Hostel director Eli Roth Says Horror Should Have No Limits: "Its All Fake"

[echo_bravo]

'Hostel' Helmer Eli Roth Says Horror Should Have No Limits: 'It's All Fake

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NEW YORK — No less than Quentin Tarantino has called "Hostel" writer/director Eli Roth "the future of horror." Strong words when only two of your films have been released to the big screen.

At just 34, Roth is relishing his standing as one of the new icons of the genre. His anticipated sequel "Hostel: Part II" is set for release June 8 (see " 'Hostel: Part II' Will Be 'Far More Disturbing,' Eli Roth Reports"). MTV recently spent the day with Roth as he spoke at New York's Comic-Con. (Click here to see Roth among the fanboys — and Gary Coleman — at Comic-Con.) While there, the outspoken lover of blood and nudity opened up about his upcoming flick, why he wants no limits to violence in film and his beef with "Ocean's Twelve."

MTV: You're often lumped in with other young horror directors like James Wan ("Saw") and Alexandre Aja ("The Hills Have Eyes"). Do you enjoy being associated with that group?

Eli Roth: We've been referred to as the Splat Pack, which I think is a cool title. Hopefully I'm not the Judd Nelson of the Splat Pack. Preferably I'll be the Rob Lowe. We're all just trying to bring back really bloody, violent, disgusting, sick horror movies.

MTV: It's a noble pursuit.

Roth: Yeah! I feel like in the '90s, horror just lost its way and everything became so safe and watered-down. When I go see an R-rated horror movie, I want lots of violence. I want nudity. I want sex and violence mixed together. What's wrong with that? Am I the only one? I don't think so.

MTV: What kind of trajectory would you like to see horror take in the future?

Roth: We're in a really violent wave and I hope it never ends. Hopefully we'll get to a point where there are absolutely no restrictions on any kind of violence in movies. I'd love to see us get to a point where you can go to theaters and see movies unrated and that people know its not real violence. It's all pretend. It's all fake. It's just acting. It's just magic tricks. Hopefully we'll get to a point where people realize movies don't cause violence. It just reflects the violence going on in the culture. I'd love to see us get to a point where you can make a movie and not worry about the limits of the violence. Then I think they'd get so violent that people would get bored of it.

MTV: What do you say to critics who call your work "torture porn"?

Roth: It's so funny how critics will always quickly reduce horror almost to a subgenre of pornography. I do feel like terms like "torture porn" are offensive. When I see a critic refer to "Hostel" as torture porn it feels like in the 1950s parents going, "I don't want you to listen to that rock and roll. It's dangerous!" It makes me laugh. It makes me feel like they're out of touch.

MTV: Do you feel a sense of fraternity with the rest of the so-called Splat Pack?

Roth: We don't go out like the Bloodhound Gang, or go back to the clubhouse and watch movies — although we kind of do in a weird way. We were all kind of the outcasts, so there's a real bond between everyone. None of us are competing for the same projects. Everyone is doing their own thing. And when a movie is successful, it helps all of us. When "House of a 1,000 Corpses" was successful, it helped "Cabin Fever." When "Cabin Fever" was successful, it helped "Saw."

MTV: What was appealing about going right back into another "Hostel" film for you?

Roth: I watched ["Hostel"] with audiences all around the world and everybody loves the kids and the girls getting run over and the eyeball getting cut out, but more people told me that they were freaked out by the American businessman in the locker room with the gun going like, "What's it like to kill someone?" And they'd say, "I want to see a movie about that guy." So with "Hostel: Part II," I said, "Let's really go deep into the minds of those businessmen. Let's watch the process from start to finish."

MTV: What scenes are audiences going to be talking about as they leave "Hostel: Part II"?

Roth: You've got to have those signature scenes. Let's just say there's one scene that's going to make every girl in the audience cringe and scream, and there's one scene that's definitely going to make every guy in the audience cringe and scream.

MTV: Do you have a third "Hostel" in mind?

Roth: It's not something I'd do, but never say never. I did parts one and two without a break, so my head has been in that torture factory every day for literally two years now. I need to switch it up. I need a little sherbet in between to just cleanse the palette.

MTV: Tell us about your fake trailer in "Grindhouse." Could you imagine the fake film "Thanksgiving" spawning a full-length movie (see "Acting For Tarantino To Torture In Prague: Eli Roth's 'Hostel: Part II' Column")?

Roth: Oh, absolutely. The trailer was so much fun. It's all gore and nudity. It's all money shots, bodies being chopped up and people being stabbed and cheerleaders stripping on trampolines. It's three minutes of pure happiness. The feature will never live up to the trailer unless we just do 90 minutes of that. For "Grindhouse 2," I think there's a very strong chance of shooting it. Quentin and Robert and the Weinstein Company love the trailer so much they're already asking me, "Where's the script for 'Thanksgiving'?"

MTV: You have yet to work with a truly large budget. "Hostel: Part II" is only a $20 million movie, right?

Roth: I wish. If you combined all three of the budgets of my movies it wouldn't even equal the salary of one castmember on "Ocean's Thirteen."

