|
Post by xystophoros on Mar 23, 2018 6:17:07 GMT
There’s some serious incongruence going on with the high regard Eli Roth is held in and the quality of his movies. He routinely indulges in the worst tropes without any sense of irony or self-awareness, his characters are almost uniformly unlikable and he relies on entirely gross outs.
Roth’s movies don’t have any build up or tension: One minute he’s got obnoxious characters calling each other fags and enjoying over-the-top experiences that only exist in men’s bullshittery, the next limbs are flying and eyeballs are being gauged out. The over-the-top gore is what makes his movies memorable, but it’s never presented in any new way or used for any other purpose.
I get that he’s made a few dirt cheap movies that have gone on to modest box office success, but what’s the appeal to actual viewers? Are people that hard up to see 20-somethings scream and get dismembered?
|
|
|
Post by Nicko's Nose on Mar 23, 2018 6:24:55 GMT
His movies are definitely not good movies, but they’re entertaining and sometimes that’s good enough.
|
|
|
Post by sostie on Mar 23, 2018 10:11:59 GMT
Hostel 2 is probably the best (i've seen) that he's directed
|
|
corpusvile
New Member
@corpusvile
Posts: 16
Likes: 7
|
Post by corpusvile on Mar 23, 2018 10:50:16 GMT
Not for me he hasn't although Hostel grew on me eventually but for me he's a pedestrian director whose films never live up to his motormouth shilling of them. I've nothing against the guy but he'd be far down on my list of interesting directors from the past 15 years.
|
|
Father Jack
Junior Member
@arsebiscuits
Posts: 2,407
Likes: 1,190
|
Post by Father Jack on Mar 23, 2018 10:54:36 GMT
Not that I'm aware of.
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Mar 23, 2018 15:41:57 GMT
There’s some serious incongruence going on with the high regard Eli Roth is held in and the quality of his movies. He routinely indulges in the worst tropes without any sense of irony or self-awareness, his characters are almost uniformly unlikable and he relies on entirely gross outs. Roth’s movies don’t have any build up or tension: One minute he’s got obnoxious characters calling each other fags and enjoying over-the-top experiences that only exist in men’s bullshittery, the next limbs are flying and eyeballs are being gauged out. The over-the-top gore is what makes his movies memorable, but it’s never presented in any new way or used for any other purpose. I get that he’s made a few dirt cheap movies that have gone on to modest box office success, but what’s the appeal to actual viewers? Are people that hard up to see 20-somethings scream and get dismembered? Wow. I can't disagree with anything.
|
|
|
Post by darkknightofgotham on Mar 23, 2018 16:03:51 GMT
Nope lol. What's ironic is his movies are generally very well made, but the quality itself isn't so good.
The only reason he gets work is because he's good friends with Tarantino, and his name alone helps get his projects greenlit.
Without him he wouldn't have any work.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Mar 23, 2018 16:22:38 GMT
Nope lol. What's ironic is his movies are generally very well made, but the quality itself isn't so good. The only reason he gets work is because he's good friends with Tarantino, and his name alone helps get his projects greenlit. Without him he wouldn't have any work. No foolin? Wow, I'd like to see a moment where Tarantino is at a party talking to serious minded film enthusiasts then Eli Roth shows up yelling "Wassup?"
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Mar 23, 2018 16:25:13 GMT
Eli Roth frustrates me consistently. Without having seen Death Wish (I feel pretty confident the same issue will persist there given the material) I think that each and every one of his films has some interesting and provocative idea and aspect to them. Case in point, Green Inferno starts with half assed wannabe activists that that take strong stances without having to sacrifice anything for their cause, then follows with 80 or so minutes of dull, poorly made, cannibal movie cliche bullshit, then ends with an unexpected turn that makes me think differently about what it all meant. If only the middle section wasn't so god damn shitty, there may really have been a worthwhile film there.
Likewise, Hostel is ok, but the concept behind Hostel could have been something excellent and an idea really worth exploring. Instead it's part cheesey teen sex comedy, part bloody horror comedy, part torture porn (really the movie that defined and coined the term, I believe), and none of it comes together as satisfactorily as it needs to.
