BLOG VIEW  |  HEADLINE VIEW
SUBMIT NEWS  |  RSS FEED  |  SEARCH

When a type of horror film becomes widely popular, it is often a reflection of the secret fears the masses. And no movie genre has experienced more of a resurgence in the wake of 9/11 than horror. Fictional monsters and tales of terror are much safer (and more entertaining) to experience at the movies. In a way, it can be cathartic to walk out of a film having “survived,” so to speak. I’m just not sure the current crop of horror flicks will stand the test of time as classics worth revisiting. I also wonder as to what these films say about multiplexers’ views on what constitutes entertainment.


Torture is as popular at the movies as it is with the Bush administration. Funny, eh?

The original Saw touched a nerve and wrought a franchise netting hundreds of millions of dollars at the box-office and on DVD. While the film does feature torture through clever devices intended to teach a lesson about an appreciation for one’s life, these are brutal movies. In spite of being sick and disgusting, the Saw trilogy is oddly funny as well. In the wake of Saw we saw a slew of chilling new films each seeming to up the ante on the torture factor. There was Wolf Creek with little plot but plenty of agonizing scenes of helpless women tied up and used for carving practice. And even the remake of The Hills Have Eyes honed in on torture as its main thrill. Eli Roth’s Hostel seems to be the only one among them that has some sense of redemption at the end of the gruesome story. Well, more of a revenge that satisfies, but it ends on a hopeful note, unlike the rest. However, even with some of these films having merit, it’s still all about getting to the gore scenes—show us some blood. It’s as if the whole audience is just waiting to get past the “talking” and the “story” with their horror dicks in their hands waiting to jerk off to torture porn.


Eli Roth's Hostel features both a gruesome story with some satisfying redemption, er, revenge in the end.

The core of the plot for all of these torture porn movies is to get the cast of characters into a situation in which they will experience pain. There seems to be little story to speak of during these torture scenes. For the most part, the scenes follow similar beats: various devices are introduced, these scary-looking devices are used to provoke the victims to tears at their very sight, and then these lethal devices are used on the victims resulting in blood, guts, gore and often, painful appendage removal. The victim, if being viewed by a friend, is often dispensed in a horrible way. And then said voyeur is next. As a show of how gutsy the filmmakers are, these torture scenes seem to go on much longer than necessary. For myself, I get a little sick to my stomach watching it. And it’s not even a fun kind of sick, like the one I experienced watching Borat getting tea-bagged.


Wolf Creek features plenty of young girls tortured over and over and over...

For me, a quality horror film provides scares. Scares are just plain fun. There really is no correlation between a gory movie and a scary one. Oftentimes truly scary movies provide thrills by not showing the gruesome stuff. It’s very rare that gore and scares come together as one. Perhaps one of the best examples, in fact, a film that changed the genre and movie history was the original 1978 George A. Romero Dawn of the Dead. In one of the film’s opening sequences, we see a human head explode. It’s horrific. Until that time, nothing like that had ever been put on film. And horror films were never the same as each one must somehow top the other.


Sure, they're having fun now, but things get bad quick for the characters in Turistas.

And now we have Turistas, which has opened to critical disdain, pretty much across the board. But for the horror genre more than any other, the critics are irrelevant. It’s all about the fans. So, to horror fans, I have to ask, is this torture porn fun to watch?

For myself, the answer is no. I love horror and I’ve seen all these movies and I really don’t like them. And while I want to support the genre since I would almost prefer any of these films to the milquetoast crap we normally see, I just want to know why audiences are showing up in droves.

Clearly, avoiding facing the terrors in the real world has something to do with their popularity. The television coverage of the conflict in the Middle East inching us ever closer to World War III is the waking nightmare we face. Those real horrors seen daily on the news are just too depressing to think about. Maybe I’m wrong and these movies are providing a useful service to moviegoers. I guess numbing oneself with torture porn is a way to cope—the news won’t seem scary at all.

Gore gone.

Chris_Gore is an author, a filmmaker, the creator of Film Threat, and despite this piece, loves gory movies.

 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3

Next

dem_z

dem_z

United Kingdom
June 2004

DEC 01, 2006 12:30 PM

I dunno about your "torture pron is a way to escape the reality of horrible news", I think that it's more a reaction to the slew of action movies where a character can fall off a building while fighting the bad guy, then get shot, then get hit by a car, and walk away with barely a limp.

