Jump to content


Photo

"Hostel"


  • Please log in to reply
120 replies to this topic

#1 Landon D. Parks

Landon D. Parks
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1731 posts
  • Producer
  • Cincinnati, Ohio

Posted 13 January 2006 - 12:41 AM

At last, the LANDON PARKS REVIEW is back! (Yaaaah)

Film: Hostel
Year: 2006
Rating: R (Very Strong R)
Length: 1 Hour 35 Minutes
Director: Eli Roth (Cabin Fever)

Ok, want to know what this film is about? here goes: Scene opens > "Hey dude, lets go to Eurpoe so we can smoke dope and screw some chicks"... "Dude, that sounds awsome"... > Somehwere in bum fu**ed Euorpe (no offence to Europeans) "Dude, theres a chick, lets fu**'er"... > Dudesd fu**ing chicks for 20 minutes. > First dud gets knocked off > second and third dude walk around Europe with there head in there ass's "Hey man, maybe Oli went home?... Yeah, dude, thats what happend." > Second guy is knocked off, in an over-hyped not very scary way. > Third dude (only one left) actualy beleive someone who told him that his first and second friends ran off together. > Third dud eget kidnapped and put through some corny "Torture" scenes > He escapes and becomes James Bond is his attemp to exit the facility and kill everyone in it along with him. > He attemps to rescue the girl, who ends up killing herself anyway > What happends next is a "wannabe Big Budget car Chase thats not dont right" and next thing we know our "James Bond" is on a killing spree again, just for that last bloody effect before the credits roll.

Yep, there you go... Theres a very detailed version of "HOSTAL" for you. Am I saying is a bad film? No, It's just way to cheesy for anyone to actually believe in whats going on. It's like a mixture of "Dude wheres my car" "Scary Movie 1 2 or 3" and any other chessy horror flick in hollywood.

The movie did hold my attention though, which is something even greater horror films cannot do. It has several surprise's along the journey (many not expected) and kept you on the edge of your seat for a little while at a few points. Its very funny (really), I liked the use of commedy in some place... It just made it all the better.

Problem is, the plot is too overused, even more now that "Saw" and Saw 2" have made the mainstream scene. for $3.5 million, they did a great job on the visuals though, absolutly stunning for this kind of film.

Overal, It gets 3 of 5 stars from me... Roth is a Director that I can see going places if he plays his cards right...
  • 0

#2 Dominik Muench

Dominik Muench
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 443 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Brisbane

Posted 13 January 2006 - 06:13 AM

cabin fever was bad.....so i dont expect much from hostel either. from what ive heard its just another movie that tries to get some attention through useless and unjustified violence *yawn
  • 0

#3 Greg Gross

Greg Gross
  • Sustaining Members
  • 869 posts
  • Harrisburg,PA

Posted 13 January 2006 - 10:10 AM

If I did not know better, I'd swear that Hitchcock was on the Hostel set. The camera in motion
was so effective it made me dizzy,I played right into the action it fooled me and scared the liv-
ing hell out of me! It was so terribly violent and not the kind of film I would want to direct or ph-
otograph. The action and dialogue were so tightly meshed together for efectiveness. They did a
damn good job of telling the story. Of course the set-ups were awesome. I was gripping my seat
at the Regal cinema and at times closing my eyes. A film chocked full of critical events!!

