Hostel is pretty much the poster child for the "torture porn" subgenre of horror. And it's a subgenre that gets a lot of negative attention, for superficial reasons. Personally, I have no problem with so-called "torture porn" - I think that body horror is a totally legitimate subject for a horror movie. I get that not everyone likes gore, which has been very popular in horror in recent years, and I, too, appreciate a movie that's more successful at building suspense and creating tension and scaring the audience than simply grossing them out with blood and guts. But I like all different kinds of horror, and if blood and guts isn't welcome in the horror genre, then by god, where will it be welcomed?
In any case, I have a soft spot in my heart for the original Hostel (and, I guess, by extension, the Hostel series), simply because it's one of the first movies I made a point to go out and see after that point in my life when I sat down and said to myself, "I'm a horror fan". Obviously, it's not the first horror movie I ever watched (not by a long shot), but it was one of the first I went to see in a theater after I had created that image for myself as a person who enjoys the horror genre. And though I've never called it one of my favorite horror movies, I did think it did what it did rather well.
I didn't even know there was a Hostel: Part III (IMDb suggests it went straight to video), but there it was on Netflix, so you know I had to watch it. And, actually, for a straight-to-video movie, it's pretty good. Although there is some nudity, it doesn't have nearly as much sex as the last two Hostels (which is a disappointment, because a frank and unashamed approach to sexuality was one of the things I liked in particular about the Hostel series) (on that note, if I find that Netflix has stiffed me on a censored version of a movie again, I'm gonna be royally pissed). But there is plenty of violence, although I would say that this movie focuses more on quality than quantity, getting a bit more creative rather than simply going all out with the cringe-worthy torture scenes. The characters involved are probably not going to become your best friends, but they're sympathetic (and in the case of the villains, detestable) enough, and it's a relief that they're not the total over-the-top douchebag protagonists I've been seeing in a lot of horror films lately.
But perhaps the best aspect of this film is the surprises it has in store. It totally plays on your expectations, as a viewer watching a Hostel film. Like, you know how the script goes, so you think you've got it figured out, then it turns things upside-down on you. Plus, it makes an excellent lesson out of judging people by appearances. And, this time around, the torture club is brought stateside, with a haughty establishment in the barren desert outside of Las Vegas. I know, it kind of flips the whole theme of Hostel - your worst nightmare when going abroad - upside-down, but I think it works. It's at least more successful than [Rec] 3 was in flouting its series' conventions by choosing not to be strictly a found footage film (another unpopular subgenre of horror). If you like the Hostel films, or are at least not squeamish about torture porn, give Hostel: Part III a try. I think chances are pretty good that you'll like it.
Showing posts with label torture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label torture. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 9, 2013
Monday, November 5, 2012
Movies I watched this Halloween (2012)
...excepting the ones I've already properly reviewed, of course.
Drag Me To Hell (2011)
When Drag Me To Hell came out in 2011, I filed it in the back of my mind as a potential title to watch, because I love to see the theme of hell in movies (not even just horror movies). I think hell is a fascinating concept, and I love to see different people's interpretations of it. And I thought the premise of this movie was going to be some person who gets dragged down to hell. Which, essentially is what it is, except that the movie is all about this girl being cursed and trying to fight her fate, and not what happens to her after she (huge spoiler) fails to lift the curse and gets dragged down to hell, literally in the last moments of the film (although we see nothing lower than ground level). So, huge disappointment in that respect. As for what the movie actually is, I should have known that coming from Sam Raimi - the man responsible for the slapstick hijinks of the Evil Dead trilogy - I wouldn't like the style. It gets pretty ridiculous at some parts, to the point that I consider it a waste of time. Alison Lohman is beautiful in the lead role, but it's not even worth it to watch just for her performance.
Zombieland (2009)
I had no expectations of loving Zombieland, given that it's more of a horror comedy, and is frequently mentioned in the same breath as Shaun of the Dead, another zombie title hailed as a modern masterpiece by people who don't typically watch horror (hence their ability to appreciate horror comedy). But I was willing to give Shaun of the Dead a watch, and people kept coming to me praising Zombieland, asking if I'd seen it, and it stars both a really hot-looking Emma Stone as well as Abigail Breslin (who was in the fantastic Little Miss Sunshine), so I gave it a watch. It's actually pretty good. The style of the movie is way too light-hearted for me - someone who prefers dark, serious movies - but I can see why a lot of people like it.
Rosemary's Baby (1968)
Rosemary's Baby is a masterpiece of suspense horror directed by Roman Polanski. It gets talked about a lot (for good reason), and I recall seeing at least some scenes from it on TV in the past, but I don't think I'd ever actually sat down and watched the whole thing before, so I made a point to do that this Halloween. It's a fantastic movie, with a fantastic premise - a devil worshipping cult tricks (very cleverly) a young woman into bearing the son of Lucifer. Mia Farrow is sensational in the lead role, as a vulnerable and attractive young mother-to-be. And mad props for actually including the scene where she's raped by the devil - and, better yet, actually including some nudity! Awesome. This is a well-deserved classic horror film and I highly recommend it.
The Omen (1976)
Continuing in the 'devil child' vein, I decided to follow Rosemary's Baby up with The Omen. I remember when the remake came out in 2006 (on the date 6/6/6), though I didn't watch it. But ever since then I've been aware of the original movie from 1976 as a horror classic, and this year I decided to watch it. It's actually very good. There's some mystery and some suspense, and a good bit of horror in the classic, chilling (rather than shocking) vein. And the one scene with the priest and the infernal storm is just awesome. And the dogs manage to actually be intimidating. And the graveyard scene is unforgettable. Great movie, in spite of its age.
The Bad Seed (1956)
This is a movie based off of a stage play about the sweetest little girl you've ever met, who turns out to be a cold-blooded killer. As it is based off a stage play, there is a heavy emphasis on character, and character interaction - which I find to be pretty fascinating (one of my favorite films of all time - Bug - was also adapted from a stage play). Patty McCormack plays the part of the bad seed magnificently, perfectly mixing her innocent charm with a hauntingly believable childlike malice. For a film that's over fifty years old, I rate it very highly and recommend it enthusiastically.