MTV: Are you itching to do something on a larger scale?

Roth: It's interesting, because I've had opportunities to do franchise movies. Once your movie opens at #1, you're offered everything. There were movies like "Halo," and they're remaking "The Hulk" again, and "Die Hard 4," and I just thought I'd rather write and direct and do my own thing. I don't need to jump to a $100 million movie. There were some books I was interested in. I was like, "I'd love to do 'The Phantom Tollbooth' or 'In the Heart of the Sea.' " But the truth is, right now I love writing and directing my own stories. I really wanted to adapt the "Tripods" trilogy, but it went to another director.

MTV: How do you feel about your competition this summer at the box office?

Roth: It's going to be the Splat Pack vs. the Rat Pack. They were like, "We're going to open ['Hostel: Part II'] in June." I'm like, "What else is opening then?" They're like, " 'Ocean's Thirteen.' " I'm like, "Well, that's awesome, because it will be fun to go up against George Clooney, Brad Pitt and Matt Damon." But you know what? I still want my money back from "Ocean's Twelve." The biggest heist they pulled in "Ocean's Twelve" was taking the public's money. I want my money back before I see "Ocean's Thirteen."

MTV: No one will say that about "Hostel: Part II" though, right?

Roth: No. I think people will say, "I want my lunch back," after "Hostel: Part II."


http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/artic...27/story.jhtml
_______________________________________________



I dug Hostel and Cabin Fever but I wouldnt dare call Roth an "icon", but what do you expect from MTV?:rolleyes:

Pretty good interview though. He brings up some interesting points but I dont think films should try to be overly violent for the sake of being violent. I think there should be a point to it.

[thedudeman69]

Heh, I like it he called himself Rob Lowe of the splat pack.

[RandalGraves]

I somewhat agree

[The Postmaster General]

He seems like a decent dude, but I gotta agree with echo - his views on violence in films is a bit off-putting.

Nice jab he made at O12, though I must ask what he expected.

[chinton]

Uggh how depressing. If Hostel is the future of horror how incredibly depressing. Doesn't really leave room for quality horror films like The Others. Also I do not agreee about Neil Marshall being lumped in with that group. His films may be bloody but the horror is based out of character developement.

[LordSimen]

Awesome interview, I must say I pretty much agree with him for the most part on the subject.

I would probably say that he's an icon right now mainly because he's part of the new wave of horror director's that's trying to push the limit- Right now he's the most famous/popular one due ot Quentin Tarrantino's influence.

Alexandre Aja, Neil Marshell, James Wan, Eli Roth, Rob Zombie - These guys ARE the new generation of horror and I'm loving every minute of it.

[Digifruitella]

I stopped about 1/4 of the way down when he talks about limits. I have no problem with horror films, I consider myself a fan...but Eli Roth is wrong here (at least in my mind) violence should have certain limits. He has no idea probably how many psychos out there are wandering the streets without people's knowledge of it. Any idiot can look at a movie and say "Great idea". I think violence should be limited to a certain degree. Nothing wrong with sick, disgusting make-up effects..such as in The Thing, that worked so well for the film.

I had no problem with Hostel, because that was a plausible situation, but anything overly extreme torture material or ideas aren't good for the "other" group of our society. So i'd say keep it to a certain limit.

[cocksmokinclerk]

eli roth is a cool dude, and if reading this interview did anything for me it just made me more excited for his fake trailer in grindhouse more than anything

[chinton]

I really disagree about lumping Neil Marshell with all of them. He actually has substance to his films.

[LordSimen]

Originally posted by chinton
I really disagree about lumping Neil Marshell with all of them. He actually has substance to his films.

I personally think they all had their own degrees of substance in their films.

Eli Roth's Hostel, for example, I found to have a great degree of social commentary hidden underneath it's subtext and I found the two leads to be developed quite well, as well as the main "villian" character of film.

Rob Zombie managed to not only develop his characters of the Firefly family, he actually ended up making you feel nearly sympathetic towards them in The Devil's Rejects despite the fact they were crazed psychopathic murders. Now THAT is fucking talent and substance right there.

Alexandre Aja's The Hills Have Eyes I felt was an excellent survival wimp-turned-hero film with quite a bit of commentary towards nuclear war (very batent commentary, but commentary nonetheless.) and I never once felt I was missing anything with the characters. They were all well done... Unlike, say, House of Wax, in which the characters were all cardboard cutouts and unlikeable High Tension I would say also managed to develop it's characters quite well.

James Wan explored the idea of people not appreciating their own lives with Saw, as well as made a movie that was essentially relying on two characters in a room with each other the entire time. Those characters WERE quite developed, in my opinion. My only major complaint is the acting left something to be desired.


But besides all that, the main reason, the ultimate reason, why I feel Neil Marshell should be lumped together with this group is that... They all share one major similarity: They all LOVE, LOVE, LOVE referencing classic horror films in their movies. They're like the Quentin Tarrantino's of horror, constantly nodding back to films of the past who've either done similar things or either inspired them greatly. Neil Marshell, like Eli Roth, Alexandre, Rob Zombie, an Wan, has done this (the Carrie, Aliens, Nosferatu refences in The Descent as just a few examples)

[Cronos]

the guys a moron

[chinton]

I get what you mean LordSimen it's just to me Marshall is working on a whole different level than any of these directors for me.

