Eli Roth hate

Tobbii wrote:

Cactus_Matt wrote:

The Dude wrote:

Relauby wrote:

I've only ever seen Cabin Fever, but in that one at least it felt like he was trying too hard. Especially with the Pancakes! kid, you can tell how desperately he wanted something silly and random in his movie for laughs. And I think people stop finding incredibly random things funny in junior high.

So...he has all the wit of a fourteen-year-old girl who yells "WAFFLES!" followed by the statement "lol I'm so random."

I still find random things funny...

Random things can be really funny, but as soon as someone calls themselves random it's just a big facepalm of awfulness. And that goes for real life as well.

That's more what I was getting at.

part of me wonders what convinced Takashi Miike and Ruggero Deodato to apear in his films

tonythe chosen wrote:

part of me wonders what convinced Takashi Miike and Ruggero Deodato to apear in his films

Well, Takeshi Miike doesn't know a single word of English, so it's possible he's never been subjected to Roth's abominable dialogue. As for Deodato...I have no idea.

The Dude wrote:

Tobbii wrote:

Cactus_Matt wrote:

The Dude wrote:

Relauby wrote:

I've only ever seen Cabin Fever, but in that one at least it felt like he was trying too hard. Especially with the Pancakes! kid, you can tell how desperately he wanted something silly and random in his movie for laughs. And I think people stop finding incredibly random things funny in junior high.

So...he has all the wit of a fourteen-year-old girl who yells "WAFFLES!" followed by the statement "lol I'm so random."

I still find random things funny...

Random things can be really funny, but as soon as someone calls themselves random it's just a big facepalm of awfulness. And that goes for real life as well.

That's more what I was getting at.

Oh.... Carry on then.

Tobbii wrote:

Oh.... Carry on then.

S'all good, man.

The Dude wrote:

tonythe chosen wrote:

part of me wonders what convinced Takashi Miike and Ruggero Deodato to apear in his films

Well, Takeshi Miike doesn't know a single word of English, so it's possible he's never been subjected to Roth's abominable dialogue. As for Deodato...I have no idea.

I think a lot of horror directors would have solidarity for those who make films in the same genre.

OR MAYBE THEY LIKE HIS FILMS TOO!?

Cactus_Matt wrote:

The Dude wrote:

tonythe chosen wrote:

part of me wonders what convinced Takashi Miike and Ruggero Deodato to apear in his films

Well, Takeshi Miike doesn't know a single word of English, so it's possible he's never been subjected to Roth's abominable dialogue. As for Deodato...I have no idea.

I think a lot of horror directors would have solidarity for those who make films in the same genre.

OR MAYBE THEY LIKE HIS FILMS TOO!?

Well, I do know that Miike is a professed fan of Roth's, though again, since he doesn't know English, it's hard to say how much of Roth's shittyness comes through on the Japanese version.

The Dude wrote:

Cactus_Matt wrote:

The Dude wrote:

tonythe chosen wrote:

part of me wonders what convinced Takashi Miike and Ruggero Deodato to apear in his films

Well, Takeshi Miike doesn't know a single word of English, so it's possible he's never been subjected to Roth's abominable dialogue. As for Deodato...I have no idea.

I think a lot of horror directors would have solidarity for those who make films in the same genre.

OR MAYBE THEY LIKE HIS FILMS TOO!?

Well, I do know that Miike is a professed fan of Roth's, though again, since he doesn't know English, it's hard to say how much of Roth's shittyness comes through on the Japanese version.

I don't want to start something because I like you, but it kind of annoys me that you assume you're right and everyone else is wrong regarding his shittyness, I know it's a matter of opinion and you're welcome to yours but to assume you have to have a language gap to like Roth's work is kind of insulting. I think his writing and dialogue is fine and I'm very literate, I'm an aspiring writer and English is my first language.

Cactus_Matt wrote:

I don't want to start something because I like you, but it kind of annoys me that you assume you're right and everyone else is wrong regarding his shittyness, I know it's a matter of opinion and you're welcome to yours but to assume you have to have a language gap to like Roth's work is kind of insulting. I think his writing and dialogue is fine and I'm very literate, I'm an aspiring writer and English is my first language.

I'll admitt that I often come on a little too strong with my opinions. I never intended to convey the idea that my opinion invalidates all others, but as one who is prone to strong opinions, people tend to get that impression. In any case, I apologize for my offense. I just really, really dislike Roth.

