Point taken. Both are awful.

This is a problem in all aspects of movie making. Based on this statement alone, you shouldn't go see King Kong, which is a movie highly recommended by our esteemed reviewer.

“Many people say the American version doesn't live up to 'Ringu', the Japanese original” From Rob

I think a major reason for this claim is because they saw Ringu first. Generally, the copycat of an original film is less interesting because you have experienced most of what it has to offer already. It's like King Kong. I know what's going to happen, I know the direction the story goes, and by the end of the movie I can honestly say I've seen this before and I stopped caring. I agree with the statement that it was over indulgent. The fight scene with the T-Rex(s) is so ridiculous I was ready to leave by the end of it.

“so they try to shock…” From Rob

This is funny coming from a man who claimed Sin City was the #1 movie to watch last year. While the visual style was certainly something to behold, I'd hardly call this a movie that was out to dazzle you with story, characters, or a deep theme. Most of the violence in this movie was stylized and even more effective in some cases than that seen in Hostel.

But now that I'm caught up on responses, and I apologize for the line by line, I really just have one question for the Rob man himself. What exactly is the difference, in your mind, between a movie to entertain, and a movie created as art? I've noticed that in a number of your reviews (not written ones, but when we've discussed movies) anytime I've given a movie criticism, you quickly dismiss it because the movie was a popcorn flick made to entertain. Yet, it seems that when you review a movie you dislike, you place it on the different pedestal of not living up to your expectations as a work of art (in both story and technical ability).

Finally, I think your review is pretty spot on, though I'm not against seeing the movie. Personally, I was able to sit through it, leave pondering the exact same thought of how I'm no different than the “monsters” of the film, and then quickly dismiss it since no one was actually hurt and I am not personally slaughtering vacationers. Unlike the monsters, I have many outlets for my repressed violent urges that aren't nearly as grotesque (though one would say my love of Trauma Center for the DS is masochistic). Obviously the movie is not as hollow as other reviewers might lead everyone to believe, since you were able to extract a fairly complicated theme (for horror) from a movie that is quickly dismissed as merely shock.

But yeah, I miss monster and supernatural movies.

Lumberg was in Ring 2. If that's not enough to save a movie, you're beyond hope.

Rob,

Good catch on Signs being ID4 from a farmer's perspective. All sorts of cool stuff have to be happening at the same time as Mel Gibon is figuring out what to do. But we never see that. We see Mel's family.

I look forward to anything film-theory-y. Curtis from Phatic Communion posts a good deal of poetry theory [1], and Larry writes a lot on electronics [2], both of which the blogosphere scours for meaning. Imagine a Film-Theory-oriented model of warfare!

Keep up the great work. With this comment, your post is the most discussed thread in a month! Congrats!!

[1] http://www.phaticcommunion.com/archives/2005/11/the_structure_o.php
[2] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2006/01/07/good-news-from-iraq.html#c481145

Nice catch on the puritanism.

Traditional horror is dying, and (from your review) we can see why. Little is left of the Hitchcock formula except murder, blood, gore. Many times the plots are openly recycled — Saw is just a remark of a Twilight Zone episode, etc.

I don't know if Japanese “new wave” style horror is truly more original (they may be remaking old movies I never heard of), but at least that genre provides an escape from one more Hitchcock derivative.

And yes, Signs was quite good.

Ring was a solid translation. For American audiences Ring II may have been better, because it combined the atmosphere of the first movie was humor that domestic audiences expect.

The Japanese version of the Grudge is also quite good — but for horror where you empathize with the characters, you can't beat Battle Royale or Suicide Circle.

The latter's a bit too realistic ( http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2005/02/05/suicide_circle.html ), though

Yes, the horror film genre is decaying into a 5th grade gross-out competion. Hitchcock was the master of audience manipulation. 'Psycho' is the ultimate example. Every scene perversely affects the audience. Not many directors can weave such intricate webs. This sounds odd, but watching 'King Kong' was the closest I've felt to watching Hitchcock in a long time. I found myself feeling exactly the way I knew Jackson wanted me to. I caught myself several times behaving like a typical audience member and mentaly chided Jackson for having such control over me. It's almost as if directors of today have lost the confidence to reach an audience, so they try to shock them. Just because we've never seen a certain appendage get cut off, doesn't mean we need to.

Interesting on how every scene in Psycho and King Kong was manipulative. You should post an example of this sometime. tdaxp could use a film theorist!

The Daily Nebraskan, our student newspaper here at UNL, posted a review of Hostel that agrees with yours.

“Simply put, the film feels extremely hollow.

…

Audiences will likely be drawn by both the promise of excessive gore (and no, you won’t be leaving the theatre in an ambulance, despite the previews indicating that it was a possibility) and the attachment of Quentin Tarantino’s name, which, despite his being both an executive producer and a cameo actor here, is displayed a little too boldly to seem relevant.

…

To make one “Hostel,” simply mix of equal parts Takashi Miike (“Audition,” “Ichi the Killer”), 1970s Italian horror (George A. Romero, Mario Bava) and “American Pie”-esque ultra-low-brow comedy, then dilute to the potency of McDonald’s orange drink.”

http://www.dailynebraskan.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2006/01/13/43c73ded2d8e8