Wolf Creek was fucking horrible, so it gets points for being a film that was hard to watch. Other horror films have the gore and torture, but wolf creek managed to get me thinking 'oh dear god no' before it actually showed any gore.

I over-anticipated Saw, so I didn't think much of it. Hostel wasn't brutal enough for me; I hated the characters and wanted them to die a slower more horrible death. Air-hoses up the jacksie next time please, movie-makers.

Happyboy

Happyboy

Berkeley, CA
December 2004

DEC 01, 2006 12:33 PM

I agree with the horror porn concept but I think Hollywood is largely to blame. When the plot line leaves you wanting, the gore scenes are all that is left. Everything on tv and in the movies has gotten more violent, racier, more out there. Each successive generation is becoming desensitized at a younger age. As a result, film producers are forced to become more "inventive" or else have their finished product be considered lame and boring. The on going cycle feeds on itself so to speak.

mydogfarted

mydogfarted

Waldwick, NJ
June 2003

DEC 01, 2006 01:18 PM

The Saw trilogy is the "Star Wars Episodes 1-3" of horror. puke

Tornateaux

Tornateaux

Fort Campbell, KY
August 2006

DEC 01, 2006 01:38 PM

The following contains Wolf Creek spoilers. So if you actually want to see this steaming cinematic pile of dingo feces, don't click.

SPOILERS! (Click to view)
Wolf Creek was pretty "meh." I didn't particularly like it (though the girls were rather nice to look at), and I didn't particularly hate it. That is until the brunette girl goes back to the camp and starts looking around at everything like she has all the time in the world to do so. Not only is this a really goddamn stupid plot device to get back to the killin', but it's well beyond the realm of human nature.

I don't know about you, but if I just rescued my good friend from torture and rape at the hands of a creepy Crocodile Dundee-wannabe, and made our way to the relative free and clear, the last fucking thing on the planet I'm going to do is even entertain the idea of going back. I didn't think that the brunette girl was a full on cerebral-tumored, breach baby, inbred outback retard until that point. Personally, I'm going to pick a direction in the general direction of away from dude's fucking RV park of horrors and start walking. I'd to run into some form of civiliaztion sooner or later, whereupon I would vigorously partake of a Dr. Pepper and then call for every form of law enforcement available.

I mean, yeah it's a horror movie and all, but Jesus. Give the characters and the audience the assumption of moderate intelligence.



I've yet to see any of the Saw movies. I figure they'll make their way onto my Netflix queue eventually.

AndersWolleck

AndersWolleck

Astoria, NY
February 2003

DEC 01, 2006 01:41 PM

Tornateaux said:
The following contains Wolf Creek spoilers. So if you actually want to see this steaming cinematic pile of dingo feces, don't click.

SPOILERS! (Click to view)
Wolf Creek was pretty "meh." I didn't particularly like it (though the girls were rather nice to look at), and I didn't particularly hate it. That is until the brunette girl goes back to the camp and starts looking around at everything like she has all the time in the world to do so. Not only is this a really goddamn stupid plot device to get back to the killin', but it's well beyond the realm of human nature.

I don't know about you, but if I just rescued my good friend from torture and rape at the hands of a creepy Crocodile Dundee-wannabe, and made our way to the relative free and clear, the last fucking thing on the planet I'm going to do is even entertain the idea of going back. I didn't think that the brunette girl was a full on cerebral-tumored, breach baby, inbred outback retard until that point. Personally, I'm going to pick a direction in the general direction of away from dude's fucking RV park of horrors and start walking. I'd to run into some form of civiliaztion sooner or later, whereupon I would vigorously partake of a Dr. Pepper and then call for every form of law enforcement available.

I mean, yeah it's a horror movie and all, but Jesus. Give the characters and the audience the assumption of moderate intelligence.



I've yet to see any of the Saw movies. I figure they'll make their way onto my Netflix queue eventually.




like wolf creek is the first movie to ever have someone walk into danger after they are relatively free

Meli

Meli

Manchester, NH
October 2006

DEC 01, 2006 01:44 PM

I prefer some story with my gore. A movie with little plot that introduces as many characters as possible just to kill them as gruesomely as possible, does not appeal to me.

I enjoyed the first Saw. I thought it made you think which is rare in today's horror. I also enjoyed the lesson or "message". Two however was tres lame and I have yet to see three.

