and the distributer released it at a good time - ie, not Summer or Christmas Day, Harvey!]. If we are going to send them a message, we have to do it with our wallets [louis vuitton?], and we have to do it now [or next week, or the week after that, or the week after that. whenever a new horror movie is released]. I've done all I can to make a great film for the fans, as violent and bloody and fun as possible [I think you just said it all Mr Roth. Nobody is dismissing you for making a movie that wasn't violent and bloody. But, apparently, you didn't try to make a movie that was scary - or, if you did try to make one that was scary - you see violence and blood and gore as ostensibly more important to the "fun" factor of your film. You just write this stuff for me Eli. You hardly make it challenging]. The rest is up to you guys... [No, it's really not. Make something decent next time]

Thanks again for all your support [Not mine],

Eli [Glenn]

--

Seriously. Also, if you remember this entry from last week in which I discussed seven possible reasons for Hostel Part II flopping with audiences. I said that Lionsgate (and Eli Roth for that matter, Lionsgate have been suspiciously quiet on the matter) would trot out excuses 2, 6, 7 when it was more a case of excuses 1 and 3. In this letter alone Eli did blame the poor box office on excuses 2 and 7 (piracy and competition). So, take that as you will [I'm going to have dinner now].

Hopefully this will be the last entry about Eli Roth and his ilk for a while. It's been an interesting few weeks trying to get my head around my own thoughts on the topic along with many many other people's. But, yes, perhaps it's time to move on because if the downward box office trends of these movies continues I don't think we'll be needing to have this discussion again.

...at least until Saw IV. Yikes.

7 Possible Reasons for Hostel Part II's Bad Box Office

So, my fear was that Hostel Part II would flourish at the box office this past US weekend and would better the opening week gross of the original ($19mil if I remember correctly). Instead, it didn't even make half of that - coming in with an estimated box office gross of $8.8 million. Naturally I am ecstatic, but then I started thinking of why. And I came up with this completely un-scientific list of seven possible reasons.

1. It's Summer and nobody wants to sit through a woman bathing in a steady stream of blood when they could be outside soaking up rays of sun, eating an apple or dancing an Irish jig at the beach.

2. The inhouse leak of a decent-quality DVD lead to a rush on purchases of the illegal DVD and so many people had already seen it.

3. Too many horror films released in the last few years have sapped the audience of enthusiasm.

4. Critics reviews as well as the growing storm over the film's controversial content turned potential audience members off.

5. The marketing was not effective and the film wasn't high profile enough to compete.

6. Kids bought tickets to other movies and then snuck into to see Hostel 2.

7. There was too much competition for males at the box office

You can watch Liongate (the film's distributer) churn out excuses 2, 6 and 7 to anybody willing with a straight face. But I suspect it's more a partnership between reasons 1 and 3. Here are rebukes and rebuttles for each of the reasons.

1. Okay, no, this makes sense. Aug-Oct and Jan-March are the only viable times to release a horror movie. Every horror film of the "torture" variety (as defined by Box Office Mojo) to have grossed over $20mil (there's only 8 of them) were released in either October (including the top four), January or March. But would Lionsgate dare question their (admittedly quite successful) marketing team?

2. Perhaps, but I doubt the amount of people who saw the DVD amounted to the excess of $8mil difference between this Hostel's opening to the last. Besides, the illegal copies floating around were unfinished.

3. Well, many of them were not only big giant flops, but a lot of them were also just really really shit. And, somehow, the original Hostel is seen as one of the better ones. So wouldn't a sequel seem like something made of money? How come the sequel to The Hills Have Eyes ($41mil gross on no buzz at all) made more in it's opening weekend than the sequel to Hostel ($48mil gross). Let it be known that The Hills Have Eyes 2 debuted with $9.6mil back in March before a final gross of just over $20mil.

Besides, if Lionsgate admits this, then they admit the reason for Hostel Part 2's failure was... the success of Hostel. No?

4. Clearly this means jack shit. The audience for these movies lap this up like a dog's breakfast. As we've seen before, the mix of controversy plus buzz usually ends up in nothing but fizz.

