Excellent points! Actually your comments are the exact reason why I disliked Hostel so much this year (as of so far its my only F for 2006), it really had utterly no point. I felt that The Hills Have Eyes had at least a decent story and was fairly suspensful throughout, myself, but I can see why some people feel it pushed the envelope too far.

He also gave zero stars to both Wolf Creek and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre '03.

I'm mixed on Ebert's opinions. I totally agree with his take on Wolf Crap but not with TCM 03. I did read his write up of Hills and pretty much agreed with it but I still did at least enjoy the first half of it.

Iagreethatthegoreisn'treallyasgreatasIthoughtrightafterIsawit. AndIdoubtthefilmwillholdupverywelluponrepeatviewings.

Andnotasinglesceneinthisfilmcameanywhereclosetobeingasscary orasawesomeasSally'schasesceneintheoriginalTCM.That'smyfavoritemomentinhorror moviehistory,andIverymuchdoubtanyfilmeverdoescomeclosetotoppingit.

TCM??

Thanks for clarrification *runs away from Korrgan while scary music begins to play in the background*

Very good film that is consistently disturbing and heartbreaking (was I the only one who was sad to see the girl in red die?). I don't have the time to write a full review as of yet but needless to say it was a very good example of what a horror film should be. Contrary to others, I think it WILL hold up in repeat viewings, as long as said viewings aren't too close to one another. Like if you saw it this past weekend and then didn't see it again until it hit DVD it would play fine because you would have some air of freshness to the proceedings although I doubt I'll ever forget the trailer scene. The performances were quite good as well, with Ted Levine playing the rare straight role (where he isn't a psychotic trucker or serial killer) and Dan Byrd and Emilie de Ravin giving great performances as the brother and sister. They had great chemistry to the point you could actually believe they were related. I'm rambling now but the musical score was FANTASTIC! That droning noise or whatever it was fit the film perfectly and I only wish there was more of it. Eli Roth has nothing on Aja, who is much more skilled at actually terrifying the viewer as opposed to just grossing them out. Plus, Roth is a terrible writer.


Grade - A

While Hostel maybe much gorier than Hills Have Eyes, it loses alot of points with me because o0f the bad dialogue and how the first hour was boring since Eli Roth tried his hardest to build up the 3 main characters story but fails miserbly, it to0ok Aja no longer than 20 mins to set up the whole story without dragging how we feel for the characters. Note to Roth that sometimes being simple makes it easy enough to care for the characters and not too much shit to do with the potsmoking or whoring around (Cabin Fever also)

Yeah, Hostel was rather boring the first hour, and to me at least, brutal and poorly executed in the second half.

This film rocked me. I, like makeshift am having trouble putting this into words even 24 hours after I saw it. I'm going to take some more time to write my review, but this is definitely one of the better horror films of the last 5 years. And you are talking to a guy here who liked Hostel and Wolf Creek. But there is no pussy footing with this film. It does have the feel of the original TCM, and that is one of my fave films. I'll put it more into words later, but saffice to say, this is one of the best in quit a while. A

Gee, Rape scene and all?? You know?? I really, REALLY wanted to see this movie but for the Love of God, I find it disturbing from the descriptions of the scenes involving this, that it's hard fior me to pony up the $$$ to see this just because of that.. Did it really add to the overall story in the film or more for unnecessary hyper-shock value?? Take this stuff out of the movie and you've got a deal.. I'll see it, but I don't understand why the Director had to put this in the movie..

THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT EXCUSEABLE THOUGH!

God,BKB,it'sjustarapescene.I'magurlandshouldbetheoneupinarms,notyou.Butit'sjustamovie,it'snot arealrape.Andit'snotevenshown,really.Youseehimunbucklinghisbeltwithhislittle deformedhandsandthat'saboutit.

it's not even that bad. for god's sake quit being a pansy!

Your description is tame and almost non-existent compared to reviews I've read at both RT and CHUD and I'm sorry, but it wouldn't of hurt the movie one bit had it been deleted all together.... And judging from your tone, it sounds like you condone Rape from where I'm sitting..

BKB, see... don't come into this thread and asking about the rape scene, and when you get an answer, throw RT and CHUD in our faces. We all know (or so I thought) that some reviewers tend to overexaggerate.