I don't hate or love Eli Roth. I've seen Hostel and I have to say that I've seen significantly worse horror thrillers. There were some interesting things going on it. But honestly, criticizing Eli Roth for dialogue always kind of makes me scratch my head given some of the drek that makes it to the theater in the form of romantic comedy and even lousy horror. There was such a glut of lousy horror in the 90s and then a wild stab of efforts to be original in the 00s that I give Roth credit for at least trying. Hostel isn't great, but it's a solid effort to pull away from the creature/slasher formula that the 90s turned into a rut. And it's certainly leaps beyond his first effort which I largely found unforgettable because it was basically a creature feature with the creature being a virus.

Eli also provided some amusement for me and my friends during a film festival in which the 2004 Phantom of the Opera was featured and we had watched a classic 3D movie just before and there was a lot of discussion as to whether or not the 3D glasses made Phantom a better movie or not.

smallerdemon wrote:

Eli also provided some amusement for me and my friends during a film festival in which the 2004 Phantom of the Opera was featured and we had watched a classic 3D movie just before and there was a lot of discussion as to whether or not the 3D glasses made Phantom a better movie or not.

Man, I could have gone an entire lifetime without knowing that there was a 2010 version of Phantom of the Opera in 3-D.

The Dude wrote:

Cactus_Matt wrote:

I don't want to start something because I like you, but it kind of annoys me that you assume you're right and everyone else is wrong regarding his shittyness, I know it's a matter of opinion and you're welcome to yours but to assume you have to have a language gap to like Roth's work is kind of insulting. I think his writing and dialogue is fine and I'm very literate, I'm an aspiring writer and English is my first language.

I'll admitt that I often come on a little too strong with my opinions. I never intended to convey the idea that my opinion invalidates all others, but as one who is prone to strong opinions, people tend to get that impression. In any case, I apologize for my offense. I just really, really dislike Roth.

It's all good man, you really really dislike and I really really like him. Let's leave it at that.

All I've seen by Roth is the Thanksgiving trailer and some of his commentaries on http://www.trailersfromhell.com/, and he seems to have a good knowledge of and appreciation for the genre. At least that's nice?

I don't hate eli roth, in fact, i rather like him. My experience with his films however is that you have to know he's a genre nerd to appreciate it, otherwise you get lost in it. Cabin Fever is a perfect example of this. The barrage of shit thrown at you isn't to make you gross out or make you lose your mind. I always saw it as those moronic question we as genre fans have about movie plots.

Deadpool wrote:

I don't hate eli roth, in fact, i rather like him. My experience with his films however is that you have to know he's a genre nerd to appreciate it, otherwise you get lost in it. Cabin Fever is a perfect example of this. The barrage of shit thrown at you isn't to make you gross out or make you lose your mind. I always saw it as those moronic question we as genre fans have about movie plots.

My thoughts on Cabin Fever: Sympathetic characters are a pretty cool thing. Roth should try making some.

The Dude wrote:

Deadpool wrote:

I don't hate eli roth, in fact, i rather like him. My experience with his films however is that you have to know he's a genre nerd to appreciate it, otherwise you get lost in it. Cabin Fever is a perfect example of this. The barrage of shit thrown at you isn't to make you gross out or make you lose your mind. I always saw it as those moronic question we as genre fans have about movie plots.

My thoughts on Cabin Fever: Sympathetic characters are a pretty cool thing. Roth should try making some.

I thought it was refreshing that none of them were sympathetic, it bucks the trend of making a character the 'obviously nice guy or girl', plus in the real world there are groups of people who are unsympathetic and so in that way I find it more realistic.

Cactus_Matt wrote:

The Dude wrote:

Deadpool wrote:

I don't hate eli roth, in fact, i rather like him. My experience with his films however is that you have to know he's a genre nerd to appreciate it, otherwise you get lost in it. Cabin Fever is a perfect example of this. The barrage of shit thrown at you isn't to make you gross out or make you lose your mind. I always saw it as those moronic question we as genre fans have about movie plots.

My thoughts on Cabin Fever: Sympathetic characters are a pretty cool thing. Roth should try making some.

I thought it was refreshing that none of them were sympathetic, it bucks the trend of making a character the 'obviously nice guy or girl', plus in the real world there are groups of people who are unsympathetic and so in that way I find it more realistic.

I'm not saying that a sympathetic character needs to be the token "nice-guy", I'm just saying that I have to like him or her just enough to feel sorry for the terrible thing happening to them, or to hope for them to survive. That's how you create suspense.