5. Uh, no.

6. Never mind the fact that pretty much every film they could have purchased tickets to without looking suspicious fell over 50% at the box office and that Ocean's 13, debuting at #1, actually made $37mil, right in line with the other two films of the franchise. And as the success of the original Hostel proved there was more than enough people in January last year to make that one a hit.

7. Well, history has shown that a majority of those who would go to see a movie like this, a horror sequel, will go see it on opening weekend. Ocean's 13 can wait. Surf's Up can wait.

So, I present to you, my hypothesis on why Hostel Part II dropped the big one at the box office.

MY HYPOTHESIS
The only reason as many people went to go see the original Hostel as it is was because there was nothing else at the movies (it knocked Narnia off the #1 spot, which had been there for three weeks) and it was an original movie and seeing that was better than seeing Narnia again. But once they found out it was actually kind of crap, they figured they'd skip the inevitable sequel. Especially when it's Summer and they could be at the beach or playing basketball or "cruising for chicks" or seeing something else at the movies.

I also suspect that #3 has a large part to play. So many lame horror movies all making the same amount of cash (somewhere between $10mil and $20mil), which means the same people are seeing them, but the other people that made the Saw movies and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and the original Hostel hits are not. Hostel Part II was just not special enough to warrent people parting with their $10. The original must have turned enough people off (remember, it would have picked up fans from the DVD release too) to cause a sudden downturn, coupled with the desire to not see a sadistic horror show in the summery nights.

Of course, as I said, I doubt Lionsgate will say any of this. I suspect they will blame the leaked DVD (much like MGM did with Soul Plane when that crashed and burned, and Eli Roth is already calling for Dave Poland's head) and that there was just no room for Hostel 2 at the box office, when really there was or that their "internal research" shows a substantial ($8mil worth?) amount of people were buying tickets to other movies and sneaking in (which proves that they are marketing the movie to young adolescents and that actual adults (the ones who could pay to see it) have rejected it (positive!) I never expected The Hills Have Eyes 2 to make more than Hostel Part II though. Whod've thunk that?

Now, the next big test comes with Saw IV. Will it suffer a similar fate as Hostel 2, will it follow the trends of the Friday the 13th movies (gradually less and less) or will this franchise continue grow and grow? I hope it's the first possibility, but I have a feeling it won't be.

Eli Roth and the Attack of the Critics

I was reading Dave Poland at The Hot Blog bring Eli Roth to task about violence in cinema and was intrigued by what I read. Also frightened. And bewildered. I was also a bit happy. Hopefully if Poland is any indication (which, let's face it, he isn't a lot of the time) then maybe - just maybe - people will actually get out there and make some mothafuckin' noise about this shit. From what I have read about Hostel Part II (as if the "Part" makes it sound like some important addition of a story that needed to be be told all over again) - and Poland makes a case for it himself - it is utterly absurd that this movie is rated a mere R in America. It's rated R18+ here in Australia too, but our R is the equivelent to America's NC17. However, here that rating is not seen as a reason to go into damage control - there've been lots of box office hits rated R18+. What will it take for a film to get an American NC17 rating based on violence? Will it take an actual on-screen murder? Or is that not enough? They'll give something like director Bernardo Bertolucci The Dreamers an NC17 based on nothing but a dick shot and a sex scene, yet all these horror films of late are deemed socially acceptable for anyone as long as they have a parent with them. How considerate.

Poland's review of Hostel Part II is scathing. It's worse than a bad movie. It's an offensive demeaning one. In referring to a much-discussed scene in which Heather Matarazzo is hanged upside down:

And then, I watched a scene that was the most disgusting, degrading, misogynistic, soulless shit I have ever seen in a movie that is going to be released widely in this country.

...

You have to remember, this is a movie. Not only did Eli Roth come up with this inhuman idea that has no meaning whatsoever other than his masturbatory fantasies about raising the bar.

...