[IronMonkey]

Semi decent director but a moron, imo.

While I am a fan of exploitation flicks, I disagree with him 100% that there should be no limits to violence and sex in film.

[fooknasty]

I really enjoyed Cabin Fever. I thought it was well put together, and stylized very nicely. Hoste, to me, was a drop off in that department. In Cabin Fever, we had great character development, and we felt the emotional anguish that the characters went through. Whereas In Hostel, Roth was all about the tits and the gore. Nowhere near as far as developed as CF was.

As a person, he does seem over the top, but hell I think that's what you want in a horror director. He needs to tone it down a little bit, and stop making one or two scenes that are gonna scare the shit out of guys and girls. The fact that he knows that these two scenes are gonna cringe everyone really dissapoints me. He is trying way to hard to be over the top, and he needs to go back to developing his characters.

[IronMonkey]

Yeah, I mean I am looking forward to Hostel 2, but for a grown man to talk like "oh boy, chicks and dudes are gonna cringe at these two scenes" instead of saying, man, theres so much fucking TENSION and MOOD..etc, etc..tells me we have another arrestedly developed man/boy making horror movies.

[Scarfather]

What a fuckin' retard.

[ElderPredator]

I can't believe he has such an ego already. I consider "Cabin Fever" to be his only decent horror flick. "Hostel" was a piece of shit but maybe he can change that around with the sequel. We'll just have to wait and see but as the "future of horror".....he'd better rethink that statement.

Rob Zombie has more fucking talent than him and that's why I trust Rob with the "Halloween" film.

I'll tell you who the "future of horror" is......NEIL MARSHAL! He is an extremely talented director and Eli doesn't have half the skill or creativity that Neil does.

[KenneyP]

Alex Aja is the shit, I want to read an interview starring him.

[bob]

I think Eli Roth is the most talented horror writer/director working today.

We had to write an auteurist analysis of a contemporary director for one of my classes this semester, and I chose Roth because I wanted to do something no one else would do. After watching Hostel and Cabin Fever multiple times, and listening to the commentaries, I think he's on his way to becoming a brilliant, brilliant director.

To me, CF and Hostel are both takeoffs of sex culture in America. I find his films are interesting to analyze, and plain fun to watch. The humor is incorporated well, both films do set a definite mood.

And he seems like a really cool guy. From that interview especially, I think it's hard to say he doesn't have his head on straight when it comes to these movies.

I'll see all of his future films, in theatres, and gladly put a little extra money in his pocket.

[thedudeman69]

Originally posted by ElderPredator
I can't believe he has such an ego already. I consider "Cabin Fever" to be his only decent horror flick. "Hostel" was a piece of shit but maybe he can change that around with the sequel. We'll just have to wait and see but as the "future of horror".....he'd better rethink that statement.

Rob Zombie has more fucking talent than him and that's why I trust Rob with the "Halloween" film.

I'll tell you who the "future of horror" is......NEIL MARSHAL! He is an extremely talented director and Eli doesn't have half the skill or creativity that Neil does.


I agree with the Neil Marshall statment, but Roth and him are two totally different directors. That is like comparing Edgar Wright with Craven. Their styles are way too different to tell.

Also, how do you know what directing is when you called Bay a good director? :p

[therealjohng]

James Wan blows.

[Badbird]

Originally posted by Cronos
the guys a moron

Pretty much. Deny it all you want, Eli, turture does not equel horror. No critic has reduce all of horror to "torture porn" - just the kind of shit you and your cronnies make. Saw 3 was the most dispicable movie I've ever seen. Cabin Fever was shit.

If that's his attitude, which is truly glorifying violence, then I plan on never seeing another movie he makes.

[LordSimen]

Originally posted by therealjohng
James Wan blows.

I will say that out of the Splat Pack he probably is the least talented among them.

[therealjohng]

Originally posted by LordSimen
I will say that out of the Splat Pack he probably is the least talented among them.


What else has he done besides Saw and Dead Silence?

[powersauce]

Originally posted by echo_bravo


He brings up some interesting points but I dont think films should try to be overly violent for the sake of being violent. I think there should be a point to it.

Sadly this is why I think a number people didn't want to see Zodiac because they were expecting a serial killer movie instead of a drama in the vein of All The President's Men or The Insider.

[Le_Big_Mac]

Eli Roth seems like a cool guy but it's people like him who are ruining the horror genre. Blood, gore, and nudity is nice and all but a horror movie can't survive solely on that. It needs suspense, confusion of the psyche, and a good plot as well.

[LordSimen]

Originally posted by therealjohng
What else has he done besides Saw and Dead Silence?

I think those are the only films he's done that have been theatrical in length.

[Danger^Cart]

Hahaha...Gary Coleman's career is reduced to making Comic-Con appearances (not to say there's anything wrong with the Comic-Con, but he has absolutely nothing to do with medium, making any appearance just a desperate attempt at publicity).