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Mar 23, 2018 21:19:52 GMT
He is propped up by the media establishment. Audiences are not deciding, those connected in the film media punditry are. Much like with Woody Allen or Kubrick. I think 2001 didnt make its money back for ten years. So much for the idea Hollywood makes films for a profit. If you have the inside track in the company they don't care about profits. But with horror this nepotism stands out more because horror traditionally, being low budget, was more audience-friendly and focused (and the establishment media looked down on it).
Roger Corman he ain't.
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Mar 23, 2018 23:28:29 GMT
Case in point, Green Inferno starts with half assed wannabe activists that that take strong stances without having to sacrifice anything for their cause, then follows with 80 or so minutes of dull, poorly made, cannibal movie cliche bullshit, then ends with an unexpected turn that makes me think differently about what it all meant. If only the middle section wasn't so god damn shitty, there may really have been a worthwhile film there. I'm curious to hear more from you on this. For me, when Justine defends the natives is when I had had enough of the movie, but maybe there's something I'm missing.
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Mar 23, 2018 23:42:00 GMT
I think he's a decent horror director, but a TERRIBLE comedy director, and unfortunately he insists on ruining his movies with terrible comedy. Cabin Fever is a prime example. The premise is terrifying, and there's some grizzly scenes in there like the shaving scene. But then he throws in things like "pancakes!", Party Cop, the N word stuff, etc, that completely kill the atmosphere.
Same with Green Inferno. The scene where Jonah gets butchered is insane for a mainstream movie, then Roth destroys that good will he built up with diarrhea, munchies, and masturbation gags. Don't get me started on Knock Knock.
I think Hostel is his best movie because it's his most serious, at least once the horror starts (thankfully he got most of his dumb frat jokes out of the way in the first half). I felt tension from the moment Paxton is captured till the end, and I truly didn't know if he'd make it or not. Then Hostel II is largely back to dumb Roth comedy starting with said character's severed neck being licked by a cat.
|
|
|
Post by rateater on Mar 23, 2018 23:53:18 GMT
i think his death wish is the first i approve of.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2018 0:01:33 GMT
If he does, it'll be his first.
|
|
|
Post by James on Mar 24, 2018 0:04:38 GMT
I dunno. So far, the only movie of his I've seen was the first Hostel. And I really liked it.
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Mar 24, 2018 0:31:03 GMT
Case in point, Green Inferno starts with half assed wannabe activists that that take strong stances without having to sacrifice anything for their cause, then follows with 80 or so minutes of dull, poorly made, cannibal movie cliche bullshit, then ends with an unexpected turn that makes me think differently about what it all meant. If only the middle section wasn't so god damn shitty, there may really have been a worthwhile film there. I'm curious to hear more from you on this. For me, when Justine defends the natives is when I had had enough of the movie, but maybe there's something I'm missing. I'm not sure how I feel about it exactly, but that was the first time I was even slightly interested in it after the end of the first act. I guess spoilers be damned... I might have to watch it again to see of there was some actual statement here, but it started with these annoying college know it all hippy activists who give a lot of lip service to their cause and are all sort of punished for not really knowing what they're talking about. Kind of a shallow, sort of conservative anti-liberal story starting point. At the end though, when she has the chance to turn on the native and tell her story, she chooses not to. That's certainly a surprise, but it does, to me, add another element to her. She has lost and sacrificed an insane amount at this point and she actually proves that she believes in the cause enough to stick to defending these people on spite of everything she's been through. She's actually come a long way from just holding a picket sign on campus, and it's not the outcome I expected since the movie treated the activists with such disdain in the beginning, and it ultimately seems to respect her in the end for having the courage of her convictions... Even if it's not in her best interest. I thought that was a unique angle, and not the hippy hating conservative view point that it seemed like it was going for at first, and that would have had a certain built in support base. Actually taking the time to write that out I realize how similar this story is to that early South Park episode when the kids go to the rainforest. It ends rather differently though.