And not only did he think of this, but he hung an actress, however willing, upside down and naked, gagged and bound, screaming, as nothing but a piece of objectified meat as Roth's camera moves her breasts in and out of frame like some sort of sick porn tease. This is not the first time a director has done something horrible to an actress, but as the scene dragged on, I felt as though I was watching Ms. Matarazzo being raped on a spiritual level. This director did not identify with her as a human in the scene ... she is just the target for a bloody gag.

And about Eli Roth himself.

Eli Roth became a little less human to me.

...

I never did respect Roth's work. Now, if he and I crossed paths, I would refuse to shake his hand.

Ouch. I've discussed before my ill-feelings towards Hostel Part II, what with it's niggling focus of tortured women, it's desire to advertise towards young males and a desire to be grotesque for no reason (although Roth is now putting on a cover of "subtext", which is the most ridiculous thing I've read all week). And as the anticipation for this apparently quite revolting freakshow gears up (My man Ja is completely guilty of that, teehee) I get not only continuously nauseated, but also continuously interested in actually seeing it merely so I can insult it some more out in front of the "but you haven't even seen it" argument. Maybe on a Cheap Tuesday? Ja joked that an entry about Eli Roth wouldn't be the same without a negative comment from me, and that's because he makes me angry. He's a deluded wanker. If he wants subtext in a movie, then maybe actually put it in there and not just disguise torture scenes as some allegory to the war in Iraq.

I hope more than enough people can show restraint and not see this movie. Roth has said that this will be the last Hostel film but, quite frankly, I'll believe that when I see (or not as the case may be). Even if Roth isn't directing, there will be more. And his insidious attitude* will continue to perforate through the filmmaking universe.



*Let it be known that I know Roth isn't the first, and won't be the last (unfortunately), person to make this type of film but it's just a fact that he's a damn good punching bag (who even knows the name of anyone involved with the Saw films?) And I know that these types of films have been around for a long time, but back in the '70s when the films Roth is seemingly trying to recreate in all their glory, these films were shown in driveins and were "underground". They needed violence to attract a crowd. But with movies going out to 3000 cinemas every week and with the internet, these movies market themselves. It's not fun knowing that there are 15-year-old boys out there thinking to themselves "aw man, that bitch is gonna get cut up!" with a thrill and excitement to it.

For me, horror films are split into two camps. Those that are scary and terrifying and are like punches of adrenalin (even stuff like The Last House on the Left from the '70s falls into that camp) and then there are the fun variety. The slasher ones, mostly. What they lack in genuine frights, they gain in being a sorta fun way to spend an hour and a half. But then there are ones like Hostel and the Saw movies. Those that aren't made to be scary (although they're marketed as being such), nor are they made for teen-thrill fun. They're made to have their filthy destructive energy out there. It's a disturbing trend having them out there in the mainstream and that people are going to these movies for the excessive gore, not the scares or the thrills. They're going to watch people get murdered.

I toyed with the idea of turning comments off for this entry because I'm sure at least one person has something to say against my thoughts, but I've left them on. If you feel so inclines as to defend these movies then go ahead. It'll be more entertaining than anything found in an Eli Roth film.

XXX Torture Porn

**Sorry for this being one big chunk of text, but you'll understand why soon. The thought of posting images to make an example just isn't worth it quite frankly.**

This started out as a simple reply to an entry at My New Plaid Pants featuring a newly released image of Heather Matarazzo gagged and hanging upside down, but it started getting way too long for a comment so I thought I'd just post something here instead. It's incredibly rushed and not at all structured well, but it's 1am so I don't care. This entry contains spoilers to the original Hostel I guess, not that there's much to spoil. People die gruesomely. Yawn. Anyway.

I've been reading some of these articles that have been popping up alot lately about violence in film and the whole "torture porn" subgenre that's emerged (as if it's only a NEW thing in horror, geez). Usually I just let the writer continue their deluded attitudes about horror films (well, the majority of horror films) and think that they're looking way too much into the issue when most people just go to horror movies for some jumps and scares and to frightened witless by something that isn't actually happening in the world as we know it.

But the more that I think about Hostel 2 the more I get kind of repulsed at the idea and the more that I really start to think Eli Roth is quite a repulsive man.

