Hostel 2 and Torture Porn

Horror films have been sort of...odd...for the last few years. I'm not sure exactly when it happened, but at a certain point, the traditional Hollywood horror film kind of died out (if I had to guess, I'd probably place it not long after the release of films like "Jason X" or "Freddy's Dead" -- the arguable death-knells for those two franchises). Suddenly, 90% of the horror films released in North America were either remakes of Japanese horror films -- like "The Ring" and "The Grudge" -- or remakes of classic American horror films -- like "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" and "The Amityville Horror."

There was nothing new, and while some of the Japanese remakes were good, some of them stunk, and most of the American remakes weren't even worth the cost of a rental.

Then along came the Saw franchise and Hostel -- now with a part one and a part tw0 -- to sort of reinvigorate things. And, at least for horror fans, they were interesting films.

But there's a whole lot of hatred around these films too. One particularly label that's been tossed around is "Torture Porn" and, to be quite honest, it's not a label I'm fond of.

I watched the original "Hostel" on DVD a few weeks ago, in preparation for the second, with that phrase in mind. And when I hit the theatre to see "Hostel Part 2" I had the phrase in my mind as well. But I just don't see it. I don't see how either of these films -- or the films in the Saw franchise -- are really any worse than the slasher films of the 1980s. And, to be perfectly blunt, I find the whole "Torture Porn" debate rather stupid.

Horror films are a bit like rock and roll. Every generation, the music gets louder, angrier, more dangerous. Each generation needs to up the ante over the previous generation. They have to be certain that this is not their father's rock and and roll.

Horror films work much the same way. "The Exorcist" and "Rosemary's Baby" in the 1970s upped the ante over films like "Psycho" from the 60s, and the slasher genre that was born in the 1980s with films like "Halloween" and "Friday the 13th" were upping the ante over the horror films that had come before them.

And that's all we're seeing with the current generation of horror films.

"Hostel" and "Hostel Part 2" are actually interesting to watch with this perspective in mind, because, structurally, they're very, very, very similar to "Friday The 13th" except without a summer camp and an unstoppable killing machine in a hockey mask. But you do get 20-somethings acting irresponsibly, taking drugs, and having casual sex. And in horror movies, those are pretty big no-nos.

The biggest difference between the "Saws" and the "Hostels" of today is that, instead of faceless, unstoppable monsters, the monsters are average ordinary people. People like you or me. Which, I think, is part of what ups the ante. The scares of slasher films are quick to disappear because their stories are so drenched in fantasy. Freddy Krueger isn't really going to visit your dreams, and Jason Voorhees isn't going to survive thousands of bullet, knife, and axe wounds, to show up at the last minute and kill you.

Even though you could argue the believability of the concept behind "Hostile," you have to at least concede that it could happen. And that does make it considerably more chilling than its thematic ancestors.

As for the "Torture Porn" debate, my feelings are simple. Words are chosen and used for specific reasons, and the phrase "Torture Porn" has been chosen and used because of the implications associated with it. It's being used to make the films seem ugly and degrading and inhuman, which, really, they're not. They may not be films of the caliber of "The Godfather" or "Citizen Kane" but they're still perfectly entertaining films for fans of the horror genre.

The people who use the term "Torture Porn" are simply people who didn't enjoy the movie, but who realize that writing "I didn't like it," doesn't really have enough bite.

But calling a movie you don't like "Torture Porn" is a bit like calling a person you don't like "a filthy pedophile." Not only is it cruel and unnecessary, it's also deceitful.

As for Hostel 2...meh. Kinda better than the first, also kinda not. Worth catching on video if you liked the original, but not really anything to rave about.

Review: Spider-Man 3

I attended a screening of "Spider-Man 3" Sunday night. Which is to say I went to the movie theatre and watched it, just like everyone else. Except that it sounds more professional to refer to it as a screening. So I did.

Because of the monthly publishing schedule of ArtScene, I don't see much sense in running theatrical film reviews in its pages. Odds are, by the time the issue made it to the street and was picked up and read, the movies covered would have moved on, so a review wouldn't accomplish much more than reminding people of all the potentially great films they missed out on seeing. Or that they did see, and now don't need to be told if it was any good or not.

But the occasional film review on the blog...that's not a bad idea at all. After all, blogs are immediate. I could have a review available online the same night that I watched film (I mean, attended the screening) if I was a bit more on the ball. Even so, two days later is still pretty immediate compared to a monthly publication schedule, and the deadlines involved in it.

I'm off on a bit of a tangent here, though. Let's talk about Spider-Man.

I haven't followed Spider-Man's adventures in the pages of a comic book in years, but when I was younger, he was at the top of my list of favoured super-hero characters. So as each film in this now-trilogy has been released, I've anticipated with the sort of glee that comes from having the opportunity to revisit something from your youth as an adult.

The first two films were exceptional examples of comic book movies that worked. The third continues that trend, though I confess, it's a slightly weaker film.

"Spider-Man 3" falls victim, in a large part, to being too much of too many. There are too many new characters, too many villians, too many subplots, and unfortunately the one spot where we could have used a little bit of too much -- storyline -- falls short.

Which is strange, because there's an awful lot going on. An awful lot of little stuff, crossing this way and that way, but as far as a single, from beginning to end narrative goes...I'm not actually sure there was one.

"Spider-Man 3" feels very much like the third part of a trilogy, requiring an awareness of the previous two films much more than "Spider-Man 2" did. "Spider-Man 2" -- while it was still a sequel -- managed to be a self-contained film in its own right. Unfortunately, "Spider-Man 3" seems more interested in tying up plot threads from the previous two movies to stand on its own.

Having said all that, it is a spectacular, summer action film, with some of the best comic-book-esque fight scenes I've ever seen on the screen (one of the best coming in the first third of the film, leaving the final, exciting climax a little short on action in comparison). Tobey McGuire is still a bang-on Peter Parker, and new arrivals Thomas Hayden Church and Topher Grace fill their villainous roles more than competently.

If you're expecting a deep, philosophical, examination of the human condition, you're probably not going to see "Spider-Man 3" anyway. If you want to see some high-speed, web-slinging action, you likely won't be disappointed, if you overlook some of the problems that are probably unavoidable in a story as ambitious and jam-packed with content as this was.

RATING: B-

IMDB Random Keywords: Revenge / Laboratory / Blockbuster / Particle Accelerator / Newspaper