The scene is very short, it cuts away to another scene, and it's mostly noises. If the scene were taken out, the film wouldn't have been as powerful as it was.

So, either watch the god damn movie or stop freakin' talking about it.

The entire purpose of horror is to push the envelope of what's acceptable. To horrify. To "get away with" as much violence and horror as society will allow (or rather, what society won't allow). All the true horror classics shattered boundaries of what's acceptable. The reason The Exorcist is held in such high regard is that at the time of release the image of a young girl as a possessed, profanity spewing, masturbating, vomiting demon hadn't been seen before. It unsettled audiences. It broke taboos. It was horrifying. Some, at the time, would have said it was needlessly so.

The reason today's many of today's horror films aren't that great is because not enough filmmakers are pushing that envelope. If something in horror seems gratuitous or needlessly OTT, if it horrifies you, then it's doing its job. It doesn't have to have a point to it. Too many horror films nowadays tread water and play it safe. There aren't enough taboos being broken for fear of incurring the MPAA's wrath.

I'm of the opinion we're due a new breakthrough horror film. Something that horrifies and disgusts people to entirely new levels. An NC-17 masterpiece of depravity and gore. Something so needlessly and endlessly abhorrent that it shocks and appalls even me, a cynical, jaded, horror junkie twat. I'm getting a bit tired of hearing about how disgusting and horrifying films like Hostel, Wolf Creek and The Hills Have Eyes are, getting all nervous and anxious about seeing them, and eventually discovering that they're no worse than your average video nasty from the 80s.

Damn it, I want to see a film banned again!

End of rant.

I'm all for horror violence being as disturbing and real looking as possible. I absolutely hate paint by numbers horror films like 2005 The Fog and WASC and other films that came out in the 90's that sanitized and mocked the very genre that paved the way for them. The Haunting is one film that angered me more than you can imagine. I was not a big fan of the original, but the new one took what it thought was a blueprint for horror and they made a Shining clone with Special FX and it was disasterous. There were ghosts and loud noises and pretty actors and no substance. It is, as far as I'm concerned the paradigm to what not to do in a horror film. There has always been a market for horror films. AFter the insurgence in the 70's and 80's studios actually looked at films like Evil Dead, Friday the 13th and Halloween and figured out that with a controlled budget, they could make money. As we all know, New Line is called the house that Freddy built, and for good reason. I know that not all horror films have to be like the Hills Have Eyes or Cannibal Hollocaust or Texas Chainsaw Massacre. There are some damn freakin scary films that have little gore to them. The Changeling, The Shining, Sixth Sense, The Ring and the Blair Witch Project are a few that come to mind that accentuate chills and suspence over gore and guts. And that is fine. But as much as those ones scare me, they do not affect me in the same primal way that Last House on The Left, both Texas Chainsaws and both the Hills Have Eyes. These films twist my insides and they make feel alone, they make feel scared and uneasy and shocked and disturbed and vulnerable. Does it mean that we're all psycho for liking these disgusting films? Of course not. Stephen King once said that he never picked the wings off of flys, he never kicked dogs and he never got in playground fights. The reason? Because his imagination entertained him, he didn't need to act out what he writes about because there is a seperation from the two. Same goes for most of us. My two dogs are my best friends. I would never harm an animal or another human being unless absolutely necessary. But show me macabre violence and perverse situations on screen, and I'm a fan of that movie for life. It's tough to get it right. It's tough to make a great horror film, but when you get it right, there is nothing out there that can make you feel the way it does.

Oohhyes,becauseabarelyshownrapesceneinaMOVIEdoesn'tdisgustme,I mustsupportrape.Folks,wefinallyhaveproofthatBKBisretarded.

Y ea, I'd have to agree that the statmeent by BKB was a bit harsh.

I still find it funny BKB feels fit to say the movie could excise the rape without consequence, when he hasn't seen it.

Wow so basically you would boycott movies like Rob Roy and Crash because they have scenes of some sort of rape?
Oh and you should boycott Nightmare on Elm Street since the villian was born of 10,000 inmates who raped his mother

I need to compile a list of movies for BKB to boycott that contains any reference or scenes of homsexuality, incest or rape

BTW theres nothing wrong with boycotting movies over content, its just that you cant be selective.
Its this reason why I respect MGcasey's choice since he made a stance against watching R rated movie and doesnt become selective over specific things