[X-Nightcrawler]

Originally posted by chinton
Uggh how depressing. If Hostel is the future of horror how incredibly depressing. Doesn't really leave room for quality horror films like The Others. Also I do not agreee about Neil Marshall being lumped in with that group. His films may be bloody but the horror is based out of character developement. Yeah. Why is the fucking hack who directed "Cabin Fever" and "Hostel" talking about what 'horror' should be like.

There is no such thing as a name for "the future of horror" (Quentin Tarantino is full of shit and I'm increasingly beginning to dislike him) but if someone was going to take that title, it'd probably be Alexander Aja or Neil Marshall. Especially the latter. They're doing horror movies.

[X-Nightcrawler]

Originally posted by LordSimen
I personally think they all had their own degrees of substance in their films.

Eli Roth's Hostel, for example, I found to have a great degree of social commentary hidden underneath it's subtext and I found the two leads to be developed quite well, as well as the main "villian" character of film.
Puh-lease.

Eli Roth doesn't care about a deeper meaning in his movies. It's clear when he says that his interests are pushing the limit. Social commentary? I don't think so. It's more like "Yeah, you see this scene when the girl kills herself? I'm making a . . . uh, statement, right, about the . . . big suicide rate in Japan. It's smart and gory. Like horror films should be. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna go jerk off with a cheese grater."

Oh but look, he's telling us how sick people can be. Ooooh, now that's something I didn't know and am willing to spend time thinking about. Hm, let me open a history book, I heard something about some holy inquisition or-
Whoa! Apparently we are violent and always have been! Holy shit, Roth, you've opened my eyes! And while thinking I got to see tits and gore! Now he's saying how much America is hated in the world! HOLY SHIT THAT'S REVOLUTIONARY THINKING! What's he doing directing 'horror' (peh!) movies and not writing books!

His characters weren't developed for shit. He did his best to forcibly add the closest thing you could call "development" by having one of the three cutouts telling a traumatic story which for some reason hadn't told his best friend about. Right, it comes back later. Well now ti makes a lot of sense.

Hostel is horror porn. I like how he mentions how critics call horror a subgenre of pornography because they call his movie so. I mean, after all, what kind of horror pornography has 40 minutes of tits, 40 minutes of gore and zero minutes of brains? Those crazy critics.

The guy is a total idiot. Not an asshole but an idiot. He's an idiot that could, maybe, do really fun movies if he stopped pretending they're something other than, precisely, horror pornography. Stop thinking your crap movie is representing horror. It's not, and I thank god it's not.

. . . but Hostel II might be fun. I mean, the guy obviously doesn't understand the human condition enough to write a realistic one-year-old so trying to convey complex minds like those of psychopaths is going to be probably laughable (like it was in the first; "Careful . . . you can lose . . . all your money there.") I find it continuously funny how he himself acts exactly like all his male characters around his own age. "This is gay and that is gay and we're all the same fucking character because this guy has the character writing range of a dyslexic two year old."

They could be fun. But we need to stop pretending the movies have a two digit IQ. They're dumb as hell and they could be just as fun. It's exactly like Saw.

And I agree with Chinton. Neil Marshall is ways, ways in another level. He doesn't exactly do high art but it's far more complex and intelligent, far fucking scarier, and more effective horror.

[LordSimen]

Originally posted by X-Nightcrawler
Puh-lease.

Eli Roth doesn't care about a deeper meaning in his movies. It's clear when he says that his interests are pushing the limit. Social commentary? I don't think so. It's more like "Yeah, you see this scene when the girl kills herself? I'm making a . . . uh, statement, right, about the . . . big suicide rate in Japan. It's smart and gory. Like horror films should be. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna go jerk off with a cheese grater."

Oh but look, he's telling us how sick people can be. Ooooh, now that's something I didn't know and am willing to spend time thinking about. Hm, let me open a history book, I heard something about some holy inquisition or-
Whoa! Apparently we are violent and always have been! Holy shit, Roth, you've opened my eyes! And while thinking I got to see tits and gore! Now he's saying how much America is hated in the world! HOLY SHIT THAT'S REVOLUTIONARY THINKING! What's he doing directing 'horror' (peh!) movies and not writing books!

His characters weren't developed for shit. He did his best to forcibly add the closest thing you could call "development" by having one of the three cutouts telling a traumatic story which for some reason hadn't told his best friend about. Right, it comes back later. Well now ti makes a lot of sense.

Hostel is horror porn. I like how he mentions how critics call horror a subgenre of pornography because they call his movie so. I mean, after all, what kind of horror pornography has 40 minutes of tits, 40 minutes of gore and zero minutes of brains? Those crazy critics.

The guy is a total idiot. Not an asshole but an idiot. He's an idiot that could, maybe, do really fun movies if he stopped pretending they're something other than, precisely, horror pornography. Stop thinking your crap movie is representing horror. It's not, and I thank god it's not.

