Hostel II - going too far?

I read recently that Eli Roth has made a sequel to Hostel, which is probably about the most disturbing and sickening film I have ever made the mistake of watching.

The article in this months Film magazine writes it is going to begin with 45 minutes of sex, and then its into the torture. Once again in true Tarantino style, Roth is pushing the boundaries of acceptibilty by portraying sickening scenes of outrageous violence and sadism. Scenes are to include the graphic dismemberment of a male by a female, and the torture of 3 girls.

Look, I'm not against violence in films, so long as its done with some style. But there are just too many sick fucks out there who get off on this kind of shit. I like a good thriller such as Halloween, or a classic horror movie like Elm Street, but this film is marking a trend started by Tarantino in the 90's with the Reservoir Dog's torture scene and it's highly irresponsible.

Stanley Kubrick, himself credited for portraying the darker side of violence but in a more eloquent/artistic way with the brilliant Clockwork Orange, realised the repercussions his film was having and later pulled it from British release for fear of his own life, following a spate of copy cat murders and death threats.

Television puts ideas in people minds, it influences society in many ways.

There is no such thing as "too far." If something can be created by the human mind, then that same thing is not outside the realm of human thought, and nothing greater can be said about the human mind's ability to explore.

Don't you guys think that film directors who release this kind of stuff have a responsibility to bear?

I'm not an advocate of censorship, but by the same token I am not in favour of the media broadcasting so much of this snuff on a large scale. I'm saying people shouldn't make these films, not that they shouldn't be allowed to make them.

There is a lot of evidence that TV/films influence people. On the negative side we have Moore's Bowling for Columbine thesis which linked the inordinately high levels of gun crime in the US to the amout of fear/propaganda broadcast by the media. There are further examples of films which have inspired copy-cat murders/attacks, A Clockwork Orange, Child's PLay 3, Rambo, Nightmare on Elm Street, and more.

With both of these influences in an already violent society, I think directors who release these films are playing a dangerous game. These films have nothing to offer apart from sickening violence.

No offence, but consider yourself part of the small minority that is bothered by this. I agree that there are a lot of films that glorify violence for violence sake, but they have their cult status in cinema. Hostel was pretty tame in my opinion compared to many other films that hit harder and were way more effective before it. The artistic merit of the violence in Hostel was next to none, a few grisly images might make you wince, but not turn you into a psycho.

The fact is, violent people come first. Hostel is one of those films made for the audience that love their gore, an audience of which, contrary to what you may think, isn't entirely made up of sadists and sickos.

The media are always trying to find scapegoats to excuse murderers, rapists and real violent people, what ever happened to just being crazy? I would relax yourself and keep an open mind before getting hung up on something you personally find offensive. Just stay away from it is the best advice anyone could give you. It's not going anywhere and above all, it's not hurting anyone.

Cheers :jointsmile:!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Staurm

Don't you guys think that film directors who release this kind of stuff have a responsibility to bear?

---

Absolutely not...don't go see the movie and you're fine.

Actually, their responsibility is to push the envelope as far as it can go while still maintaining entertainment IMO, and they're doing pretty good at thier job.

The first Hostel only had a few scenes of bad gore, and the rest of the movie was slightly boring IMO, but I'll still see the second to see what they have up their sleeve this time...as will anyone else that saw the first...it will make a lot of money.

And yeah, it's not the sickos who like it...it's the high school/college kids watching the movie.

I'm not saying everyone who watches films likes Hostel are crazies harbouring sadistic and brutal desires. But the evidence is there to support the argument that these films occasionally inspire copycat killings, so obviously some are. Nonetheless, I find it kind of disturbing to think there are so many young guys watching this kind of thing and finding it harmlessly entertaining, if you can say that. It is a sad reflection on the state of society, and Tarantino and Roth and like should be ashamed of themselves for glorifying violence in this way. In the absence of anything to put me personally off the film Hostel, other than the fact its badly written, I find there to be nothing other than an unhealthy curiosity behind the darker side of the human psyche to interest a wider, less impressionable audience. There is of course nothing to be gained from denying it exists, but flooding the media market with these films at a time like this is not a very sensbile thing to do, and it worries me slightly.

I understand what your saying. Man, if anything I think these fucking war films are the problem. Shit like Black Hawk Down and all those other clones that try to do the whole slow motion, super-human American soldier thing as if it's all real life and documented. I won't go far as to call that shit propoganda, but I can't really see how it's anything else outside of it's general audience of gun hungry kiddies and flag waving marine corp. rejects.