Wilderness Survival For Girls (2004)
This was a fascinating twist of the usual premise in slasher films where a group of young adults head up to a cabin in the woods and get bumped off by some psychotic killer. This time around, it's not so straightforward. Three girls head up to their cabin in the woods, and a suspicious stranger shows up, who claims to have been squatting in their cabin. But the girls have the upper hand, and tie him up in a chair at gunpoint. They wonder if he's the same guy that killed two girls several years ago and was never caught, but they have no hard evidence. The power shifts balance a few times, and the movie addresses the question of what sort of treatment of the stranger is justified by these girls. One the one hand, they're girls, and he's a full grown man. On the other, it's three against one. He might be dangerous, but then, they have no proof. It's an excellent dilemma, with some feminist undertones.
The Gate (1987)
Pretty terrifying for a children's movie. In fact, I'm pretty sure I saw this as a child, but all I remember from it is a scene with the eye in the palm, and the feeling that it was a very, very scary movie. As an adult, okay, it's not that terrifying, but it's still a really good movie. I miss the days when they made movies for kids that were actually good and not cheap schlock to placate the whiny runts. And the fx - I assume it's claymation - are really pretty good. I mean, like, you can tell they're not real, but they're infinitely more effective than shoddy CGI. And the creature design - especially the big daddy (which recalled for me the excellent monster design in Howard The Duck) - was fantastic, not ridiculous like a lot of today's monsters. And my favorite part of all (aside from the cute teenage sister) was the fact that the movie didn't shy away from being epic. This is sort of a spoiler, but most movies would build up to the end of the world and stop short. This movie doesn't pull any punches. Bravo.
The Mothman Prophecies (2002)
The Mothman Prophecies is a movie that constructs a really creepy atmosphere. It's more of a mystery thriller than a straight-up horror, but I thought it was scary in its own way. Unfortunately, the cryptid angle leaves a little to be desired, but what you get in place of that is a very fascinating premise about prognostication and determinism, with some very haunting scenes. It's also a very sad, sad story. But I definitely get a feel from it that it could totally have been an extended episode of The X-Files - it's just missing Mulder and Scully...
Candyman (1992)
Candyman is a movie that I've been meaning to watch ever since I read Clive Barker's Books of Blood. Clive Barker is a horror writer who is the mastermind behind Hellraiser, and the story that the movie Candyman is based on was in the Books of Blood I read. The movie, I'm sure, expands and modifies the story to a full feature-length format, but I think Clive Barker was involved in its production, and anyway, the result is pretty good. In the story, Candyman is something of an urban legend - he's a real, supernatural villain, but he derives power from the beliefs of those he frightens. And the movie is the story of one woman's journey to discover the truth behind the myth, and the subsequent horrors she is then confronted with. It's pretty good.
Red State (2011)
After the debacle that was Drag Me To Hell, I could be forgiven for skipping over Red State, being that I'm not generally a fan of Kevin Smith's other forays into cinema, however popular they are. But, I had heard that this - horror - movie was actually pretty good, so I wanted to give it a watch. It was worth it. It is ostensibly the story of a fundamentalist religious group (obviously inspired by the Westboro Baptist Church, which was in the news for picketing the funeral of a gay man beaten to death), and the ungodly horrors they get up to in their private church, which involve online entrapment schemes and very criminal 'neutralization' of perverts. Anyway, this is kind of a spoiler, but the movie takes a left turn midway through and introduces the government by turning the situation into something very much like the Waco Massacre. The result is actually very fascinating in my opinion (although others seem frustrated by the lack of thematic focus). In the end, I think the movie provides a good opportunity to criticize the errors of both religion and government, with only the perverts really making out well in the end (at least image-wise). But, that could be my bias, since I am a pervert (and proud). Anyway, it was a really fascinating movie, and I do recommend it. And, as most people who have seen it agree, Michael Parks does a hauntingly captivating job in the role of the crazy, bigoted preacher man.
Alone With Her (2006)
Alone With Her is pretty much your typical crazy stalker story, although it cleverly uses the 'found footage' angle to its advantage so that we get to see the story unfold entirely from the point of view of the stalker's cameras. Which, gives it a kind of creepy feeling because it's almost like you're participating in the stalker's crimes. People will naturally criticize the voyeuristic element, but especially from the perspective of cinema, which is an inherently voyeuristic medium (and that's why we love it!), it's only natural to be curious. It's when the stalker uses voyeurism as a method to criminally invade another person's privacy, and then take advantage of that inside perspective to exercise unknowing control over that person's life, in a futile attempt to construct a scripted scenario that's doomed from the start, that it becomes creepy. Anyway, it's certainly a unique perspective, even if on a somewhat cliched narrative.
Megan Is Missing (2011)
Megan Is Missing purportedly claims to be an open warning about what can happen to teens who meet strangers on the internet, loosely based on any number of real life abduction cases (but no one in particular). But rather than a preventive education piece, it's climax is so horrifying as to make it a startlingly effective horror film instead. That's not to say that it's actually a good film, by cinematic standards - for one thing, the acting is terribly shoddy, as the majority of the characters try way too hard (or not hard enough) to behave like caricatures of either way-too-slutty or self-pitying teens. But the film takes the found footage technique to its logical conclusion by documenting via webcam and mobile phone what it is teens get up to when parents aren't around, and then marrying that with footage taken by the killer after one or more of those teens is abducted. Where this film succeeds is in going farther and being bolder than any movie before it (that I know of), in an attempt to document the true horror of what goes on in those most terrible of cases - the very thing most people instinctively desire to turn away from. The last 22 minutes of this movie is, in fact, so effective, that I describe it as pure nightmare fuel, and one of the most disturbing cinema experiences of my life - and I've seen both Irreversible, and Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom. Really, it's a shame the movie is so terribly acted, because as a horror it's terrifyingly effective. But, I can't really recommend it to anyone, because it's just that bone-chilling, and merely thinking about it scares me - me!
Little Sweetheart (1989)
This is not actually a horror movie but more of a crime drama, but it features a character that is very much a "bad seed", not unlike in the movie of that title. She's nine years old, and played by a very charismatic, though unknown (like this whole movie, apparently), Cassie Barasch. She gets up to all sorts of misdeeds with her reluctant friend and cohort, including spying on a couple that just moved in nearby who are on the run after committing insurance fraud. Little Thelma (that's the girl's character's name) ends up blackmailing them for shopping money, and things just go downhill from there. It's a really fun movie, and the leading character's natural penchant for criminal mischievousness is fascinating to watch. It's a seemingly unheard of movie, but I recommend it highly.