. . . but Hostel II might be fun. I mean, the guy obviously doesn't understand the human condition enough to write a realistic one-year-old so trying to convey complex minds like those of psychopaths is going to be probably laughable (like it was in the first; "Careful . . . you can lose . . . all your money there.") I find it continuously funny how he himself acts exactly like all his male characters around his own age. "This is gay and that is gay and we're all the same fucking character because this guy has the character writing range of a dyslexic two year old."

They could be fun. But we need to stop pretending the movies have a two digit IQ. They're dumb as hell and they could be just as fun. It's exactly like Saw.

And I agree with Chinton. Neil Marshall is ways, ways in another level. He doesn't exactly do high art but it's far more complex and intelligent, far fucking scarier, and more effective horror.

The film is a gigantic social commentary on the idea of getting a high. Of searching for a high. The big question, the big thing that Roth ends up tackling is Hostel is what happens when sex, drugs, extreme sports and anything else you could possibly do to achieve that state becomes... Not enough? What happens you're so addicted to this ideal feeling that you're willing to do anything to feel it again?

The film also deals with the homophobic nature of american society (biggest example being how uncomfortable one of the leads gets when a foreign person places his hand on his leg) as well as the immature way american teenagers and males view other countries and foreign women.

To me, I found a lot of social commentary mixed within the gore and sex. But maybe I'm the only one who found that, but that doesn't matter to me, because I felt it when I watched it.

Originally posted by X-Nightcrawler
Yeah. Why is the fucking hack who directed "Cabin Fever" and "Hostel" talking about what 'horror' should be like.

There is no such thing as a name for "the future of horror" (Quentin Tarantino is full of shit and I'm increasingly beginning to dislike him) but if someone was going to take that title, it'd probably be Alexander Aja or Neil Marshall. Especially the latter. They're doing horror movies.

Eli Roth IS making real horror films. Just because you don't like the film does not make it a REAL horror film. Neil Marshell and Alexandre Aja are the future of horror, they all are. Those two, along with Eli Roth, James Wan, Rob Zombie and a few others are what we refer to as the "splat pack," the new generation of horror. The guys who are bringing the balls back to horror that went away during the 90's and early 2000's when studios realized they could make more money by making safe Scream clones and PG-13 horror films that are just as cardboard cutout as the Scream clones (with a couple exceptions, however, Scream itself is very excellent as is The Ring.)

[X-Nightcrawler]

Originally posted by LordSimen
What happens you're so addicted to this ideal feeling that you're willing to do anything to feel it again? . . . then you kill people?

What's the idea again? If you get a stiffy from hurting others, you might end up . . . hurting others? Or is it a commentary on maybe horror fans who love the gore and might end up becoming so addicted to this gore that they'd 'end up' like the rich characters who kill people? Well that's a good look on horror, Eli. Way to tell us that violence in the media will bleed into real life. I just don't get it. Either way, if that's what he's trying to say, sophomoric as I find it, it never came up in the movie. It never, ever focused on the businessmen. Ever. Apparently he actually does that in the second so that makes it that he didn't do it in the first.

Originally posted by LordSimen
The film also deals with the homophobic nature of american society (biggest example being how uncomfortable one of the leads gets when a foreign person places his hand on his leg) as well as the immature way american teenagers and males view other countries and foreign women. Again, if that's what he's trying to say, he better begin getting some actual ideas and not regurgitating what everyone already knows. Besides, and I don't want to get to another argument whether it's homophobic or not, the whole homophobic angle seemed incredibly bland. Just having homophobic characters doesn't make a commentary on homophobia. The characters' homophobia (if it was that) never affected anything in any way anyone could notice. Besides, they all talk and act exactly like Roth (not to mention that 'jock' character in Cabin Fever) so it's hard to believe that he WANTED to make a statement with homophobia.

Originally posted by LordSimen
Eli Roth IS making real horror films. Just because you don't like the film does not make it a REAL horror film. Neil Marshell and Alexandre Aja are the future of horror, they all are. Those two, along with Eli Roth, James Wan, Rob Zombie and a few others are what we refer to as the "splat pack," the new generation of horror. The guys who are bringing the balls back to horror that went away during the 90's and early 2000's when studios realized they could make more money by making safe Scream clones and PG-13 horror films that are just as cardboard cutout as the Scream clones (with a couple exceptions, however, Scream itself is very excellent as is The Ring.) I never said, or never wanted to imply, that he wasn't making real horror movies. I said he IS making horror (or well, horror porn), just terrible, terrible horror.

What I figured out that makes me like "Saw" movies much more than this dreck is that "Saw", flawed as they are, at least ARE trying to make something new with the genre. I don't remember when we last saw a franchise that ties every movie and arc, plays so much with the plot, moves around in time between sequels. It's a real shame that they're not good enough to pull it off, but they are doing something new and I like that. Hostel is really going to be, at least from previews on Part II, the same goddamn crap every time, only changing the characters and maybe the setting. Oh and making it "Much more disturbing, dude."

[LordSimen]

Originally posted by X-Nightcrawler
. . . then you kill people?