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Mar 24, 2018 0:34:00 GMT
I think he's a decent horror director, but a TERRIBLE comedy director, and unfortunately he insists on ruining his movies with terrible comedy. Cabin Fever is a prime example. The premise is terrifying, and there's some grizzly scenes in there like the shaving scene. But then he throws in things like "pancakes!", Party Cop, the N word stuff, etc, that completely kill the atmosphere. Same with Green Inferno. The scene where Jonah gets butchered is insane for a mainstream movie, then Roth destroys that good will he built up with diarrhea, munchies, and masturbation gags. Don't get me started on Knock Knock. I think Hostel is his best movie because it's his most serious, at least once the horror starts (thankfully he got most of his dumb frat jokes out of the way in the first half). I felt tension from the moment Paxton is captured till the end, and I truly didn't know if he'd make it or not. Then Hostel II is largely back to dumb Roth comedy starting with said character's severed neck being licked by a cat. I don't know... When that girl cuts off her dangling eye ball and cheese whiz starts squirting out, I thought that might have been played for laughs. I certainly thought it seemed silly.
|
|
|
Post by James on Mar 24, 2018 0:37:16 GMT
I think he's a decent horror director, but a TERRIBLE comedy director, and unfortunately he insists on ruining his movies with terrible comedy. Cabin Fever is a prime example. The premise is terrifying, and there's some grizzly scenes in there like the shaving scene. But then he throws in things like "pancakes!", Party Cop, the N word stuff, etc, that completely kill the atmosphere. Same with Green Inferno. The scene where Jonah gets butchered is insane for a mainstream movie, then Roth destroys that good will he built up with diarrhea, munchies, and masturbation gags. Don't get me started on Knock Knock. I think Hostel is his best movie because it's his most serious, at least once the horror starts (thankfully he got most of his dumb frat jokes out of the way in the first half). I felt tension from the moment Paxton is captured till the end, and I truly didn't know if he'd make it or not. Then Hostel II is largely back to dumb Roth comedy starting with said character's severed neck being licked by a cat. I don't know... When that girl cuts off her dangling eye ball and cheese whiz starts squirting out, I thought that might have been played for laughs. I certainly thought it seemed silly. Bro. I thought that bit was pure cringe-inducing, even before watching the movie.
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Mar 24, 2018 0:49:19 GMT
I don't know... When that girl cuts off her dangling eye ball and cheese whiz starts squirting out, I thought that might have been played for laughs. I certainly thought it seemed silly. Bro. I thought that bit was pure cringe-inducing, even before watching the movie. And I remember the whole audience freaked out at that part.
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Mar 24, 2018 1:07:36 GMT
I'm curious to hear more from you on this. For me, when Justine defends the natives is when I had had enough of the movie, but maybe there's something I'm missing. I'm not sure how I feel about it exactly, but that was the first time I was even slightly interested in it after the end of the first act. I guess spoilers be damned... I might have to watch it again to see of there was some actual statement here, but it started with these annoying college know it all hippy activists who give a lot of lip service to their cause and are all sort of punished for not really knowing what they're talking about. Kind of a shallow, sort of conservative anti-liberal story starting point. At the end though, when she has the chance to turn on the native and tell her story, she chooses not to. That's certainly a surprise, but it does, to me, add another element to her. She has lost and sacrificed an insane amount at this point and she actually proves that she believes in the cause enough to stick to defending these people on spite of everything she's been through. She's actually come a long way from just holding a picket sign on campus, and it's not the outcome I expected since the movie treated the activists with such disdain in the beginning, and it ultimately seems to respect her in the end for having the courage of her convictions... Even if it's not in her best interest. I thought that was a unique angle, and not the hippy hating conservative view point that it seemed like it was going for at first, and that would have had a certain built in support base. Actually taking the time to write that out I realize how similar this story is to that early South Park episode when the kids go to the rainforest. It ends rather differently though. Hmm. That makes sense. Although from what I recall, she didn't even really care about the cause in the beginning and mainly went along because she had a crush on the leader. That made it extra inane for me when she turns around to defend the natives after, as you said, everything she'd been through. If she were a true blue SJW and it was meant to be satirical that she'd still defend them after all that, I could maybe get behind it. Bare in mind I'm a fairly liberal guy myself, but my sympathy doesn't extend to cannibals and genital mutilators.
|
|