Texas Killing Fields (2011)
Texas Killing Fields is a heavily atmospheric little number with an excellent swampy soundtrack. It's a bit of a crime suspense thriller, and the story was a little hard to follow, but I honestly didn't even mind, because the characters' motivations were pretty easy to suss out - and, I'll be honest, I really go for a movie that can construct a good atmosphere. Plus, Chloe Moretz stars in a supporting role, and she always lights up the screen, even when she's playing (as she frequently does) a downtrodden child with a lot of things to be depressed about, but nevertheless with a good head on her shoulders, and the ability to somehow maintain a fragment of her innocence through it all. I don't think this movie got much acclaim when it came out (I wasn't able to get around to seeing it, though I wanted to), but I liked it.
Drag Me To Hell (2011)
When Drag Me To Hell came out in 2011, I filed it in the back of my mind as a potential title to watch, because I love to see the theme of hell in movies (not even just horror movies). I think hell is a fascinating concept, and I love to see different people's interpretations of it. And I thought the premise of this movie was going to be some person who gets dragged down to hell. Which, essentially is what it is, except that the movie is all about this girl being cursed and trying to fight her fate, and not what happens to her after she (huge spoiler) fails to lift the curse and gets dragged down to hell, literally in the last moments of the film (although we see nothing lower than ground level). So, huge disappointment in that respect. As for what the movie actually is, I should have known that coming from Sam Raimi - the man responsible for the slapstick hijinks of the Evil Dead trilogy - I wouldn't like the style. It gets pretty ridiculous at some parts, to the point that I consider it a waste of time. Alison Lohman is beautiful in the lead role, but it's not even worth it to watch just for her performance.
Zombieland (2009)
I had no expectations of loving Zombieland, given that it's more of a horror comedy, and is frequently mentioned in the same breath as Shaun of the Dead, another zombie title hailed as a modern masterpiece by people who don't typically watch horror (hence their ability to appreciate horror comedy). But I was willing to give Shaun of the Dead a watch, and people kept coming to me praising Zombieland, asking if I'd seen it, and it stars both a really hot-looking Emma Stone as well as Abigail Breslin (who was in the fantastic Little Miss Sunshine), so I gave it a watch. It's actually pretty good. The style of the movie is way too light-hearted for me - someone who prefers dark, serious movies - but I can see why a lot of people like it.
Rosemary's Baby (1968)
Rosemary's Baby is a masterpiece of suspense horror directed by Roman Polanski. It gets talked about a lot (for good reason), and I recall seeing at least some scenes from it on TV in the past, but I don't think I'd ever actually sat down and watched the whole thing before, so I made a point to do that this Halloween. It's a fantastic movie, with a fantastic premise - a devil worshipping cult tricks (very cleverly) a young woman into bearing the son of Lucifer. Mia Farrow is sensational in the lead role, as a vulnerable and attractive young mother-to-be. And mad props for actually including the scene where she's raped by the devil - and, better yet, actually including some nudity! Awesome. This is a well-deserved classic horror film and I highly recommend it.
The Omen (1976)
Continuing in the 'devil child' vein, I decided to follow Rosemary's Baby up with The Omen. I remember when the remake came out in 2006 (on the date 6/6/6), though I didn't watch it. But ever since then I've been aware of the original movie from 1976 as a horror classic, and this year I decided to watch it. It's actually very good. There's some mystery and some suspense, and a good bit of horror in the classic, chilling (rather than shocking) vein. And the one scene with the priest and the infernal storm is just awesome. And the dogs manage to actually be intimidating. And the graveyard scene is unforgettable. Great movie, in spite of its age.
The Bad Seed (1956)
This is a movie based off of a stage play about the sweetest little girl you've ever met, who turns out to be a cold-blooded killer. As it is based off a stage play, there is a heavy emphasis on character, and character interaction - which I find to be pretty fascinating (one of my favorite films of all time - Bug - was also adapted from a stage play). Patty McCormack plays the part of the bad seed magnificently, perfectly mixing her innocent charm with a hauntingly believable childlike malice. For a film that's over fifty years old, I rate it very highly and recommend it enthusiastically.
Wilderness Survival For Girls (2004)
This was a fascinating twist of the usual premise in slasher films where a group of young adults head up to a cabin in the woods and get bumped off by some psychotic killer. This time around, it's not so straightforward. Three girls head up to their cabin in the woods, and a suspicious stranger shows up, who claims to have been squatting in their cabin. But the girls have the upper hand, and tie him up in a chair at gunpoint. They wonder if he's the same guy that killed two girls several years ago and was never caught, but they have no hard evidence. The power shifts balance a few times, and the movie addresses the question of what sort of treatment of the stranger is justified by these girls. One the one hand, they're girls, and he's a full grown man. On the other, it's three against one. He might be dangerous, but then, they have no proof. It's an excellent dilemma, with some feminist undertones.
The Gate (1987)
Pretty terrifying for a children's movie. In fact, I'm pretty sure I saw this as a child, but all I remember from it is a scene with the eye in the palm, and the feeling that it was a very, very scary movie. As an adult, okay, it's not that terrifying, but it's still a really good movie. I miss the days when they made movies for kids that were actually good and not cheap schlock to placate the whiny runts. And the fx - I assume it's claymation - are really pretty good. I mean, like, you can tell they're not real, but they're infinitely more effective than shoddy CGI. And the creature design - especially the big daddy (which recalled for me the excellent monster design in Howard The Duck) - was fantastic, not ridiculous like a lot of today's monsters. And my favorite part of all (aside from the cute teenage sister) was the fact that the movie didn't shy away from being epic. This is sort of a spoiler, but most movies would build up to the end of the world and stop short. This movie doesn't pull any punches. Bravo.
The Mothman Prophecies (2002)
The Mothman Prophecies is a movie that constructs a really creepy atmosphere. It's more of a mystery thriller than a straight-up horror, but I thought it was scary in its own way. Unfortunately, the cryptid angle leaves a little to be desired, but what you get in place of that is a very fascinating premise about prognostication and determinism, with some very haunting scenes. It's also a very sad, sad story. But I definitely get a feel from it that it could totally have been an extended episode of The X-Files - it's just missing Mulder and Scully...
