Shadowrun Pub

General => Reviews => Topic started by: Jester on May 03, 2006, 05:07:21 AM

Title: Hostel
Post by: Jester on May 03, 2006, 05:07:21 AM
Yea, I tried watching this movie. I think I got through half of it. If you like nothing but gore and killin with very little plot, this movie is for you. As for me, I hated it  :P
Title: Re:Hostel
Post by: Gabriel on May 03, 2006, 05:37:53 AM
Did you have the appropriate snack while you were watching it so as to enhance the feel of the experience??? Nothing like eating a stick of beef jerky while watching someone get his fingers cut off ;)

Gabriel
Title: Re:Hostel
Post by: kv on May 03, 2006, 04:40:22 PM
I had friends who went both ways on this- one friend told me it was the goriest thing they had ever seen, and another told me it wasn't that bad- at least, not as bad as he had expected.

Me myself? I'm not really into horror movies. I don't scare easy, so it seems like a waste of $9.50.

In any case, I think horror movies are becoming more and more of a specific taste- just look at how people feel about movies like this or "Saw." Some think it's the worst acting they've ever seen, and more than a few people I know were so freaked out by it that they had nightmares.

  -kv
Title: Re:Hostel
Post by: Zone on May 04, 2006, 10:18:39 AM
That's not a horror movie it's a gore fest.  Horror implies something besides the gross out factor.  It's not anything I'd waste any segment of my life watching....
Title: Re:Hostel
Post by: AJStarhiker on May 04, 2006, 10:21:07 AM
I wonder when movie makers'll remember fear doesn't come from grossout gore facter, but the "What's around the corner/behind the door/in the attic?" factor?
Title: Re:Hostel
Post by: Zone on May 04, 2006, 10:32:14 AM
The scariest thing is not showing the audience what's in the attic/under the stairs. Their little brains will wrack them up better than Hollywood ever could.  The movie builds the tension, sets the scene, then the audience can scare the crap out of itself - that's the way to make good horror.
Title: Re:Hostel
Post by: Gabriel on May 04, 2006, 10:37:01 AM
That's why I liked Blaire Witch so much. That and I watched in a trailer in the woods at midnight with the lights out and all the doors opened.

Gabriel
Title: Re:Hostel
Post by: kv on May 04, 2006, 11:06:10 AM
Meh. If I wanted to see shaky camera work, I would watch home movies.

I'm also not a big fan of the girl swearing with the snot coming out of her nose.

I just think movies lack subtlety. I mean, I can sit down in a movie, and tell you in the first 10 minutes who's going to live, and who is going to die. The two actors that are the most physically compatable are going to end up together, because that's what they were hired for.

Oh, and if either of them has a boyfriend or girlfriend already, those people have to die too.

Well, I don't know that they are going to- more and more movies (not just hollywood anymore!) are becoming about flash than about substance or style.

Personally, I would rather watch an Alfred Hitchcock movie than one by Kevin Williamson or Quentin Tarantino.

I also think horror movies are a little played out- I mean, how many times are we going to have to listen to the 'creepy crawly' music as the heroine looks in the dark house for the bad guy?

How many times does the music slowly fade out before the 'thing jumps out and scares you?" or even better, "the cat or boyfriend is there so that's what you think it is, and THEN THE THING JUMPS OUT AND SCARES YOU!"

Actually, the first time I jumped at a movie in years was when I that car alarm went off in 28 Days Later.

  -kv
Title: Re:Hostel
Post by: AJStarhiker on May 04, 2006, 11:18:44 AM
You know, I think CG may have killed the Horror genre.  Before, they couldn't show everything because the technology wasn't there (I bet Jaws would've been very different if they'd been able to use a CG shark instead of Bruce, the animatronic monstrosity).  They had to get creative by giving hints of what might be there.
Title: Re:Hostel
Post by: Gabriel on May 04, 2006, 11:23:02 AM
That's a damn good point, AJ. I hadn't thought about that.

Gabriel
Title: Re:Hostel
Post by: AJStarhiker on May 04, 2006, 11:53:51 AM
*shrugs* I didn't really think of it until I started reading this thread, to be honest.  But seriously, as great as CG is, there's still something missing.  I remember watching the pre-SE version of Star Wars over and over, and when the SE came out, the CG parts didn't look as real as the old models did.
Title: Re:Hostel
Post by: kv on May 04, 2006, 12:16:47 PM
Yeah, that's true.

Although I would have to say that Jaws would probably be about the same, because the guy who made it (My hero, Steven Speilburg), is one hell of a filmmaker.

But of other horror movies, such as Jason, Nightmare on Elm street, and that sort of movie... yeah.

Oh, and just for the record, Jason X = teh suXX0rs.

  -kv
Title: Re:Hostel
Post by: Gabriel on May 04, 2006, 12:38:13 PM
Yeah, but Kid-Vid, you forget, that was Spielburg 30 years ago. You know he would have used CG and made an inferior movie in the long run. Imagine how horrible ET would have been with smooth life-like movment. ;)

Gabriel
Title: Re:Hostel
Post by: ROOTless on May 04, 2006, 01:01:13 PM
Andthis is why a lot of the Chinese mavies are so nice on the eyes. When they need an army of 100,000 soldiers... well, there are better ways than CG.
Title: Re:Hostel
Post by: kv on May 04, 2006, 03:19:53 PM
Naw, Speilburg still kicks ass. Saving Private Ryan? Munich?