I don't generally buy the whole misogynistic angle that writers seem to take to horror movies, but then again neithr do I always buy the idea of directors that say it's all about female empowerment (well, certainly not in this day and age), but that's not the point. I do however think there's something incredibly disgusting about what Eli Roth is doing with this film. He is, in my opinion, selling the film as being about the torture and murder of young women. Pure and simple. Just like those quite revolting posters for Captivity, I think Hostel Part II is praying on the desire to watch young attractive women be murdered. As if the entire point of the movie is just to observe some sick fantasy. And considering the plot of the movie being rich people enacting murder fantasies there's certainly credence to that theory.

Eli Roth is, clearly, a man that relishes in violence but I'm not sure if it's in a particularly healthy way. There doesn't seem to be any noteworthy skill to what he decides to put on the screen. Like, he seems to be getting off on just having the ability to kill people for the sake of it - just as the Saw movies do equally reprehensively I think.

Maybe I too am just over-thinking the situation like the issue writers I typically think are being myopic, but it really does make me feel kind of sick. To be honest, in the original we actually didn't see all that much of the males tortured, but in the end he decided to have the woman kill herself and have the good looking American get away free and easy basically. In Part II it just seems to be all women, all torture, all the time. The IMDb lists a lot of females that are, probably to Roth, ripe for the taking. I may decide to watch the film on DVD and it may prove to not be this, but that doesn't make it appear to be anything more than just the classic Scream quote - "Some big-breasted girl who can't act who's always running up the stairs when she should be running out the front door. It's insulting."

Taking a look at the poster archives for Part I and Part II also brings up another frightful element to Roth's party. The original film had posters that showed a man holding a chainsaw, another showed some tool of some sort and another involving a man with a drill placed in his mouth. Only the third one is particularly nasty (ignoring the international posters). The posters for the second film are of a particularly more grizzy variety. Ignoring the "slab of beef" I implore to you look at this one and not think it's sick. I refuse to post it on here because I just think it's detestable. I guarantee a whole swag of 15-year-old boys would see that on the Internet and go "sweet!"

I dunno, it just worries me. I didn't like the original much at all, I thought it was sort of silly and only attempted to be scary in the last 20 minutes or so (and even an untrained monkey could wrangle suspence out of that). I will usually defend gory movies. I think there's a place for them. But I do think there gets to a point when it is simply a sick director playing out his sick fantasies for people to watch under the guise of "it's just a movie."

Anyway, New Young Pony Club just came on iTunes so I'm going to finish this now because the song makes me happy and hopefully I can just get the repulsiveness of this stuff out of my mind. Until, of course, the movie opens and tonnes of young men go to the movie and cheer everytime someone gets their face blown away with a blowtorch or something. :/

[Holy shit, the conversation really drags on in the comment section. Have a gander if you're interested and leave a thought. It's incredibly interesting.]

ICK Factor!

So, I just watched Eli Roth's silly excuse for a movie that is Hostel. I know there are fans, but, honestly? This was stupid. It was lazy and lame and frustrating (omg he just had to go back and get that other girl, how brave) and homophobic and sick and... well, you get the picture. The last, maybe, 20 minutes were the best parts because it seemed to actually be doing something other than remaining stagnant and standing around throwing blood at me. And speaking of blood - sure, there was lots of it, but really, Hostel wasn't even that gory. I found myself wincing maybe twice. And that one character who chainsawed his own leg off? What a dumbass.

And at under 90 minutes it was so incredibly long and drawn out. Like, the first half I kept yelling for it to hurry up and do something other than show two assholes getting drunk, high and laid. And then the second half it was just the same but with blood instead of booze, guns instead of pot and screaming instead of sex. Whoopdeedoo!

And it would appear that the sequel, Hostel II, will ditch the male leads and have a lead trio of women. WOW. Now that, Mr Roth, is progress. D+

By the way, to save you having to look at a picture from the movie, I chose to include a picture of Hostel co-star and major cutie Derek Richardson as he appears in the much less R-rated television series Men in Trees.