Candyman (1992)
Candyman is a movie that I've been meaning to watch ever since I read Clive Barker's Books of Blood. Clive Barker is a horror writer who is the mastermind behind Hellraiser, and the story that the movie Candyman is based on was in the Books of Blood I read. The movie, I'm sure, expands and modifies the story to a full feature-length format, but I think Clive Barker was involved in its production, and anyway, the result is pretty good. In the story, Candyman is something of an urban legend - he's a real, supernatural villain, but he derives power from the beliefs of those he frightens. And the movie is the story of one woman's journey to discover the truth behind the myth, and the subsequent horrors she is then confronted with. It's pretty good.
Red State (2011)
After the debacle that was Drag Me To Hell, I could be forgiven for skipping over Red State, being that I'm not generally a fan of Kevin Smith's other forays into cinema, however popular they are. But, I had heard that this - horror - movie was actually pretty good, so I wanted to give it a watch. It was worth it. It is ostensibly the story of a fundamentalist religious group (obviously inspired by the Westboro Baptist Church, which was in the news for picketing the funeral of a gay man beaten to death), and the ungodly horrors they get up to in their private church, which involve online entrapment schemes and very criminal 'neutralization' of perverts. Anyway, this is kind of a spoiler, but the movie takes a left turn midway through and introduces the government by turning the situation into something very much like the Waco Massacre. The result is actually very fascinating in my opinion (although others seem frustrated by the lack of thematic focus). In the end, I think the movie provides a good opportunity to criticize the errors of both religion and government, with only the perverts really making out well in the end (at least image-wise). But, that could be my bias, since I am a pervert (and proud). Anyway, it was a really fascinating movie, and I do recommend it. And, as most people who have seen it agree, Michael Parks does a hauntingly captivating job in the role of the crazy, bigoted preacher man.
Alone With Her (2006)
Alone With Her is pretty much your typical crazy stalker story, although it cleverly uses the 'found footage' angle to its advantage so that we get to see the story unfold entirely from the point of view of the stalker's cameras. Which, gives it a kind of creepy feeling because it's almost like you're participating in the stalker's crimes. People will naturally criticize the voyeuristic element, but especially from the perspective of cinema, which is an inherently voyeuristic medium (and that's why we love it!), it's only natural to be curious. It's when the stalker uses voyeurism as a method to criminally invade another person's privacy, and then take advantage of that inside perspective to exercise unknowing control over that person's life, in a futile attempt to construct a scripted scenario that's doomed from the start, that it becomes creepy. Anyway, it's certainly a unique perspective, even if on a somewhat cliched narrative.
Megan Is Missing (2011)
Megan Is Missing purportedly claims to be an open warning about what can happen to teens who meet strangers on the internet, loosely based on any number of real life abduction cases (but no one in particular). But rather than a preventive education piece, it's climax is so horrifying as to make it a startlingly effective horror film instead. That's not to say that it's actually a good film, by cinematic standards - for one thing, the acting is terribly shoddy, as the majority of the characters try way too hard (or not hard enough) to behave like caricatures of either way-too-slutty or self-pitying teens. But the film takes the found footage technique to its logical conclusion by documenting via webcam and mobile phone what it is teens get up to when parents aren't around, and then marrying that with footage taken by the killer after one or more of those teens is abducted. Where this film succeeds is in going farther and being bolder than any movie before it (that I know of), in an attempt to document the true horror of what goes on in those most terrible of cases - the very thing most people instinctively desire to turn away from. The last 22 minutes of this movie is, in fact, so effective, that I describe it as pure nightmare fuel, and one of the most disturbing cinema experiences of my life - and I've seen both Irreversible, and Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom. Really, it's a shame the movie is so terribly acted, because as a horror it's terrifyingly effective. But, I can't really recommend it to anyone, because it's just that bone-chilling, and merely thinking about it scares me - me!
Little Sweetheart (1989)
This is not actually a horror movie but more of a crime drama, but it features a character that is very much a "bad seed", not unlike in the movie of that title. She's nine years old, and played by a very charismatic, though unknown (like this whole movie, apparently), Cassie Barasch. She gets up to all sorts of misdeeds with her reluctant friend and cohort, including spying on a couple that just moved in nearby who are on the run after committing insurance fraud. Little Thelma (that's the girl's character's name) ends up blackmailing them for shopping money, and things just go downhill from there. It's a really fun movie, and the leading character's natural penchant for criminal mischievousness is fascinating to watch. It's a seemingly unheard of movie, but I recommend it highly.
Texas Killing Fields (2011)
Texas Killing Fields is a heavily atmospheric little number with an excellent swampy soundtrack. It's a bit of a crime suspense thriller, and the story was a little hard to follow, but I honestly didn't even mind, because the characters' motivations were pretty easy to suss out - and, I'll be honest, I really go for a movie that can construct a good atmosphere. Plus, Chloe Moretz stars in a supporting role, and she always lights up the screen, even when she's playing (as she frequently does) a downtrodden child with a lot of things to be depressed about, but nevertheless with a good head on her shoulders, and the ability to somehow maintain a fragment of her innocence through it all. I don't think this movie got much acclaim when it came out (I wasn't able to get around to seeing it, though I wanted to), but I liked it.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
7 Days (2010)
French Title: Les 7 jours du talion
So, I had a chance to watch this movie, but it was lacking any subtitles, and the language is in French. Normally, I would have waited for an opportunity to get subtitles, but I had already settled in to watch the film, and I said "to hell with it". As it turns out, the film was pretty easy to follow anyway. I may have missed the subtler points of the plot, but the basic outline, and the emotions (and motivations) of the characters were all pretty straightforward, particularly considering the basic premise - father of a murdered child abducts the murderer and subjects him to 7 days of brutal revenge torture.
It's a very tense and disturbing film. I don't know what part of it had to do with the fact that I wasn't paying much attention to the dialogue (since I couldn't understand most of it), but I spent a lot of the movie thinking about what I was seeing, the implications of the plot that was being handed to me, and ended up typing up some thoughts during viewing, which I'll share with you here in lieu of a standard review. These thoughts largely deal with the ramifications a movie such as this one has in the larger cultural environment, an issue that leaves me feeling a little cold with movies like this in general, and this one in particular. The film claims not to judge its characters' actions, and this seems to be true, but this is unsettling, because with this kind of behavior, you're left thinking that something ought to be said about it...