He is my hero when it comes to movie-making. Gore Verbinski is a close second.

  -kv
Title: Re:Hostel
Post by: Curris on May 04, 2006, 08:25:53 PM
The sad thing is for me, is that I tend to view "horror/ripper" flicks as comedies. I watch them (when and if I watch them) to find interesting special effects, and the odd goofy stupid antics of the characters. It's sad, because that is everything that the genre is NOT about. . .

Alfred Hitchcock, that's a man I respect. That and the creators of the Twilight Zone (Not scary, but damn good acting, and storytelling. . . Draws you in.)
Title: Re:Hostel
Post by: ROOTless on May 05, 2006, 02:18:00 AM
The sad thing is for me, is that I tend to view "horror/ripper" flicks as comedies. I watch them (when and if I watch them) to find interesting special effects, and the odd goofy stupid antics of the characters. I

You and me and a ton of other people these day.
Title: Re:Hostel
Post by: Jester on May 05, 2006, 05:15:41 AM
stephen spielrberg...well he had good and bad movies. Let's not forget about AI and Jurassic Park 2
Title: Re:Hostel
Post by: Gabriel on May 05, 2006, 05:57:43 AM
You just didn't like JP2 because they put in the little black girl and took out the camelion dino's. But I still have to agree with you, Jester, everyone has crappy movies, even Speilburg. I mean, has anyone here actually seen War of the Worlds? That movie sucked dick on toast.

Gabriel
Title: Re:Hostel
Post by: AJStarhiker on May 05, 2006, 06:18:27 AM
Yeah, I saw it.  I liked the old fifties version better even though it wasn't as close to the book.
Title: Re:Hostel
Post by: ROOTless on May 05, 2006, 09:37:42 AM
everyone has crappy movies, even Speilburg. I mean, has anyone here actually seen War of the Worlds? That movie sucked dick on toast.

Ah Gabe, as always, your eloquence and masterfull vocabulary astonish me.
Title: Re:Hostel
Post by: Zone on May 05, 2006, 09:52:54 AM

Alfred Hitchcock, that's a man I respect. That and the creators of the Twilight Zone (Not scary, but damn good acting, and storytelling. . . Draws you in.)

THe creator of the Twilight Zone was Rod Serling.  There's a man who knew the freaky nature of things, probably was weaned on Chthulu milk.
Title: Re:Hostel
Post by: Gabriel on May 05, 2006, 01:21:43 PM
everyone has crappy movies, even Speilburg. I mean, has anyone here actually seen War of the Worlds? That movie sucked dick on toast.

Ah Gabe, as always, your eloquence and masterfull vocabulary astonish me.

Now ROOTless, you know that sometimes when making a point, you use a stilletto, and sometimes you use a nuke. I'm thinking that rated a bazooka.

Gabriel
Title: Re:Hostel
Post by: ROOTless on May 05, 2006, 01:57:29 PM
Well my profound apologies then, and might I perhaps ask what you felt I did wrong?
Title: Re:Hostel
Post by: Jester on May 05, 2006, 02:13:29 PM
lol, thast quote you used was mine
Title: Re:Hostel
Post by: kv on May 05, 2006, 02:47:50 PM
Well, when you fault Jurassic Park II, you have to fault Micheal Crichton (however you spell his name- I'm sick and don't feel like looking it up).

I mean, at the end of the first Jurassic Park book, Hammond and Malcom die. They talk about shipping thier corpses back to the US for burial.

In the second book, magically they're ALIVE AGAIN! And then they rehash the same plot from the first book, with slightly different characters. Hell, the kids even had the same interests- the boy liked dinosaurs, and the girl liked computers.

I figure the second book was mostly a rehashing of the first movie.

So how do you make a good version of a sequel to a book that was kind of crappy to begin with?

As for AI, it was good, just... really long. I didn't get it, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a beautiful movie.

  -kv
Title: Re:Hostel
Post by: Jester on May 05, 2006, 05:35:00 PM
I never said Jurrasic Park 2 the book was good or bad. I just said the movie sucked and never should have been made. But, now that you mention it the book was kinda poo also. And I have no idea how anyone could have liked AI. It was friggen pinoceo that was 3 hours long. Worst movie I've ever seen
Title: Re:Hostel
Post by: Gabriel on May 06, 2006, 09:01:17 AM
Well my profound apologies then, and might I perhaps ask what you felt I did wrong?

Um, nothing. I was just continuing the conversation. Didn't mean that as a smack-down or anything. Sorry if it read that way. :-\

Gabriel
Title: Re:Hostel
Post by: ROOTless on May 06, 2006, 09:16:11 AM
Oh, sorry, I do seem to have forgotten to put in the <sarcasm></sarcasm>-tags on that one...