What's the idea again? If you get a stiffy from hurting others, you might end up . . . hurting others? Or is it a commentary on maybe horror fans who love the gore and might end up becoming so addicted to this gore that they'd 'end up' like the rich characters who kill people? Well that's a good look on horror, Eli. Way to tell us that violence in the media will bleed into real life. I just don't get it. Either way, if that's what he's trying to say, sophomoric as I find it, it never came up in the movie. It never, ever focused on the businessmen. Ever. Apparently he actually does that in the second so that makes it that he didn't do it in the first.

It's not a commentary on violence society, it's a commentary on how far will people go to achieve a 'high." I mean, people sell themselves so they can get cocaine. What happens when you're so rich, you've done so much in this world that... The only thing you havn't done is kill someone? What if that's the only thing that can give you any sort of a "high" anymore? I think it's an excellent commentary, and there's a whole freakin' scene dedicated solely to it just so those who couldn't figure it out on their own could have it spelled out for them, and that's the one with the business man.

[X-Nightcrawler]

Originally posted by LordSimen
It's not a commentary on violence society, it's a commentary on how far will people go to achieve a 'high." I mean, people sell themselves so they can get cocaine. What happens when you're so rich, you've done so much in this world that... The only thing you havn't done is kill someone? What if that's the only thing that can give you any sort of a "high" anymore? I think it's an excellent commentary, and there's a whole freakin' scene dedicated solely to it just so those who couldn't figure it out on their own could have it spelled out for them, and that's the one with the business man. While I don't remember the scene you're talking about (was it the one in the train? Or the one when they're killing the first guy when he goes "I paid for this."?), it sounds extremely lame to pause the movie to spell out what he has to say. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying because I'd definitely remember such an inept filmmaking move. The point isn't whether there's commentary or not. If Roth said there is, who's to say there isn't? I for one wouldn't buy it if he went that one of the movie's first (or second or third or fourth) intentions is the commentary, that's all. The problem is that what he's saying isn't only regurgitating what everyone already knows. It's just obvious. It's almost the punchline to a syllogism. I don't need anyone to tell me that someone who has done everything except kill and still has an itch to do everything would go as far as, you know, kill. It's not even a stance, it's just showing us something we could assume ourselves.

I still believe that Hostel is Roth masturbating. He's doing what he always wanted to do. But "Dammit, I need to justify my violence and exploitation. Let me pull something out of my ass--aaaaah, there we go."

But I'm really blowing this out of the water and I apologize. I don't hate Hostel or Roth as much as I'm making it sound. I'm just pissed that HE was chosen by almighty promoter Quentin Tarantino to become "a star, man!" Tarantino and him just probably relate to each other. Both are huge movie fans who have the oportunity to make movies (although Tarantino is far a better filmmaker albeit just a homage whore). I'm pissed Roth is going to be so popular when far better filmmakers are being "ignored".

[LordSimen]

Originally posted by X-Nightcrawler
While I don't remember the scene you're talking about (was it the one in the train? Or the one when they're killing the first guy when he goes "I paid for this."?), it sounds extremely lame to pause the movie to spell out what he has to say. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying because I'd definitely remember such an inept filmmaking move. The point isn't whether there's commentary or not. If Roth said there is, who's to say there isn't? I for one wouldn't buy it if he went that one of the movie's first (or second or third or fourth) intentions is the commentary, that's all. The problem is that what he's saying isn't only regurgitating what everyone already knows. It's just obvious. It's almost the punchline to a syllogism. I don't need anyone to tell me that someone who has done everything except kill and still has an itch to do everything would go as far as, you know, kill. It's not even a stance, it's just showing us something we could assume ourselves.

I still believe that Hostel is Roth masturbating. He's doing what he always wanted to do. But "Dammit, I need to justify my violence and exploitation. Let me pull something out of my ass--aaaaah, there we go."

But I'm really blowing this out of the water and I apologize. I don't hate Hostel or Roth as much as I'm making it sound. I'm just pissed that HE was chosen by almighty promoter Quentin Tarantino to become "a star, man!" Tarantino and him just probably relate to each other. Both are huge movie fans who have the oportunity to make movies (although Tarantino is far a better filmmaker albeit just a homage whore). I'm pissed Roth is going to be so popular when far better filmmakers are being "ignored".
*SPOILERS*













Remember the scene where the character of Paxton had to pretend to be one of the buyers in order to escape from the tortue dungeon? When he met up with that guy who was excited about it, the guy who asked him "What'd you get? American? Asian?" (or something to that effect) and then went on a rant that basically summed up the subtext of the movie for the people too dumb to grasp it to begin with (not saying you're dumb, just that pretty much is really why it was there)

[Robot]

Roth: Yeah! I feel like in the '90s, horror just lost its way and everything became so safe and watered-down. When I go see an R-rated horror movie, I want lots of violence. I want nudity. I want sex and violence mixed together. What's wrong with that? Am I the only one? I don't think so.


It's okay to have nudity/sex in a horror movie, just as long as it's not half the film.