Greg Gross
  • 0

#4 Landon D. Parks

Landon D. Parks
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1731 posts
  • Producer
  • Cincinnati, Ohio

Posted 13 January 2006 - 11:15 AM

Hitchcock? I never did see what was so great about him anyway... I about feel asleep in the middle of "Psycho"... Not even remotly scary, nor was any of his other films that I'v seen. I mean come on, Psycho was not even remotly scary (at least the Hitchcock version wasn't.. But the Gus Van Sant version was a little better)... Maybe its not hitchcocks fault, back in 1950 the sight of blood (even in B&W) was enough to send 99% of movie goers to the hosptial... Boy times have changed.
  • 0

#5 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 13 January 2006 - 11:30 AM

Hitchcock? I never did see what was so great about him anyway... I about feel asleep in the middle of "Psycho"... Not even remotly scary, nor was any of his other films that I'v seen. I mean come on, Psycho was not even remotly scary (at least the Hitchcock version wasn't.. But the Gus Van Sant version was a little better)... Maybe its not hitchcocks fault, back in 1950 the sight of blood (even in B&W) was enough to send 99% of movie goers to the hosptial... Boy times have changed.


Landon,

Do you view Hitchcock movies on a television or in the cinema?

Stephen
  • 0

#6 Max Jacoby

Max Jacoby
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2955 posts
  • Other

Posted 13 January 2006 - 02:00 PM

All this work of famous French critics, chief among them Fran├žois Truffaut, to get Alfred Hitchcock's films recognized and now it comes to this:

Hitchcock? I never did see what was so great about him anyway... I about feel asleep in the middle of "Psycho"... Not even remotly scary, nor was any of his other films that I'v seen. I mean come on, Psycho was not even remotly scary (at least the Hitchcock version wasn't.. But the Gus Van Sant version was a little better)... Maybe its not hitchcocks fault, back in 1950 the sight of blood (even in B&W) was enough to send 99% of movie goers to the hosptial... Boy times have changed.

Boy, times have indeed changed.

And Landon, a 'review' is about more than just summing up the plot...
  • 0

#7 Marc Alucard

Marc Alucard
  • Sustaining Members
  • 176 posts
  • Other

Posted 13 January 2006 - 02:27 PM

Hitchcock? I never did see what was so great about him anyway... I about feel asleep in the middle of "Psycho"... Not even remotly scary, nor was any of his other films that I'v seen. I mean come on, Psycho was not even remotly scary (at least the Hitchcock version wasn't.. But the Gus Van Sant version was a little better)... Maybe its not hitchcocks fault, back in 1950 the sight of blood (even in B&W) was enough to send 99% of movie goers to the hosptial... Boy times have changed.



Wow!!! Vince Vaughn won't even bring up "Psycho (1998)" during his many appearances On "Dinner for Five".
  • 0

#8 Michael Ryan

Michael Ryan
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 182 posts
  • Other
  • Toronto, Canada via Huntington Beach, California

Posted 13 January 2006 - 04:25 PM

Hello Landon,

"Hitchcock? I never did see what was so great about him anyway."

As you grow older, it is my sincere hope that you will find great humor in this quote.

Just to give some perspective here, people will still be watching VERTIGO long after everyone on this forum is gone. I'm fairly certain that time will not be as kind to HOSTEL.


Mike
  • 0

#9 Greg Gross

Greg Gross
  • Sustaining Members
  • 869 posts
  • Harrisburg,PA

Posted 13 January 2006 - 05:56 PM

I agree Landon, hell there is no way you could have shown today's Hostel in 1950. Hitchcock
was my idol growing up. You see he was my Van Sant. I would encourage you to explore Mr.
Hitchcock's use of the camera. Moving the camera around Cary Grant, Eva Marie Saint while
they were embracing,moving it around 360 degrees with action. Hauling a camera up the stair
case(shaft) with a rope to give you that vertigo feeling. Try Vertigo on the big screen if you can
go to a cinema presentation. You may be surprised how it might make you feel. Do you know how
large the cameras were in 1950, the available stocks they had? I'm assuming that Hostel was shot
with 500 ASA,please correct me if I'm wrong. By the way,Landon,Happy New Year! My favorite film
of his though to this day is- "North by Northwest"

Greg Gross
  • 0

#10 Rod Otaviano

Rod Otaviano
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Other

Posted 13 January 2006 - 11:25 PM

cabin fever was bad.....so i dont expect much from hostel either. from what ive heard its just another movie that tries to get some attention through useless and unjustified violence *yawn



To me the scariest moment of the film was actually when I saw how much it made at the box office.

