Change Your Image
contactgmt
Reviews
Hostel (2005)
Eli Roth: doing his bit to scare Americans away from travel
if Eli Roth is scared of Slovakia, all the better.
Why don't people just abandon Hollywood movies?
99% of them are at least as bad as "Hostel." Eli Roth, who, by setting this film in Bratislava and filming it in Prague demonstrates in 4 ways why so many people hate Americans:
(1)he went to a far-off country, Czech Republic, to tell an American story - a particularly retrograde horror film with the 'fear of travel' motif. The 'moral' of the story is not lost on Americans who widely and falsely believe Europe is far more dangerous than the U.S.;
(2)by going to another country and writing a script for foreigners to perform - for money - he is basically saying 'clearly they - whoever they might be - are better off letting us present them the way we want them to be seen.' Why is it you wont see Slvoaks representing themselves at your local googleplex?;
(3)he affirms to the Slovak people that they are only as useful as their labor is cheap and,
(4) he comes back to an absurd level of press accolades (absurd meaning more than zero).
Where else but in Hollywood could someone be so publicly rewarded for being so anti-social, mediocre, and self-glorifying? ...Washington?
heres the article:
Movie news
Hostel director scared of Slovakia Director Eli Roth claims he is scared to visit Slovakia after the government responded angrily to his controversial new horror movie 'Hostel'.
The film portrays the story of several backpackers, who meet a nasty end in Bratislava when they are lured into bed by beautiful women before being tied up and tortured to death by bored businessmen.
And Roth reckons the Slovakian authorities are not too happy with his portrayal of their capital city.
He said: "The head of the tourist board got pretty angry, and invited me to Slovakia to show they don't just murder and torture people for fun.
"I have a feeling that now I've made the film, I will get beaten and tortured in Slovakia." Roth also explained he decided to shoot the movie on a small budget in Eastern Europe after a conversation with cult director Quentin Tarantino.
He added: "When I told him about 'Hostel', he went, 'Oh man, that is the sickest idea for a horror film I've ever heard! You've got to make it!' "And then he was saying, 'Don't do it for $20m, do it for three million bucks, go to Eastern Europe, use local crews.' Sometimes you need that validation from someone you can trust."
Shotgun (1989)
"hey baby, telephone."
well, where to begin? shotgun is a very low budget buddy film, the value of which will be immediately obvious to anyone with a taste for Hollywood dreck.
there's a lot of gratuitous violence in the movie, basically various prostitutes getting beaten by a lawyer/drug lord in a leather suit. additionally, there's the usual shoot-em-up cop violence familiar to the genre.
shotgun expects the viewer to take the script at face value. for example, shotgun expects the viewer to experience all the violence in the movie as tragedy. for several reasons this just doesn't happen. one reason is that the acting is non-existent, the whole thing was only shot in 3 days. furthermore, the script is caught, happily for us, between its originality and the limits of its genre.
shotgun wants us to to get our kicks seeing someone in Hollywood pick up a prostitute. however its actually not a prostitute, its some girl hamming it up in a 13-year-old's concept of a prostitute as gleaned from TV. and its not a john, its some boring guy barely playing a john. the transparency of the clichés and acting, such as it is, relieves the viewer of the mental challenge of apprehending any subtlety, much to the relief of IMDb reviewers of all tastes.
then shotgun wants you to think they're going to a cheap hotel to do the deed. but the guy at the desk triggers a mild altercation as to whether the john is going to buy a condom. so watching shotgun at this point, you're thinking: lurid Miami Vice moment, feeble attempt at realism. maybe. thats what i was thinking, anyway.
then, in the confusing scene, having brought the prostitute to the hotel room, the john leaves and the drug-lord/lawyer comes in, dressed in full s+m regale. everyone who sees shotgun for the first time assumes incorrectly that its the john coming back in. the scene is very reminiscent of an edward hopper painting, actually. pretty artistic.
so the prostitute says, trying not very hard to be sultry/sleazy: "do you want hips (rubbing her hips) or lips (licks her lips)?" even though its obviously a set shot, its still pretty disgusting right here.
who could take this seriously? no one.
the lawyer says, "i think lips," and punches her in the mouth (get it?). there is a wailing guitar solo to accompany the rest of the beating. the guitar is pretty much the last nail in the coffin, ensuring that this movie will never return from the pits of self-mockery.
so the john leaves the hotel, in the scene's coda, and gives the condom back to the desk and tells him, "i told you i didn't need the rubber." ba-dum ksh.
shotgun is basically a few repetitions of this scene, interspersed with plot lines and banter which ape other buddy films. the ending is also spectacular and not to be missed, though few who get 10 minutes into the movie and decide to keep watching will need any encouragement.
i would like to say more about how funny the dialog and performances are in shotgun.
this is one of the most entertaining movies i have ever seen and i seriously recommend it to anyone who has the stomach for the strongest variety of satire: unintentional.
Outlaw of Gor (1988)
"i was cleaning and polishing the vibrations of the home stone."
outlaw of gor. the title says it all. a few comments before we begin: its a sequel, and far more exotic and watchable than its predecessor, useless comparisons to the story on which it was based will not be entertained here. second, mst 3k is not outlaw of gor. finally, whoever caught the midget butt thing was right on. this is typical example of a moment caught on this awkward film that makes me wonder, what, exactly, are we supposed to be thinking about this? we also see urbinos ass in the same shot. true, all of this is as appealing as awful watney smith getting massaged or the queen yelling "guards!" even once, though she does it about six thousand times in the movie...anyhow, you get the idea that the viewer is left to wonder what the filmmakers were thinking. its really baffling. jack palance is amazing. i assume he was taking his annual holiday in Italy when he got picked up for this one. his performance as Zeno is almost as good as the hip-hop/wizard costume he wears. any movie where palance wears fat gold chains and speaks in monosyllables is worth something. a half-smile is detectable on his face throughout his performance. the hardest part of the film is how unevenly its paced. this is typical for adventure films, to proceed in chapters, but nothing really apologizes for this. one more thing, in the first five minutes you will hear the name Cabot repeated about six hundred times. also, the set for the castle sort of looks like a terry Jones fantasy movie i saw once but forgot the title. one may also be confused by a scene which was choreographed in the manner of a high school dance class, with the added dimension of exploitation, achieved by a nodding palance and bouncing small man. the upper part of the frame here was masked off not very successfully in post production, or maybe during a set shot. you'll see what i mean. it sort of looks like the concert scene in the blues brothers where the crowd and the stage are pastiched together. naturally, gor doesn't achieve any describable effect. this film is very annoying at times and at others, downright mystifying. i would suggest this movie only to those who prefer a strange film and have a high tolerance for poor film-making. for those of you brave enough, i would say go out and see it right away.