[The Postmaster General]

But horror movies used to be all nudity and gore more-so. I get what he's saying. Just because he's taking it too far doesn't mean his points are totally wrong. There was a noticeable absence of 70s & early-80s styled horror for a while. I just think Roth happens to like these movies more than I do.

[fooknasty]

I like Roth alot. His enthusiasim is amazing, and he seems to have a real handle for showing gore. However, he doesn't know quite yet how to develop charcters very well. Cabin Fever was a very promising first movie, but he lost that in Hostel. Was Hostel bloody and atleast a fun watch? Sure.

Neil Marshall seems to have a handle on a lot of peoples versions in this forum about what horror is. Eli Roth makes horror genre movies, in the since that there is mild suspense, gore, and nudity. Marshall, as seen with The Descent, went almost an hour without showing any tits, any gore, and he was just building the suspense, which led for a much bigger shock impact later on in the movie.

In short, Roth is a good horror director and visionary. Marshall is the man, and he has much more promise and has directed better movies than Roth at this point. They have two very different and unique styles of horror.

[Kevin Smith fan]

Originally posted by fooknasty
I like Roth alot. His enthusiasim is amazing, and he seems to have a real handle for showing gore. However, he doesn't know quite yet how to develop charcters very well. Cabin Fever was a very promising first movie, but he lost that in Hostel. Was Hostel bloody and atleast a fun watch? Sure.

Neil Marshall seems to have a handle on a lot of peoples versions in this forum about what horror is. Eli Roth makes horror genre movies, in the since that there is mild suspense, gore, and nudity. Marshall, as seen with The Descent, went almost an hour without showing any tits, any gore, and he was just building the suspense, which led for a much bigger shock impact later on in the movie.

In short, Roth is a good horror director and visionary. Marshall is the man, and he has much more promise and has directed better movies than Roth at this point. They have two very different and unique styles of horror.

I definitley have to agree with you there. You have no idea how psyched I was about this guy after seeing Cabin Fever and then Hostel was just kinda like "ok, that was decent...what's his next movie gonna be?!" And now a sequel seems just like rewarding mediocrity. It seems for a horror movie to be successful these days, you have to include intense torture and violence. That aint my kinda horror. Saw, Hostel, Hills Have Eyes; its all the same to me. Just like the string of 'creepy little kids and ghost stories' horror flicks spawned after the sucess of the Ring and the Sixth Sense. Hopefully after he moves past the Hostel phase he can come up with some better and more original films.

[HAMEZ]

i agree with everyone who strongly disliked hostel. i guess becaue it had Q's name on it i thought it was going to be a masterpeice, which was my mistake. i hope he is not the future of horror movies becuase i like ot get a little bit more out of a movie than half porn half blood. also, saw 1-3 IMO were atrocious.

[psycheoutsteve]

I think Roth is confusing ultra-violence, nudity, and gore for horror. These elements, (IMO) don't make a decent horror film, they just satisfy a primal human urge. My favorite horror film, Alien, was more suggestive with its horror then gory. It's not about what you see, it's about what lurks in the shadows mentally or physically....

[LordSimen]

Originally posted by Kevin Smith fan
I definitley have to agree with you there. You have no idea how psyched I was about this guy after seeing Cabin Fever and then Hostel was just kinda like "ok, that was decent...what's his next movie gonna be?!" And now a sequel seems just like rewarding mediocrity. It seems for a horror movie to be successful these days, you have to include intense torture and violence. That aint my kinda horror. Saw, Hostel, Hills Have Eyes; its all the same to me. Just like the string of 'creepy little kids and ghost stories' horror flicks spawned after the sucess of the Ring and the Sixth Sense. Hopefully after he moves past the Hostel phase he can come up with some better and more original films.

Saw isn't about torture, neither is The Hills Have Eyes. In fact, the only horror movie franchise out right now that focus' on the idea of Torture is Hostel.

[Backstabba]

I love some of the directors in the "Splat Pack", (Aja, Wan, Marshall, Zombie is ok) but Eli Roth is slowly becoming my least favorite. He's a good director, horrible writer (IMO) and I really hope he begins to realize that a shitty script + ALOT of blood and nudity does not = modern horror classic.

[LordSimen]

Originally posted by Backstabba
I love some of the directors in the "Splat Pack", (Aja, Wan, Marshall, Zombie is ok) but Eli Roth is slowly becoming my least favorite. He's a good director, horrible writer (IMO) and I really hope he begins to realize that a shitty script + ALOT of blood and nudity does not = modern horror classic.

I think he's the best writer out of the bunch, but maybe that's just me.

[Digifruitella]

I say, Aja, and Marshall are two people that will make some great horror films.

[Backstabba]

Originally posted by LordSimen
I think he's the best writer out of the bunch, but maybe that's just me.

Well yeah, to each their own I guess.
I just think that he's about as subtle as a gorilla hiding behind a sofa in a living room.....hopefully that made sense.

Originally posted by Digifruitella
I say, Aja, and Marshall are two people that will make some great horror films.

Same, they are easily my two favorites of the "Splat Pack".