Not only scary but depressing.

I wonder what my grandkids are gonna watch in the future.

Violence has become a product already. And hey ... now there's even a price tag on it and you can choose between widescreen violence and full screen violence !!!


"Let us be thankful we have commerce, buy more (violence), buy more now, buy ... and ... be happy"

Edited by ropbo, 13 January 2006 - 11:25 PM.

  • 0

#11 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 14 January 2006 - 12:23 AM

Landon, if you're the future of filmmaking, we're in bad shape. These corny fu ckers out there today (pardon my french) are copying off of techniques that Hitchcock invented (ala the zoom in, dolly out effect from Vertigo). Those films are immensely scary in a theatre on your own. The only good horror film I"ve seen in the last DECADE is The Sixth Sense. All the others are very unoriginal cop-offs. It might seem mild now, but there was no "R" rating in the '50s. Food for thought before you slander another great director. That is almost as bad as Daniel J. Ashley Smith saying that Citizen Kane was dull when much of modern cinema can be directly attributed to that one film.

Regards.

Karl Borowski
  • 0

#12 Trevor Swaim

Trevor Swaim
  • Guests

Posted 14 January 2006 - 01:38 AM

oh come on guys, lay off landon. chris columbus is his favorite filmmaker, surely hitchcock can't compete with the pure cinematic genius of "home alone"
  • 0

#13 Landon D. Parks

Landon D. Parks
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1731 posts
  • Producer
  • Cincinnati, Ohio

Posted 14 January 2006 - 05:50 AM

No, I never seen Hitchcock's movies in a cinema, unless you want to point me to a cinema that still plays 60 year old movies, then I probly wont ever see them in a cinema.

And I still don't see whats so great about him... A lot of Directors "Move the camera", most did long before he was even around. He may have invented a few fancy camera moves, but his films still bored me to tears. As I said before, maybe it's not Hitchcock's fault, because film from the 40's-60's are boring compared to todays standard. Trust me, theres more to a good movie than just "Moving the camera 360 around an actor". Most 50's films where so corny, just watch "House on Haunted Hill" (the old version), and try not to laugh and stuff that your not really suppose to laugh at.

And yes, I'm the future of Filmmaking...

sorry If I don't agree with everyone that Alfred Hitchcock is the best director ever, but I just don't beleive that. PLUS, I'm not a horror or scary movie fan in the first place...

You can tell me I'm horrible if you want, but I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks Hitchcock is overrated.

Edited by Landon D. Parks, 14 January 2006 - 05:58 AM.

  • 0

#14 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 14 January 2006 - 06:05 AM

No, I never seen Hitchcock's movies in a cinema, unless you want to point me to a cinema that still plays 60 year old movies, then I probly wont ever see them in a cinema.

And I still don't see whats so great about him... A lot of Directors "Move the camera", most did long before he was even around. He may have invented a few fancy camera moves, but his films still bored me to tears. As I said before, maybe it's not Hitchcock's fault, because film from the 40's-60's are boring compared to todays standard. Trust me, theres more to a good movie than just "Moving the camera 360 around an actor".

And yes, I'm the future of Filmmaking...


Landon,

Are there any Art House cinemas in your area? They would probably show Hitchcock's Clasic movies from time to time. It would be worth it to see the movies on a cinema screen as the director intended.

Hitchcock did not have video assist or look through the camera. He sat in his chair and told the operator what lens to use. His storyboads were perfect, he knew exactly what he wanted.

The camera he moved around was usually a Mitchell BNC weighing over 150 pounds. Steadycam and light weight cameras blimped cameras did not exist.

Stephen
  • 0

#15 Max Jacoby

Max Jacoby
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2955 posts
  • Other

Posted 14 January 2006 - 09:54 AM

And yes, I'm the future of Filmmaking...