To illustrate this point, I would like to compare Hostel to the movie that inspired it, Audition. In the latter film, our protagonist, Aoyama, is not a particularly great guy. Some viewers may even see him as something of a dick for letting Asami believe that he's auditioning her, when he's actually trying to go out with her. He's established as being a flawed character, not one that's particularly good or bad, and when he ends up being tortured, you feel incredibly bad for him because you've spent the entire movie getting to know and like him, which makes his suffering feel much more real and much more personal.

In Hostel, by contrast, there is nothing to connect the characters to the viewer at all. They seemingly exist only to annoy the audience, so when it comes time for them to die, it's really hard to give a damn. And I can see that working in some movies, where the idea is to prevent irritating characters and butcher them for the viewer's sadistic pleasure, but Hostel is not that movie. Rather, it was intended to disturb and horrify it's viewers with it's violence, not gratify them.

The Dude wrote:

Cactus_Matt wrote:

The Dude wrote:

Deadpool wrote:

I don't hate eli roth, in fact, i rather like him. My experience with his films however is that you have to know he's a genre nerd to appreciate it, otherwise you get lost in it. Cabin Fever is a perfect example of this. The barrage of shit thrown at you isn't to make you gross out or make you lose your mind. I always saw it as those moronic question we as genre fans have about movie plots.

My thoughts on Cabin Fever: Sympathetic characters are a pretty cool thing. Roth should try making some.

I thought it was refreshing that none of them were sympathetic, it bucks the trend of making a character the 'obviously nice guy or girl', plus in the real world there are groups of people who are unsympathetic and so in that way I find it more realistic.

I'm not saying that a sympathetic character needs to be the token "nice-guy", I'm just saying that I have to like him or her just enough to feel sorry for the terrible thing happening to them, or to hope for them to survive. That's how you create suspense.

To illustrate this point, I would like to compare Hostel to the movie that inspired it, Audition. In the latter film, our protagonist, Aoyama, is not a particularly great guy. Some viewers may even see him as something of a dick for letting Asami believe that he's auditioning her, when he's actually trying to go out with her. He's established as being a flawed character, not one that's particularly good or bad, and when he ends up being tortured, you feel incredibly bad for him because you've spent the entire movie getting to know and like him, which makes his suffering feel much more real and much more personal.

In Hostel, by contrast, there is nothing to connect the characters to the viewer at all. They seemingly exist only to annoy the audience, so when it comes time for them to die, it's really hard to give a damn. And I can see that working in some movies, where the idea is to prevent irritating characters and butcher them for the viewer's sadistic pleasure, but Hostel is not that movie. Rather, it was intended to disturb and horrify it's viewers with it's violence, not gratify them.

Once again it comes down to a matter of opinion, because I did care for the characters in Hostel, and to a lesser extent Hostel Part II.

[quote="Cactus_Matt]Once again it comes down to a matter of opinion, because I did care for the characters in Hostel, and to a lesser extent Hostel Part II.[/quote]
I know, I'm just trying to explain why I disagree with you, instead of just flooding you with Roth-hate.

Cactus_Matt wrote:

I thought it was refreshing that none of them were sympathetic, it bucks the trend of making a character the 'obviously nice guy or girl', plus in the real world there are groups of people who are unsympathetic and so in that way I find it more realistic.

Refreshing? That's the call card of many "killer centric" slasher from the late eighties, especially later-on Krueger. Makes you cheer for the killer more than the victims, and it works when you're selling a franchise rather than trying to tell a story or try and scare people. Cabin Fever, however, lacked the presence of a straight-up killer to root for. Unless you can root for a disease... can you? I don't know.

Just to make this straight-forward, I'm apathetic to Roth. He can keep making his movies, I'll continue to watch Godzilla. Whatever.

I've only seen Hostel: Part II, had some really good moments, but overall I didn't like it. Didn't leave a lasting impression either, I can't even recall what I thought of the dialogs. So no hatred from me.

Entertainer13 wrote:

Unless you can root for a disease... can you? I don't know.

You can, as it happens.

The Dude wrote:

Entertainer13 wrote:

Unless you can root for a disease... can you? I don't know.

You can, as it happens.

Good to know. Then, everyone being jerks works. Nice!

Deadpool wrote:

obviously nice guy or girl

He tried doing this in Hostel 2 and it just came off like she had learning difficulties.

KingLDub wrote:

Deadpool wrote:

obviously nice guy or girl

He tried doing this in Hostel 2 and it just came off like she had learning difficulties.

Truly, the mark of a master writer.