[X-Nightcrawler]

Originally posted by LordSimen
Saw isn't about torture, neither is The Hills Have Eyes. In fact, the only horror movie franchise out right now that focus' on the idea of Torture is Hostel.
Sorry, "Saw" isn't about torture? Oh right, it's about appreciating life. He's teaching them a lesson, I suppose that doesn't count as torture if he puts them in a machine that slowly twists their limbs off.

Originally posted by Backstabba
Well yeah, to each their own I guess.
I just think that he's about as subtle as a gorilla hiding behind a sofa in a living room.....hopefully that made sense. A very small fucking sofa. The guy is hilarious when trying to add depht.

"Wait, best friend character. Hold on. I need to tell you the most traumatic experience of my life."
"Why hadn't you told me before, main character?"
"Because we didn't want flashbacks to me telling you and the audience needs to know this."
"Why?"
"I have a feeling it's going to come up later."
"Okay! Develop away!"
"This was AWFUL and TRAUMATIC and it changed my life FOREVER. . . I saw a kid drown!"

[Tagia_Romero]

I personally do believe that horror films should have different sorts of limits on them. It's well and good to take in some horror porn, but there have been movies in the past that have IMPLIED something horrid, but the real disgusting stuff is left up to the imagination of the viewer, and in many cases, that is much more effective.
More doesn't always mean more and in what Roth is presumably getting at here, he should take that into consideration.

[Kevin Smith fan]

Originally posted by LordSimen
Saw isn't about torture, neither is The Hills Have Eyes. In fact, the only horror movie franchise out right now that focus' on the idea of Torture is Hostel.

Obviously no film is specifically about torture, but like Hostel they all use torture as their way to scare the audience. Just like the creepy phone calls of the 90s and the little kids of early 00's. To me "torture flick" is a way of lumping all these movies together much like the term "slasher".

[mutesaint]

I gotta say that I partially agree with Roth. I dont think movies should be limited per se, but I also dont think movies need the gore to work. Some of the best movies that I have seen had very little gore, but sometimes it helps.

[BiffMcfly]

Obviously there should be a limit, I really don't understand why anyone wants to see these types of flicks. Is hardcore violence entertaining? does Roth and Tarantino sit there with a huge boner when watching someone getting there face ripped off or whatever and go 'this is nice and all but too bad we can't show him getting his junk ripped off'. What is the point?

[Tony_Montana]

Limits? I actually can't think of any limits that haven't been crossed by horror films in some way or another, short of actual child rape porn or actual snuff or something.

So short of something like that, why should there be any limits on what's fake? I agree blood, guts and boobs don't make a film, but why should there be limits placed on them? Oh sure there are probably A FEW nutcases who take inspiration from such films, but if they made up any substancial proportion of the horror audience, we would have an epidemic on our hands.
In fact, they might even reduce violence. Correct me if I'm wrong but didnt sex crimes go down rapidly in Japan after porn was legalised?

If you don't like it, don't watch it.

[outsyder]

Are you referring to live-action stuff? Because Japanese history is littered with all forms of risque erotic art spanning hundreds of years. It's not exactly something new in that culture.

[Bourne101]

I agree with him. I mean if it got to that point only people who wanted to see that stuff would see it and I really don't think violence like that would have an impact on violence in the real world.

And he's so fucking right about Ocean's 12, although I have to say Ocean's 13 looks kickass!

[Kevin Lockard]

Originally posted by Cronos
the guys a moron

[Tuukka]

I like both of Roth's movies despite their flaws, but he has an unrealistically high opinion of himself.

The future of horror?

To be honest, both Cabin Fever and Hostel are more about the PAST of the horror. Neither films breaks new ground, or pushes the limits. The truth is, we've already seen pretty much everything. Anyone who has watched splatter movies from the last 30 years is unlikely to be much shocked by Roth's work.

The problem with Roth is that he apparently doesn't seem to understand where his real strenght is: It's not in tits and gore. It's in building effective set pieces. The best moments in Cabin Fever and Hostel were moments of suspense and tension.

And ironically enough, that's what horror is truly about: About the horror, about the tension, about the suspense, about the terror. And you don't need tits or gore to reach those things. In fact many of the scariest horror movies ever made have neither.

Personally I prefer to watch a SCARY horror movie instead of a horror movie filled with gore and nudity. You can have both, yes. But if I have to pick one over another, the choice is easy.

[Duke Nukem]

Since he shoved aside "Wrong Turn" (which was good) and proclaimed "Cabin Fever" (which was shit) as the real "return to `70's style horror" in 2003, every word from his mouth means shit to me. Seriously, "Cabin Fever" was supposed to be dark. It wasn't dark, it was just "crude" humor all around that wasn't funny in the slightest. It was WAAAAAAY advertised as one thing, but turned out to be something completely different. It was like a bad comedy And also shit. And "Hostel"? It was nowhere near the the all-out torture flick as mismarketedly advertised, but it was okay. It had some of that "funny" crude humor, but not enough to ruin the movie like "Cabin Fever." This guy is one of the biggest hacks in Hollywood going on right now. Yes, and even with loafs like Uwe Boll around. So yeah, his latest with "horror should have no limits" also means shit. Shit.