Yeah right!

For a seventeen year old who want to get into filmmaking, you taste still leaves a lot to be desired.
  • 0

#16 Landon D. Parks

Landon D. Parks
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1731 posts
  • Producer
  • Cincinnati, Ohio

Posted 14 January 2006 - 10:50 AM

Holly cow, you guys really get worked up don't ya? All I said was I don't see the big deal about Hitchcock. Maybe I'm missing something, or grew up in the wrong era or something. You have to look at it this way, The future filmmakers will be realying less on hitchcock as time goes by. Hitchcock may have invinted moving camera, but other people have built on that over the years, and I'm more likly tro study a more recent film which uses some of hitchcocks techniques plus what other have added to make it better.

I'm not saying Hitchcock was dumb, I'm just saying his films don't interest me. I never did like old movies, I can't help that. I don't think that makes me a bad filmmaker though.

Thats about like me telling you I like a directors work, and you telling me he sucks. I'm not going to go all off on your for having an opinion, just because I like someone and you don't. Sorry If I'm not into your whole communist "Everyone must love Hitchcock" world, but I don't. But to say that because I dont care for Hitchcocks movies, I'm a bad filmmaker, that just rude.

PS) Peoiple like me and Daniel J. Ashley Smith are the future of filmmaking, rather you want to beleive it or not. A new generation will come, and with a new generation new ways of doing things. Just because the new generation don't like 100 year old films does not mean we can't make good movies.

Edited by Landon D. Parks, 14 January 2006 - 10:57 AM.

  • 0

#17 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 14 January 2006 - 11:28 AM

[quote name='Landon D. Parks' date='Jan 14 2006, 04:50 PM' post='84500']
I'm not saying Hitchcock was dumb, I'm just saying his films don't interest me. I never did like old movies, I can't help that. I don't think that makes me a bad filmmaker though.


Landon,

Your not yet a filmaker!

Stephen
  • 0

#18 John Holland

John Holland
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2248 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London England

Posted 14 January 2006 - 11:45 AM

Kept away from this for a while Landon , How you can say you liked remake of Psycho , i am gob smacked .i know nothing about you but i think you should listen to what Stephen , and try and get out sometime and watch some older movies , nothing is original , someone has done it before and usually better . john holland , london.
  • 0

#19 John Holland

John Holland
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2248 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London England

Posted 14 January 2006 - 12:09 PM

Hi again , i should have said the only way you really learn about , movies , history , what ever is you have to look back a bit , i spent years and years in the cinema learning from what you call old movies , i would watch where the shadows were falling , so working how the shot was keyed , camera movement , cutting and the rest , dont want to sound like a old fart , but still do that now, even though how its been done . john holland, london.
  • 0

#20 Jonathan Spear

Jonathan Spear
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 586 posts
  • Other

Posted 14 January 2006 - 02:55 PM

""" I never did like old movies, I can't help that. I don't think that makes me a bad filmmaker though."""

I hated Pink Floyd up until the day I actually popped one of their records into my walkman. And yes, It will make you a terrible filmmaker because the modern movies you love so much are made by people who appreciate what you don't (or think you don't).
  • 0


Tai Audio

FJS International, LLC

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Ritter Battery

Glidecam

rebotnix Technologies

Technodolly

CineLab

Opal

Paralinx LLC

Metropolis Post

Willys Widgets

Visual Products

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

The Slider

Rig Wheels Passport

Abel Cine

Aerial Filmworks

CineTape

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Wooden Camera

Willys Widgets

Paralinx LLC

Abel Cine

Tai Audio

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

rebotnix Technologies

The Slider

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Visual Products

CineLab

CineTape

Aerial Filmworks

FJS International, LLC

Technodolly

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Wooden Camera

Metropolis Post

Rig Wheels Passport

Opal

Glidecam

Ritter Battery