Let's begin.
Scene: Residential home. Two parents are speaking with the police. Their young daughter has just gone unexpectedly missing.
This is a terrifying situation. A happy family instantly plunged into anxiety and - if their greatest fears are realized - despair. Worst of all, the missing person is a young girl, a beautiful treasure, a child with her whole life ahead of her. To think of that life taken away, and what's more, to think of what that innocent child may be made to suffer before that, is enough to drive one to madness.
This is a terrifying situation. A nightmare. As an observer, the most reasonable reaction is fear. A strong feeling of repulsion. We must not let this happen. We must do everything in our power to prevent this possibility in our own lives - to our own children. We must protect them - even to the point of stifling them - because, think of the alternative!
This is a reasonable reaction. However, this type of occurrence is fortunately extremely rare. Yes, it is terrible, and exposing ourselves to it can help us learn to take certain precautions to reduce its probability, and better prepare ourselves to deal with it should the worst happen. But dwelling on it, and feeding the fear without restraint, is also dangerous. It is not healthy to live in fear constantly, nor is it healthy to stifle a child's natural growth - and their expanding measure of independence - for fear of what could happen.
When the worst does happen, we think, "what could I have done to prevent it? I should have been more careful." But there's no way to be 100% safe - there is always a risk. When the terrible happens, it is incredibly unfortunate, but it is a sad fact of life that life is not fair. Restricting our freedoms little by little is not a solution. We must learn to take the necessary precautions, yet also learn to know when so-called protections are doing more harm than good.
Scenario: The worst case. Young girl, 8, is abducted. She is raped. And she is killed.
This is a truly heinous crime. This girl was pretty. She was full of life. It sickens me that somebody could do this sort of thing. To anyone, let alone to a child. But what also sickens me is how anyone could think that this sort of thing had anything at all to do with love (the father's revenge seems to suggest this possibility, of love inspiring brutality, and that contributes to my condemnation of his actions - if true, he is as sick as the killer). Or even that it was primarily motivated by sex. Sex does not presuppose violence. The sex drive does not activate a willingness to rape, much less kill. Only a truly twisted individual could commit a crime like this, or an individual affected by extreme circumstances. Granted, a person who seeks out children will have no outlet, and may be driven to desperate actions, but even then, a very small minority will resort to such a perversion of love as this. And those types were bound to be dangerous from the start.
On the other hand, someone for whom children brightens his life, would want to preserve the life of a child, not destroy it. Contribute to her happiness, not her pain. To call this guy a "pedophile rapist" is to miss the boat. This guy is a serial killer, pure and simple. He makes pedophiles look bad, he even makes rapists look bad - most rapists don't kill their victims. You could describe him as a rapist because he rapes his victims, and you could describe him as a pedophile to indicate that the victims he rapes and then kills are children (assuming he picks children to be his victims due to their sexual desirability - otherwise he wouldn't be a "pedophile rapist" but simply a "child rapist"), but it's not the fact that he's a pedophile that sets him apart from the rest of civilized society. It's the fact that he kidnaps, tortures, rapes, and kills children, that makes him a truly loathsome character.
Consider: Vigilantism.
When you take the law into your own hands, you are no longer acting in accordance with the law. You become one with the criminal. We have fair trials because guilt is difficult to ascertain, and because we understand that human emotion does not wait for reason - but that it can be wrong. This is why we do not shoot first, and ask questions later.
I can understand the anger. But I cannot understand the desire to continue the cycle of hatred. To continue the cycle of violence, of sadism, of torture. There is punishment, and then there is wallowing in the very evil that has destroyed you. This is not rising above, this is becoming what you hate and what you fear. This is not vanquishing evil, this is propagating it. For one who has been so hurt by evil, how could you allow it to continue - spurred on by your own hands!
It is one thing to wish, to sentence, to condemn, but another to become the very agent of destruction. There are healthier ways to vent anger.
This is a very sadistic film. Well made, and it successfully transmits the sense of pain, but I cannot recommend it to anyone, it is just too sadistic. Except, perhaps, those who may find themselves in such a situation where they are considering such vigilante action, or feel the need to vent related frustrations. Hopefully, this film will turn you off of any idea of putting such plans into action. And if it doesn't, then I really fear for your well-being (and that of those you may turn your hatred toward). I understand the pain, but there is no justification for sadism of this level. If we allow this sort of thing to occur, no matter how "warranted" we might think it is, then we are no better than the original criminals, and thus we have given up our claim to righteous authority. It is a no-win path to follow. No win for any of us, including those of us who have not yet been victimized. If not for yourself, then for the decency of better humanity. The moment you become one of them, you tip the balance ever so slightly in their favor.
Consider: Violence for entertainment.
This film is torture porn. The popular comparison is the Hostel films. But the Hostel films didn't disturb me as much as this film does. Why? What was Hostel's goal: to disturb, or to entertain? In the case of violence as entertainment - particularly on the gore/horror extreme end of the spectrum (in contrast to PG-rated action movie violence) - the distinction may be vague. In the gorror realm, being disturbed is entertainment. But something about the violence in this movie feels fundamentally more unsettling. It feels more real. It feels more...violent. The violence is deplorable, it is disgusting, there isn't even a fantasy side of me that thinks it is in some way deserving, or in any way pleasing.
In a different story, a major character is tortured to within inches of his life, with the sadistic torturer gaining pleasure from his ability to keep the victim alive, in order to allow maximum savoring of the pain. Then, it was entertainment, a brilliant plot point. Delightfully devilish. Here, it is repulsive.
There, it was a plot point. Here, you are a participant in the torture. The torture is not a device to amplify the cruelty of the villain, it is not a test of endurance for the hero, here it instead amplifies the cruelty of the man you are supposed to be identifying with, and supporting. The man you are supposed to be able to feel sympathy for. And this is truly unsettling.
What is the responsibility for violence in films? There is an argument that desensitization to fantasy violence is a bad thing. Real life violence is horrendous compared to movie violence. Do we have a social responsibility to depict violence as it really is, so that people are truly disgusted by it, and do not glorify it instead? I think there is a place for sensational fantasy violence. I like violence that is more stylistic than realistic. It has an aesthetic quality, and I suppose it's further removed from real violence which is in no way appealing. But what is the purpose of depicting realistic violence in movies? What is the purpose of being disgusted as entertainment? If there is an argument to be made for people being turned off of violence via realistic violence in movies, perhaps this movie is a prime candidate.