Tornateaux

Tornateaux

Fort Campbell, KY
August 2006

DEC 01, 2006 01:47 PM

AndersWolleck said:

Tornateaux said:
The following contains Wolf Creek spoilers. So if you actually want to see this steaming cinematic pile of dingo feces, don't click.

SPOILERS! (Click to view)
Wolf Creek was pretty "meh." I didn't particularly like it (though the girls were rather nice to look at), and I didn't particularly hate it. That is until the brunette girl goes back to the camp and starts looking around at everything like she has all the time in the world to do so. Not only is this a really goddamn stupid plot device to get back to the killin', but it's well beyond the realm of human nature.

I don't know about you, but if I just rescued my good friend from torture and rape at the hands of a creepy Crocodile Dundee-wannabe, and made our way to the relative free and clear, the last fucking thing on the planet I'm going to do is even entertain the idea of going back. I didn't think that the brunette girl was a full on cerebral-tumored, breach baby, inbred outback retard until that point. Personally, I'm going to pick a direction in the general direction of away from dude's fucking RV park of horrors and start walking. I'd to run into some form of civiliaztion sooner or later, whereupon I would vigorously partake of a Dr. Pepper and then call for every form of law enforcement available.

I mean, yeah it's a horror movie and all, but Jesus. Give the characters and the audience the assumption of moderate intelligence.



I've yet to see any of the Saw movies. I figure they'll make their way onto my Netflix queue eventually.




like wolf creek is the first movie to ever have someone walk into danger after they are relatively free



No, certainly not. But for as serious as the movie and all involved took themselves, it was preposterous. If you're going to do an Australian-tinged riff on the stupid American teen-to-mid-20's popcorn horror movie genre, don't be so pretentious about it.

StarBelliedBoy

StarBelliedBoy

Philadelphia, PA
December 2003

DEC 01, 2006 02:01 PM

I'm not too into Saw, the morality is a little but muddled and I don't really buy it as a plot device.


Didn't see Wolf Creek.

Hostel, was just gonzo cinema throughout. Just didn't do the trick for me. The first half of the movie was nothing but stupid characters acting like jagoffs and tits. I didn't give a shit about any of the characters, so I didn't really care if they got ripped apart. I don't know if that was intentional.

The Hills Have Eyes? I loved it. Didn't let me down a bit. It was everything I wanted it to be.

SonOfAPunk

SonOfAPunk

Maple Ridge, BC
January 2006

DEC 01, 2006 02:02 PM

I prefer my gore totally over the top. Like, say, strapping a lawnmower onto your chest and running into a room full of the undead. smile

But for serious movies, I don't know... I guess it all boils down to balance. Gore is good. Plot is good.

Sometimes I just need to see a bunch of people get hurt. Call me fucked up, but it's true. Sometimes I just have enough plot in my recent media/life that I just want a flashy gore-fest. It's a balance between gore/plot, flash/substance. Both serve completely different purposes, and satisfy different needs.

But a nice balance between the two is my preference. smile

Roethke

Roethke

SUICIDEGIRL

California, USA

DEC 01, 2006 02:06 PM

Meh, I don't like horror anyway, so I won't bemoan the demise of plot in the genre. Critiquing the 1.5 hour long money shot of blood and gore is like trying to critique a porn. Did people really care about the plot or motivation behind the brutality in Saw?

What does bother me is when this nonsense starts creeping into suspense movies.

AndersWolleck

AndersWolleck

Astoria, NY
February 2003

DEC 01, 2006 02:08 PM

Tornateaux said:

AndersWolleck said:

Tornateaux said:
The following contains Wolf Creek spoilers. So if you actually want to see this steaming cinematic pile of dingo feces, don't click.

SPOILERS! (Click to view)
Wolf Creek was pretty "meh." I didn't particularly like it (though the girls were rather nice to look at), and I didn't particularly hate it. That is until the brunette girl goes back to the camp and starts looking around at everything like she has all the time in the world to do so. Not only is this a really goddamn stupid plot device to get back to the killin', but it's well beyond the realm of human nature.

