more than just sex and torture

Rating: 8/10 (11 June 2006)

BEGIN TRANSMISSION.
i watched this film last night without reading any internet comments. i wanted to have an unbiased opinion on the whole thing. so onward...
now having watched the movie i came online to see what people were saying. the typical comment is something like, 'don't see this movie. it's just sex and torture.' or 'not scary at all. don't waste your time.' or 'this movie was way too violent, i couldn't even finish it.' i will address all three of these in reverse order:
'this movie was way too violent, i couldn't even finish it.'
well, sorry. this movie ain't for you. what did you think you were going to see? unless you were dragged there completely unawares, you had to know going in that this is a horror-gore movie. i mean, you don't go into a movie like Spongebob Squarepants and then leave the theater complaining there was too much underwater animation do you? fact is, horror-gore is a genre. when working within this genre, the idea is to make the bloodiest most disgusting thing ever. people who are fans of this genre watch these movies to see spectacular make-up effects, large amounts of blood and copious violence. if that's not what you want to see, go see a different movie. you can't call this movie horrible just cuz it was following guidelines of its particular genre. i mean, when i get roped in by my gf to go see some cheesy romantic comedy like Failure to Launch, for example, i'm not gonna enjoy it. but i don't hold the fact that it was full of sappy romantic comedy against it. it's just not my cup of tea.
'not scary at all. don't waste your time.'
now this kind of response i can understand. it comes from typical confusion about horror sub-genres. this film falls into the horror sub-genre known as GORE. this is as opposed to horror-suspense. in a horror-suspense film, the object of the genre is to scare you. hence, suspense. horror-suspense movies are critiqued by their genre fans based on how scary they were. these suspense movies can also be violent and bloody but it is not required. it is more important that they be scary.
likewise, in the horror-gore genre, the object is to be... take a guess? hence, gore. horror-gore films are critiqued by their genre fans based on how disgustingly bloody and disgusting they are. the bloodier and more disgusting the better. these films can also be suspenseful and scary, but it is not required.
so, i will assume that the comment i'm currently ranting on stems from the misconception that all horror films must be scary. this is simply not true. however, i understand where the misconception comes from and understand how one might walk into this movie expecting to be scared and then being disappointed when there were no real jolts.
'don't see this movie. it's just sex and torture.'
now here's where i call people stupid. OK, maybe stupid is a bit harsh. but if this is what you thought about the movie, then i am accusing you of not reading between the lines. you looked at the surface and passed judgment. shame on you.
the word 'just' in the comment implies that there is no sub-text at all. that this movie is sex and torture and that's it. No. i will agree that this movie is sex and torture. i don't think anyone can really deny that statement. however, it was sex and torture with a sub-textual purpose. what purpose? read on!
the first half of the movie sets up the characters as rowdy, post-college types. everything we see them do in the first half is in the quest for pussy. they see europe as a place where they can freely indulge in their sexual wants and fantasies. they even go as far as to repeatedly attempt to buy sex as a commodity. the one character, josh, who refuses to indulge in paying for sex gives the audience a moral reference. even as everyone else around seems to have no moral qualms about prostitution, josh doesn't like the idea of buying flesh.
now suddenly the tables are turned. these kids who were first looking to buy sex as a commodity, now become the commodity themselves. the duality here is nicely illustrated in the two hallway shots. the first being in the amsterdam brothel, the second being in the torture house. the shots are basically the same except one hallway has rows of rooms with sex taking place and the other has rooms with torture.
i found a line in a review that i really liked... here it is:
"Roth, by presenting his characters as victims of the same world of flesh-for-fantasy they were grooving on in the first place, digs deep into the nightmare of a society ruled by the profit of illicit desire." -- Owen Gleiberman, ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY
now, if that's not your cup of tea, that's your personal opinion. does it warrant a recommendation that nobody ever see this movie again? of course not. just because you don't like a movie doesn't make it a bad movie.
personally i don't like Gone With The Wind. i think it's long and boring with nothing in it that i wanna see. does that make it a bad movie? of course not. i recognize it as a masterpiece of cinema, despite my personal opinion that it was long and boring.
i liked this movie. It's not the best horror movie ever, but it was the best newish horror movie i've seen in recent years. was this even the goriest movie i've ever seen? no way. this movie is really disgusting, but it's not the most disgusting thing ever, as many seem to believe. for even more disgusting, see Cannibal Holocaust.
END TRANSMISSION.