I would be at least a little concerned about anyone who enjoyed the violence in this movie. (While still allowing for the fact that it is a fantasy, and not real.)
I don't know what you could possibly do to soothe the grief, other than wait, and be patient. But I know that torturing another human being sadistically, whether they've got it coming or not, is not the answer.
Closing comments:
So, yeah, the guy couldn't stop the girl's injuries from bleeding (in his mind), no matter how many times he tried to wash them. Though, considering his treatment of the other guy, he's not the best guy to go to to stop any kind of pain. You think? And that deer just keeps coming back. Yeah. Revenge doesn't get you anywhere. You're just wallowing in the despair and contributing to the madness. It doesn't help.
And the people who defend the torture in this film. Those are the people that really sicken me. It's amazing, but there are people who defend this man's actions to the letter. I only hope to god their bark is worse than their bite. Or else this is an even darker world than I thought. The irony of it all doesn't make it any easier to swallow.
I just can't rate this. It's a powerful film, but I'm not sure what its intent was, and I can't really recommend it to anyone.
Oh, what the hell.
Rating: For sadists (and emotional masochists) only.
So, I had a chance to watch this movie, but it was lacking any subtitles, and the language is in French. Normally, I would have waited for an opportunity to get subtitles, but I had already settled in to watch the film, and I said "to hell with it". As it turns out, the film was pretty easy to follow anyway. I may have missed the subtler points of the plot, but the basic outline, and the emotions (and motivations) of the characters were all pretty straightforward, particularly considering the basic premise - father of a murdered child abducts the murderer and subjects him to 7 days of brutal revenge torture.
It's a very tense and disturbing film. I don't know what part of it had to do with the fact that I wasn't paying much attention to the dialogue (since I couldn't understand most of it), but I spent a lot of the movie thinking about what I was seeing, the implications of the plot that was being handed to me, and ended up typing up some thoughts during viewing, which I'll share with you here in lieu of a standard review. These thoughts largely deal with the ramifications a movie such as this one has in the larger cultural environment, an issue that leaves me feeling a little cold with movies like this in general, and this one in particular. The film claims not to judge its characters' actions, and this seems to be true, but this is unsettling, because with this kind of behavior, you're left thinking that something ought to be said about it...
Let's begin.
Scene: Residential home. Two parents are speaking with the police. Their young daughter has just gone unexpectedly missing.
This is a terrifying situation. A happy family instantly plunged into anxiety and - if their greatest fears are realized - despair. Worst of all, the missing person is a young girl, a beautiful treasure, a child with her whole life ahead of her. To think of that life taken away, and what's more, to think of what that innocent child may be made to suffer before that, is enough to drive one to madness.
This is a terrifying situation. A nightmare. As an observer, the most reasonable reaction is fear. A strong feeling of repulsion. We must not let this happen. We must do everything in our power to prevent this possibility in our own lives - to our own children. We must protect them - even to the point of stifling them - because, think of the alternative!
This is a reasonable reaction. However, this type of occurrence is fortunately extremely rare. Yes, it is terrible, and exposing ourselves to it can help us learn to take certain precautions to reduce its probability, and better prepare ourselves to deal with it should the worst happen. But dwelling on it, and feeding the fear without restraint, is also dangerous. It is not healthy to live in fear constantly, nor is it healthy to stifle a child's natural growth - and their expanding measure of independence - for fear of what could happen.
When the worst does happen, we think, "what could I have done to prevent it? I should have been more careful." But there's no way to be 100% safe - there is always a risk. When the terrible happens, it is incredibly unfortunate, but it is a sad fact of life that life is not fair. Restricting our freedoms little by little is not a solution. We must learn to take the necessary precautions, yet also learn to know when so-called protections are doing more harm than good.
Scenario: The worst case. Young girl, 8, is abducted. She is raped. And she is killed.
This is a truly heinous crime. This girl was pretty. She was full of life. It sickens me that somebody could do this sort of thing. To anyone, let alone to a child. But what also sickens me is how anyone could think that this sort of thing had anything at all to do with love (the father's revenge seems to suggest this possibility, of love inspiring brutality, and that contributes to my condemnation of his actions - if true, he is as sick as the killer). Or even that it was primarily motivated by sex. Sex does not presuppose violence. The sex drive does not activate a willingness to rape, much less kill. Only a truly twisted individual could commit a crime like this, or an individual affected by extreme circumstances. Granted, a person who seeks out children will have no outlet, and may be driven to desperate actions, but even then, a very small minority will resort to such a perversion of love as this. And those types were bound to be dangerous from the start.
On the other hand, someone for whom children brightens his life, would want to preserve the life of a child, not destroy it. Contribute to her happiness, not her pain. To call this guy a "pedophile rapist" is to miss the boat. This guy is a serial killer, pure and simple. He makes pedophiles look bad, he even makes rapists look bad - most rapists don't kill their victims. You could describe him as a rapist because he rapes his victims, and you could describe him as a pedophile to indicate that the victims he rapes and then kills are children (assuming he picks children to be his victims due to their sexual desirability - otherwise he wouldn't be a "pedophile rapist" but simply a "child rapist"), but it's not the fact that he's a pedophile that sets him apart from the rest of civilized society. It's the fact that he kidnaps, tortures, rapes, and kills children, that makes him a truly loathsome character.
Consider: Vigilantism.
When you take the law into your own hands, you are no longer acting in accordance with the law. You become one with the criminal. We have fair trials because guilt is difficult to ascertain, and because we understand that human emotion does not wait for reason - but that it can be wrong. This is why we do not shoot first, and ask questions later.
I can understand the anger. But I cannot understand the desire to continue the cycle of hatred. To continue the cycle of violence, of sadism, of torture. There is punishment, and then there is wallowing in the very evil that has destroyed you. This is not rising above, this is becoming what you hate and what you fear. This is not vanquishing evil, this is propagating it. For one who has been so hurt by evil, how could you allow it to continue - spurred on by your own hands!
It is one thing to wish, to sentence, to condemn, but another to become the very agent of destruction. There are healthier ways to vent anger.