I don't know about you, but if I just rescued my good friend from torture and rape at the hands of a creepy Crocodile Dundee-wannabe, and made our way to the relative free and clear, the last fucking thing on the planet I'm going to do is even entertain the idea of going back. I didn't think that the brunette girl was a full on cerebral-tumored, breach baby, inbred outback retard until that point. Personally, I'm going to pick a direction in the general direction of away from dude's fucking RV park of horrors and start walking. I'd to run into some form of civiliaztion sooner or later, whereupon I would vigorously partake of a Dr. Pepper and then call for every form of law enforcement available.

I mean, yeah it's a horror movie and all, but Jesus. Give the characters and the audience the assumption of moderate intelligence.



I've yet to see any of the Saw movies. I figure they'll make their way onto my Netflix queue eventually.




like wolf creek is the first movie to ever have someone walk into danger after they are relatively free



No, certainly not. But for as serious as the movie and all involved took themselves, it was preposterous. If you're going to do an Australian-tinged riff on the stupid American teen-to-mid-20's popcorn horror movie genre, don't be so pretentious about it.





i didnt think it was pretentious

see here

Greg McLean SuicideGirls interview

Greg McLean ReallyScary.com interview

detroit

detroit

Ypsilanti, MI
OLD SKOOL

DEC 01, 2006 02:09 PM

Hostel was way over blow by the media and people who haven't really watched it. Its really not that bad or sadistic. The idea itself is sadistic but I think Roth really underplays what he could have done in the movie. Some other movies such as the remake of The Hills Have Eyes where some mutant redneck is raping and nursing off a a woman while holding a gun to her baby's head is way way worse and should be flagged a torture porn for obviously going way over the top when there was no need and it had nothing to due with the plot.

Happyboy

Happyboy

Berkeley, CA
December 2004

DEC 01, 2006 02:27 PM

Meli said:
I prefer some story with my gore. A movie with little plot that introduces as many characters as possible just to kill them as gruesomely as possible, does not appeal to me.

I enjoyed the first Saw. I thought it made you think which is rare in today's horror. I also enjoyed the lesson or "message". Two however was tres lame and I have yet to see three.



I agree, the first Saw was cool, the second was terrible. Saw III gets things back on track and while not as good as the first one, it comes close.

Happyboy

Happyboy

Berkeley, CA
December 2004

DEC 01, 2006 02:29 PM

GOB said:
Hostel was way over blow by the media and people who haven't really watched it. Its really not that bad or sadistic. The idea itself is sadistic but I think Roth really underplays what he could have done in the movie. Some other movies such as the remake of The Hills Have Eyes where some mutant redneck is raping and nursing off a a woman while holding a gun to her baby's head is way way worse and should be flagged a torture porn for obviously going way over the top when there was no need and it had nothing to due with the plot.



Yeah, Hostel was a big disappointment. All the hype had you thinking this would be some trauma-inducing shit but when I saw it I felt totally conned. Luckily, it was a netflix rental so there was no need for me to go and hang myself.

Julian_Delphinki

Julian_Delphinki

Albuquerque, NM
June 2005

DEC 01, 2006 04:13 PM

Heh heh . . . horror dicks . . . biggrin

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3

Next

PreviousNext

Enjoying Your Gas Rape?

Comments 275 Comments - Last Comment 5 days ago

McCain: Unstable Lunatic

Comments 253 Comments - Last Comment 2 days ago

Palin: A Perfect Train Wreck

Comments 200 Comments - Last Comment 58 minutes ago

McCain: Confused Old Man

Comments 99 Comments - Last Comment 6 days ago

Republican Scumbaggery

Comments 74 Comments - Last Comment 4 days ago

Palin: A Perfect Train Wreck

Last Comment 58 MIN by JennyLou

Palin: A Perfect Train Wreck

Last Comment 58 MIN

I can't stop playing with it! I love the globe! More ...

Paulson: Total Fuck Up

Last Comment 1 HR by ardicient

Paulson: Total Fuck Up

Last Comment 1 HR

I DO NOT like Bush, Paulson or any of their cronies but these are NOT Stupid people. I think most... More ...

Asshole Fuckface Roundup #67

Last Comment 14 HR

Sweet Odin, let somebody sane win in Nov. I don't care who. Just. Not. McCain. If it must be the man with... More ...

Another Palin Enters The Presidential Race

Last Comment 10/14/08

(video) Monty Python's John Cleese says Michael's not the funniest Palin anymore. More ...

SuicideGirls Interview: Bootsy Collins
SuicideGirls Interview: Marty Krofft
SuicideGirls Interview: David Carradine