My negativity continues:
Yes, I hate Fantastic 4, On The Lot, and I was bored at Spidey 3 but Hostel REALLY pissed me off. Eli Roth, the director, is under some delusion that he is "the future of horror" and that his movies are cutting edge, super graphic and shocking. Hostel 3 is none of those. Hostel 3 is stupid and that is all. Mr. Roth seems to think his film is shockingly original because:
A. In the big climax of the film a man gets his penis cut off and a dog eats it.
B. A man gets his head cut off and a cat drinks the blood.
C. A naked woman gets covered in the blood of another women.
Still awake?
This movie is not scary, it's not gross, it's not shocking and it's not disturbing. It wants to be all those things but in the end it's simply boring. Hopefully, the box office failure of Hostel will insure there will not be another one. Hopefully!
1 comment:
I agree — not shocking because it's trying to be.
It's only the SECOND film I've seen this year in which a bad man gets castrated and a dog eats his dismembered genitals on-camera; the other being TEETH from the Sundance Film Festival.
What's ridiculous is that HOSTEL's ads claimed it's "the most shocking ending in horror movie history."
The ending is just a disappointing mitigation and diffusion of the woman's torture. It's not shocking; what she does is perfectly in character as we've known her before (rich) and perfectly in character with what heroes usually do in movies where they're being murderously hunted: kill back in defense.
That said, I really enjoyed the original HOSTEL. HOSTEL 2 feels like a weak reprise.
Post a Comment