This is a very sadistic film. Well made, and it successfully transmits the sense of pain, but I cannot recommend it to anyone, it is just too sadistic. Except, perhaps, those who may find themselves in such a situation where they are considering such vigilante action, or feel the need to vent related frustrations. Hopefully, this film will turn you off of any idea of putting such plans into action. And if it doesn't, then I really fear for your well-being (and that of those you may turn your hatred toward). I understand the pain, but there is no justification for sadism of this level. If we allow this sort of thing to occur, no matter how "warranted" we might think it is, then we are no better than the original criminals, and thus we have given up our claim to righteous authority. It is a no-win path to follow. No win for any of us, including those of us who have not yet been victimized. If not for yourself, then for the decency of better humanity. The moment you become one of them, you tip the balance ever so slightly in their favor.
Consider: Violence for entertainment.
This film is torture porn. The popular comparison is the Hostel films. But the Hostel films didn't disturb me as much as this film does. Why? What was Hostel's goal: to disturb, or to entertain? In the case of violence as entertainment - particularly on the gore/horror extreme end of the spectrum (in contrast to PG-rated action movie violence) - the distinction may be vague. In the gorror realm, being disturbed is entertainment. But something about the violence in this movie feels fundamentally more unsettling. It feels more real. It feels more...violent. The violence is deplorable, it is disgusting, there isn't even a fantasy side of me that thinks it is in some way deserving, or in any way pleasing.
In a different story, a major character is tortured to within inches of his life, with the sadistic torturer gaining pleasure from his ability to keep the victim alive, in order to allow maximum savoring of the pain. Then, it was entertainment, a brilliant plot point. Delightfully devilish. Here, it is repulsive.
There, it was a plot point. Here, you are a participant in the torture. The torture is not a device to amplify the cruelty of the villain, it is not a test of endurance for the hero, here it instead amplifies the cruelty of the man you are supposed to be identifying with, and supporting. The man you are supposed to be able to feel sympathy for. And this is truly unsettling.
What is the responsibility for violence in films? There is an argument that desensitization to fantasy violence is a bad thing. Real life violence is horrendous compared to movie violence. Do we have a social responsibility to depict violence as it really is, so that people are truly disgusted by it, and do not glorify it instead? I think there is a place for sensational fantasy violence. I like violence that is more stylistic than realistic. It has an aesthetic quality, and I suppose it's further removed from real violence which is in no way appealing. But what is the purpose of depicting realistic violence in movies? What is the purpose of being disgusted as entertainment? If there is an argument to be made for people being turned off of violence via realistic violence in movies, perhaps this movie is a prime candidate.
I would be at least a little concerned about anyone who enjoyed the violence in this movie. (While still allowing for the fact that it is a fantasy, and not real.)
I don't know what you could possibly do to soothe the grief, other than wait, and be patient. But I know that torturing another human being sadistically, whether they've got it coming or not, is not the answer.
Closing comments:
So, yeah, the guy couldn't stop the girl's injuries from bleeding (in his mind), no matter how many times he tried to wash them. Though, considering his treatment of the other guy, he's not the best guy to go to to stop any kind of pain. You think? And that deer just keeps coming back. Yeah. Revenge doesn't get you anywhere. You're just wallowing in the despair and contributing to the madness. It doesn't help.
And the people who defend the torture in this film. Those are the people that really sicken me. It's amazing, but there are people who defend this man's actions to the letter. I only hope to god their bark is worse than their bite. Or else this is an even darker world than I thought. The irony of it all doesn't make it any easier to swallow.
I just can't rate this. It's a powerful film, but I'm not sure what its intent was, and I can't really recommend it to anyone.
Oh, what the hell.
Rating: For sadists (and emotional masochists) only.
Monday, November 19, 2007
Borderland (2007)
Note: This review is part of my coverage of Horrorfest II.
Borderland
I guess you could call this a somewhat more sophisticated version of the "torture porn" story of international tourists becoming victims of a sadistic cult. And it's actually supposed to be based on true events. In the story, three young men cross the Mexican border for a vacation, and one of them is abducted by a terror cult to be used as a sacrifice for their rituals. With the help of an ex-cop who had a previous run-in with the cult and survived, the abductee's friends make a point to retaliate, and against all odds, actually manage to bring the cult to its knees, though not without sincere casualties and awakening the beast within.
Despite the torture-y subject matter, I'd be more tempted to pair this movie with a title like Midnight Express than Hostel, because it seems to focus more on the idea of being up against sinister forces in an unfamiliar land, and the measures that are necessary to survive them, than about the actual torture and sadism. If anything, though, it's probably a cross between the two.
By all accounts that I can mark, it's a well-made film, that seems able to affect its audience. It's also a very human story, about some inhuman deeds that went down, and for real. The Mexican setting is enriching, and the characters are interesting. The violence serves its purpose, and the cult symbolism is intriguing, particularly the "re-heading" treatment, and of course the main ritual. I'll say that this was a very good film.
Borderland
I guess you could call this a somewhat more sophisticated version of the "torture porn" story of international tourists becoming victims of a sadistic cult. And it's actually supposed to be based on true events. In the story, three young men cross the Mexican border for a vacation, and one of them is abducted by a terror cult to be used as a sacrifice for their rituals. With the help of an ex-cop who had a previous run-in with the cult and survived, the abductee's friends make a point to retaliate, and against all odds, actually manage to bring the cult to its knees, though not without sincere casualties and awakening the beast within.
Despite the torture-y subject matter, I'd be more tempted to pair this movie with a title like Midnight Express than Hostel, because it seems to focus more on the idea of being up against sinister forces in an unfamiliar land, and the measures that are necessary to survive them, than about the actual torture and sadism. If anything, though, it's probably a cross between the two.
By all accounts that I can mark, it's a well-made film, that seems able to affect its audience. It's also a very human story, about some inhuman deeds that went down, and for real. The Mexican setting is enriching, and the characters are interesting. The violence serves its purpose, and the cult symbolism is intriguing, particularly the "re-heading" treatment, and of course the main ritual. I'll say that this was a very good film.
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
Shinya Tsukamoto's Haze (2005)
Note: The following was originally posted on Myspace. I am reposting it here for archival purposes. It has been backdated to the date of its original posting.
