| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Koli 
"Striving lackadaisically for perfection."
|
 Posted - 03/11/2007 : 11:16:24
|
There's an interesting gender split in the votes for this one. The average (currently) is 2.9, which I think is low. Women give it 5/5 but men only 2.6. This rather confounds the stereotype, as it's hardly the sort of movie that would be described as a 'chick-flick'. I'm with the girls on this one: it gets a five from me.
But why don't the men appreciate it?
PS I'm off to do a similar 'analysis' of the IMDb votes to see what that reveals.
Edit: I've been to IMDb-land, and bear contradictory tidings. There the average is 5.8 out of 10, and the gender split goes the other way. The men gave it 5.8 and the women 5.1 (their votes haven't altered the total average because most of the voters are male (20,416 compared to 2,725). Females under 18 (who should not be watching it; naughty girls!) liked it the most (5.5) while the other age groups were much of a muchness: 18-29 gave 5.1, 30-44 gave 5.0 and 45+ gave 5.2. It suggests teenage girls like a good scare. (On IMDb there's significant difference between the votes of US users (6.0) and non-US users (5.7). Perhaps they're more comfortable with violent content.) |
Edited by - Koli on 03/11/2007 11:47:17 |
|
|
benj clews 
"...."
|
Posted - 03/11/2007 : 11:18:52
|
I thought it was remarkably tame considering the hype circling it. And with a film like that it's ALL about the 'gorenography'. That's why I marked it down  |
 |
|
|
Koli
"Striving lackadaisically for perfection."
|
Posted - 03/11/2007 : 11:37:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
I thought it was remarkably tame considering the hype circling it. And with a film like that it's ALL about the 'gorenography'. That's why I marked it down
Tame? What kind of stuff do you watch when you're not running this site, skating or doing stand-up? I must admit I'm squeamish compared to some viewers (I found Reservoir Dogs far too violent), but this is one of the goriest films I've ever seen.
I found it oddly reassuring and amusing that Eli Roth had a string quartet(or quintet?) playing Vivaldi between shots to make the torture scenes more bearable for the crew. |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 03/11/2007 : 12:24:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by Koli
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
I thought it was remarkably tame considering the hype circling it. And with a film like that it's ALL about the 'gorenography'. That's why I marked it down
Tame? What kind of stuff do you watch when you're not running this site
Nothing that bad, although even recent blockbusters like, say, Saw III are a hundred times gorier than Hostel.
Of the basic ways to make your audience brick themselves- graphic or psychological horror, Hostel fell rather boringly in the middle. What you did see wasn't particularly bad by even mainstream Hollywood's standards and what you didn't was largely things we've seen (literally) before. It seemed like a film wanting to really screw you up but it didn't quite have the courage to follow through with this.
Going back to my original example of Saw III being a much gorier film, maybe it's just me but the opening set piece in that was one of the single most gruelling experiences I've had in recent years in a cinema. And the amazing thing was, the worst bit was implied gore- you didn't see the guy yank his jaw off with the chain piercing, but by God did you feel it. That one scene had more psychological effect and imagination than the whole of Hostel- IMO anyway  |
|
|
|
Shiv 
"What a Wonderful World"
|
Posted - 03/11/2007 : 12:44:38
|
| What I liked about Hostel - and maybe this is where the female vs male viewer perspective comes in - was that you really didn't know what was going on until near then end. Everything began to feel wrong, and more claustrophobic, as the movie progressed, but the characters were fairly oblivious to it for a lot longer. The backpacking theme is an important plot factor. When the Icelandic chap goes missing it really is no big deal. Although the audience might start thinking 'something's wrong', it isn't enough to alert the rest of them in that context. |
|
|
|
rabid kazook 
"Pushing the antelope"
|
Posted - 03/11/2007 : 18:49:07
|
I would've liked it better if the first half of the movie was more than pr0n.
Funny thing about that females liking it ostensibly. They must love the first half so much. 
|
Edited by - rabid kazook on 03/11/2007 18:50:46 |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 03/11/2007 : 18:51:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by rabid kazook
I would've liked it better if the first half of the movie was more than pr0n.
Funny thing about that females liking it ostensibly. She must love the first half so much.
Actually yeah- I did 'appreciate' the first half of the film, I'll give it that much |
|
|
|
rabid kazook
"Pushing the antelope"
|
Posted - 03/11/2007 : 19:02:21
|
I don't think that Roth will get past his xxx obsession (as seen through a bunch of his movies) in the near future. *people all over the world rejoicing now*
He's like the new De Palma, but more fratboyly imature, and I'm not particulary sure in his talents.
|
Edited by - rabid kazook on 03/11/2007 19:03:10 |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 03/11/2007 : 19:08:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by rabid kazook
I don't think that Roth will get past his xxx obsession (as seen through a bunch of his movies) in the near future. *people all over the world rejoicing now*
He's like the new De Palma, but more fratboyly imature, and I'm not particulary sure in his talents.
Well, I thought Cabin Fever was a decent start (although once again somewhat overhyped on just how scary it was going to be) but Hostel was definitely a back step.
