dude, im never going back to europe!
ok, maybe London.
but seriously... i just saw Hostel and OMG!!! SO FUCKING GOOD.
like just wow. tense and taut and well written. i was convinced after Cabin Fever that Eli Roth might be the new voice in american horror, though that film had such a wildly outrageous ending that i thought his sensibilities might be a tad too... goofy? to be taken seriously. i mean, he is always showing up for his premieres with fake blood all over himself and shit... but here's what makes him fucking cool. he fucking cast Takashi Miike in a small role in Hostel! helloooooo! he's a Miike fan! soooo cool!
anyhow, as i commonly do after seeing a film i came home and was reading some reviews. i am kind of shocked at a) how little most reviewers understand the horror genre and b) how many reviewers write off a movie simply based on the level of gore. like the fact that a movie has gore is a reason in and of itself to say a film is bad. that to me is so small minded.
i get the critiques of the overgeneralizations made in the film because to a small extent the film is exploitive towards the folks of eastern europe, i get that. but as a culture we accepted and relished in exploitation films for most of our moviemaking history. just 2 years ago we relished and celebrated exploitive takeoffs like the Kill Bill films, but then combine that with some blood and guts and suddenly something is trash? i can't believe how narrowminded alot of critical film writers are. also, let's be honest... a large portion of horror is explotive towards women... people from the South... minorities... the list goes on. it's hard in films that are largely based around the idea of someone taking enjoyment in murder to be real concerned with who is coming out looking good. PC and horror just don't mix well.
so, anyhow... i am just annoyed at movie critics... because so few of them seem to know alot about film history... or filmmakers who aren't American and mainstream. they don't seem to be real experts on the form, they are just concerned with what Jack and Jane Average will think of a movie. oh no, too much blood. forget that the plot was sweet. ignore the way Eli Roth creates a tense scene that has you nearly flipping out. how he really understands the concept of fear and how to put it up on a screen. they just don't look at it in context. because half of these folks don't even know the context. it's annoying.
(except i will say you can usually trust Owen Gleiberman and Lisa Schwarzbaum from Entertainment Weekly... OG said about Hostel, "Roth, by presenting his characters as victims of the same world of flesh-for-fantasy they were grooving on in the first place, digs deep into the nightmare of a society ruled by the profit of illicit desire." hell yes, Owen. nailed it on the head.)
so i leave you with this. fuck the critics. go see Hostel. unless you vomit easy. :)
c.
but seriously... i just saw Hostel and OMG!!! SO FUCKING GOOD.
like just wow. tense and taut and well written. i was convinced after Cabin Fever that Eli Roth might be the new voice in american horror, though that film had such a wildly outrageous ending that i thought his sensibilities might be a tad too... goofy? to be taken seriously. i mean, he is always showing up for his premieres with fake blood all over himself and shit... but here's what makes him fucking cool. he fucking cast Takashi Miike in a small role in Hostel! helloooooo! he's a Miike fan! soooo cool!
anyhow, as i commonly do after seeing a film i came home and was reading some reviews. i am kind of shocked at a) how little most reviewers understand the horror genre and b) how many reviewers write off a movie simply based on the level of gore. like the fact that a movie has gore is a reason in and of itself to say a film is bad. that to me is so small minded.
i get the critiques of the overgeneralizations made in the film because to a small extent the film is exploitive towards the folks of eastern europe, i get that. but as a culture we accepted and relished in exploitation films for most of our moviemaking history. just 2 years ago we relished and celebrated exploitive takeoffs like the Kill Bill films, but then combine that with some blood and guts and suddenly something is trash? i can't believe how narrowminded alot of critical film writers are. also, let's be honest... a large portion of horror is explotive towards women... people from the South... minorities... the list goes on. it's hard in films that are largely based around the idea of someone taking enjoyment in murder to be real concerned with who is coming out looking good. PC and horror just don't mix well.
so, anyhow... i am just annoyed at movie critics... because so few of them seem to know alot about film history... or filmmakers who aren't American and mainstream. they don't seem to be real experts on the form, they are just concerned with what Jack and Jane Average will think of a movie. oh no, too much blood. forget that the plot was sweet. ignore the way Eli Roth creates a tense scene that has you nearly flipping out. how he really understands the concept of fear and how to put it up on a screen. they just don't look at it in context. because half of these folks don't even know the context. it's annoying.
(except i will say you can usually trust Owen Gleiberman and Lisa Schwarzbaum from Entertainment Weekly... OG said about Hostel, "Roth, by presenting his characters as victims of the same world of flesh-for-fantasy they were grooving on in the first place, digs deep into the nightmare of a society ruled by the profit of illicit desire." hell yes, Owen. nailed it on the head.)
so i leave you with this. fuck the critics. go see Hostel. unless you vomit easy. :)
c.