Spoiler Warning! This is a discussion of how to interpret this film, and not a review. As such, it contains massive spoilers. For a brief description of the movie, I recommend this review written by Leo Goldsmith at Not Coming to a Theater Near You.
Since Haze is the kind of film that makes absolutely no sense at all, and since I had a revelation that's got me thinking I actually understand what in blazes the film was about, I'm gonna explain it.
This film is about a couple - a young man and woman. They are dissatisfied with their lives and the world they live in and they want to 'escape', i.e. kill themselves. So they decide upon a ritualistic double-suicide. Using a rather large kitchen knife, they begin the process with a stab in the stomach. But at this moment, they are both transported (assumingly only psychologically) into a dungeon of hell. Their memories are erased and they have no idea where they are, how they got there, or even who they are.
This is where the film begins. They start out separated from each other, but after crawling through the hellish dungeon they eventually find each other and have brief glimpses of the past as their memories begin to return. They obviously want to escape the dungeon, but they also have a feeling that wherever they came from, they didn't want to be there either (since they were trying to kill themselves). The woman remembers that she was imprisoned before she was able to escape (i.e., she found herself in this mental dungeon before she could finish the act of killing herself). The two of them decide to try to escape the dungeon, and finally they do.
At this point, they find themselves back where they were just before they were 'thrown' into the hellish dungeon of their minds - that is, they are both lying on the floor bleeding. But now, after having crawled through that horrible dungeon, they have been instilled with a newfound will to live (like that one victim in Saw), so instead of finishing the suicide, the man grabs the phone and calls for help.
They both survive and grow old, as the next to final scene shows the man aged and a picture of the woman aged. The man walks out onto the roof and is mesmerized by the bright sunlight shining off of the white sheets on the clothesline, rippling in the wind - this is an example of how the man had been given an appreciation for the small wonders in life after his mental ordeal of crawling through hell.
The final scene is the fireworks scene. This is when the man and woman were younger, and it happened before the attempted suicide. I believe the significance of this scene is just that despite the couple's dissatisfaction with life and desire to kill themselves, they enjoyed sitting together watching the fireworks, and it is the realization of this fact that helps the man and perhaps too the woman gain a newfound appreciation for life during their dungeon travail.
Why fireworks? Well, I figure the best reason is because when the man mentions fireworks while he's in the dungeon, it makes you think of bombs and war, which just encourages the wrong understanding of the plot and keeps you guessing about what's really going on (since neither you nor the characters themselves have any idea how they got into the dungeon until things clear up [though not really] at the end).
And so there it is. It makes a lot of sense to me, and as far as I can remember, all the pieces fit into place pretty well with this explanation in mind. Let me know if you have any questions or notice any discrepancies, or if you have an altogether different interpretation of the film - I'd love to hear it!
P.S. Oh yeah, and as for the shimmering koi pond images, I assume that's just an example of how the man is slowly becoming aware of the simple brilliance of life. He's remembering watching a koi pond and reflecting on how beautiful it is, as a kind of contrast to the dark torment he is experiencing.
P.P.S. Frankly, I think this particular interpretation transforms this film from 'disturbing' to 'enchanting'. Should a film require this much afterthought in order to fully appreciate? I'm not sure...
Spoiler Warning! This is a discussion of how to interpret this film, and not a review. As such, it contains massive spoilers. For a brief description of the movie, I recommend this review written by Leo Goldsmith at Not Coming to a Theater Near You.
Since Haze is the kind of film that makes absolutely no sense at all, and since I had a revelation that's got me thinking I actually understand what in blazes the film was about, I'm gonna explain it.
This film is about a couple - a young man and woman. They are dissatisfied with their lives and the world they live in and they want to 'escape', i.e. kill themselves. So they decide upon a ritualistic double-suicide. Using a rather large kitchen knife, they begin the process with a stab in the stomach. But at this moment, they are both transported (assumingly only psychologically) into a dungeon of hell. Their memories are erased and they have no idea where they are, how they got there, or even who they are.
This is where the film begins. They start out separated from each other, but after crawling through the hellish dungeon they eventually find each other and have brief glimpses of the past as their memories begin to return. They obviously want to escape the dungeon, but they also have a feeling that wherever they came from, they didn't want to be there either (since they were trying to kill themselves). The woman remembers that she was imprisoned before she was able to escape (i.e., she found herself in this mental dungeon before she could finish the act of killing herself). The two of them decide to try to escape the dungeon, and finally they do.
At this point, they find themselves back where they were just before they were 'thrown' into the hellish dungeon of their minds - that is, they are both lying on the floor bleeding. But now, after having crawled through that horrible dungeon, they have been instilled with a newfound will to live (like that one victim in Saw), so instead of finishing the suicide, the man grabs the phone and calls for help.
They both survive and grow old, as the next to final scene shows the man aged and a picture of the woman aged. The man walks out onto the roof and is mesmerized by the bright sunlight shining off of the white sheets on the clothesline, rippling in the wind - this is an example of how the man had been given an appreciation for the small wonders in life after his mental ordeal of crawling through hell.
The final scene is the fireworks scene. This is when the man and woman were younger, and it happened before the attempted suicide. I believe the significance of this scene is just that despite the couple's dissatisfaction with life and desire to kill themselves, they enjoyed sitting together watching the fireworks, and it is the realization of this fact that helps the man and perhaps too the woman gain a newfound appreciation for life during their dungeon travail.
Why fireworks? Well, I figure the best reason is because when the man mentions fireworks while he's in the dungeon, it makes you think of bombs and war, which just encourages the wrong understanding of the plot and keeps you guessing about what's really going on (since neither you nor the characters themselves have any idea how they got into the dungeon until things clear up [though not really] at the end).
And so there it is. It makes a lot of sense to me, and as far as I can remember, all the pieces fit into place pretty well with this explanation in mind. Let me know if you have any questions or notice any discrepancies, or if you have an altogether different interpretation of the film - I'd love to hear it!
P.S. Oh yeah, and as for the shimmering koi pond images, I assume that's just an example of how the man is slowly becoming aware of the simple brilliance of life. He's remembering watching a koi pond and reflecting on how beautiful it is, as a kind of contrast to the dark torment he is experiencing.
P.P.S. Frankly, I think this particular interpretation transforms this film from 'disturbing' to 'enchanting'. Should a film require this much afterthought in order to fully appreciate? I'm not sure...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)