Perhaps he'll redeem himself with Hostel 2- I did like the premise, just not the execution (pun not intended) first time around. |
|
|
|
rabid kazook
"Pushing the antelope"
|
Posted - 03/11/2007 : 22:27:36
|
Sure, Cabin was not all that bad, but it was mostly because of all the randomness I was somewhat entertained... but these stuff, no matter how well they can gorify it, are just campy dumbdown horrors... and by that I mean that there's no need for me to see more of it.
But there's this thing that he's somewhat of Tarantino's protege, so I'm not totally writing him off.
|
Edited by - rabid kazook on 03/11/2007 22:31:16 |
|
|
|
Sean 
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 03/12/2007 : 00:16:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by Koli
There the average is 5.8 out of 10
That's a fail for Hostel on my criteria, hence I haven't seen it. For me, 6/10 at IMDb marks the level between 'worth seeing' and 'not worth seeing'.
Cabin Fever fares even more poorly, it gets 5.2, a definite fail, so haven't seen it either. It has an astonishing 15% gave it the lowest score possible, that would have to be the worst I've ever seen!  I'd guess this is due to many feeling 'ripped off', their expectations were too high.
Perhaps I may have to check one of these out to see if my 6-cut-off still works. I'm likely to be more forgiving for a horror movie, and it probably helps that I'm not expecting much. Which one is best?
BTW, I liked Saw, but thought Saw II was pointless (hollow script, vacuous characters shouting at each other for 90 minutes) so never bothered with Saw III. |
|
|
|
Shiv
"What a Wonderful World"
|
Posted - 03/12/2007 : 00:26:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
quote:
Originally posted by Koli
There the average is 5.8 out of 10
That's a fail for Hostel on my criteria, hence I haven't seen it. For me, 6/10 at IMDb marks the level between 'worth seeing' and 'not worth seeing'.
Don't you ever watch something just because it's talked about? I think watching 'bad' movies helps work out what good movies are all about. Also, everyone does have different taste. I know that you've tested the IMDB ratings extensively ( ) and it works for you, but I have rented movies that got a pasting (on imdb sometimes, but also on other review sites) and actually enjoyed it. For every 6/10 average there will be a few 8/10s in there, if you see what I mean??
Can you explain more why you use the IMDB ratings so faithfully? |
|
|
|
demonic 
"Cinemaniac"
|
Posted - 03/12/2007 : 02:54:53
|
That's a fascinating system, Sean, but I know I couldn't implicitly trust it because I know there are films that aren't that highly regarded by the masses which I think are great - to quote big Bill - "pleased not the million; 'twas caviare to the general".
...I did a bit of research and actually found that your guidelines aren't all that off...
However there are heaps of films ("Wrong Turn", "Small Soldiers", "Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey", "Deep Blue Sea", "First Knight", "Species", "The Lawnmower Man" - mainly 80s and 90s genre films admittedly) that are solidly enjoyable - at least 3/5s in my book, as well as one modern classic (Cronenberg's "Crash"), an essential 80s comedy ("Police Academy") and one of my all time favourite childhood films ("The Black Hole"). There are also loads of films further down the scale that are bad enough to be good - definitely worth watching for the experience of a truly bad film... there are so many to choose from but Jaws 3, Batman and Robin, Basic Instinct 2, Dungeons and Dragons, Showgirls, The Island of Dr Moreau, Anaconda...
On the flip side IMDB is recommending to you the following desperately average or plain bad films: Eyes Wide Shut, We Were Soldiers, Kalifornia, Super Troopers, Underworld, Silent Hill, U-571, The Last Boy Scout, Final Fantasy, Elizabethtown, Derailed, The Da Vinci Code, The Matrix Revolutions...
|
|
|
|
MM0rkeleb
"Better than HBO."
|
Posted - 03/12/2007 : 03:17:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by Koli
There's an interesting gender split in the votes for this one. The average (currently) is 2.9, which I think is low. Women give it 5/5 but men only 2.6. This rather confounds the stereotype, as it's hardly the sort of movie that would be described as a 'chick-flick'. I'm with the girls on this one: it gets a five from me.
But why don't the men appreciate it?
I'm guessing the 5/5 is not due to an actual high female average, but more likely a single female vote giving it a 5. |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 03/12/2007 : 11:33:11
|
| Got more to add about the IMDb system I use for picking movies to watch, but it's 12.30am here and bedtime. Tomorrow. |
|
|
|
Koli
"Striving lackadaisically for perfection."
|
Posted - 03/12/2007 : 14:25:07
|
If anyone (Sean, maybe) is still wondering whether to watch it, take note of the following, from IMDb (trivia):
This film knocked The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (2005) off the top spot both at the box office, and when it was released on DVD. The production budget of "The Chronicles of Narnia" is nearly 50 times the $4 million dollar production budget of Hostel (2005), which earned $20 million dollars in its opening weekend alone.
That's reason enough to get my approval. (Actually I liked the film more after watching the 'featurette' on the DVD about the making of the movie; it was clearly low budget but they seemed to do a good job for all that.) |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Hostel - gender contrast