Oooh, bit harsh maybe, but I felt like a rant while we're on it.

Rant away man, I've just tanned a bottle of red nearly and I'm screaming out for some hot banter.

Black Hawk Down and the likes definately cater for a niche market, as does Hostel, Saw (not yet seen haha) and just your general torture-tino gorefest these days as well.

I suppose my opinion on Hostel could be influenced by the fact I watched it in the company of someone who was actually suffering from some form of psychosis, I kno this because of his behaviour throughout the time I new and worked for him. Particularly when he attacked me several days later in the night while I was sleeping, brandishing a bottle in my face and threatening to cut me open if I didn't leave within two minutes. It was something I said earlier in the night, drunkenly and stupidly.

I currently live in a town with the highest rate of herion abuse in the country, and just this morning -I don't know maybe it was a break from the usual rape fest that is the front cover of my parents Daily Record - 7 pages of the ugliest most frightening fear propaganda on Scotlands growing knife culture. They had to print all 7 pages in black and white, but despite that they didn't hold back in making anyone who read it frightened to go outside past night shed.

It's not just a Quentin of bad influences though, its just generally how crap society is. You only hear the bad things in the news don't you. I just don't need to be reminded of every bloody possibility.

Yeah man, I know what your talking about. Blimey, i'm lean as a bean and that post had me by the throat :D .
It reminds me of a discussion/argument I had with my mate when we were travelling. I asked him if he thought it was fucked up that we love shooting images of people in computer games. His reply was no, 'cause we know it's just a game. I replied, well how about movies? They have practically real gore effects nowadays, why do we love watching people get shot and maimed? His reply again was "because we know it's not real".

I kept arguing for a while that it doesn't really answer my question and he kept telling me my question didn't make any sense. After that we didn't say a word to eachother on the plane to Canada. Anyway, it's a question that comes to me now and again. If i'm such a passive person, why do I love my gory movies and video games? It's a very strange but very human double standard.

Phew, caned. Cheers!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Staurm

Hostel, which is probably about the most disturbing and sickening film I have ever made the mistake of watching.

---

In my eyes, that means WATCH THIS MOVIE.

In my eyes it means I've just watched the movie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by B.Basher

It reminds me of a discussion/argument I had with my mate when we were travelling. I asked him if he thought it was fucked up that we love shooting images of people in computer games. His reply was no, 'cause we know it's just a game. I replied, well how about movies? They have practically real gore effects nowadays, why do we love watching people get shot and maimed? His reply again was "because we know it's not real".

---

Implying, I assume, that if we knew it WAS real then we wouldn't enjoy watching it. So does that mean that people don't have a morbid curiosity about the pain of death then?

I think whether we know its real or not doesn't play a factor in answering the question. If it looks real, we're watching a perfect image of a horrible death. Why should we get off on that and not a real snuff movie? Whether you have an inner bloodlust thanks to a bad upbringing or not, people love to see violence and gore.

Very true. Which is partly why I think these film maker have a responsibility these days. Oh, I suppose there have always been violence and sadism in films though, and society. Psycho, video nasties of the eighties, Marathon Man. I just get kind of affected a lot by scenes of women getting tortured. This is why I hate Tarantino and Roth as they obviously have a thing about it.

Roth maybe but Tarantino actually frequently uses very strong female characters. I'd say he has a thing for female empowerment as well as blood, feet and smoking. Think of Jackie Brown, The Bride and Zoe Belle in Death Proof. They are all strong, sassy women that run into chauvanistic types in their movies, and then waste the shit out of them.

Back to the original subject: I think violence aside, people arn't particularly fazed by these groundbreakingly gory movies. Hostel's target audience seems mainly made up of goremongers (the kind that tell you about a really gory scene in a movie with a mixture of outward disgust and excitement) and the cult fans that will see the movie because of the hype and then aknowledge it's nothing special, just a lot of gory silliness.
However much violence in movies and games influences society is a figure impossible to calculate. I would say an equally relevant and more positive way of looking at it is, where it's clear we as humans have our bloodlust, violent games and movies will satisfy it as opposed to exacerbate it. That's what I like to think anyway.

Roth also portrays females as the torturess, as well as the torture victim. Something which also makes my blood curdle. Just because they got tits doesn't neccessarily exempt them from the same destructive ego-centric character typically associated with patriarchal dominance.

I don't know about satisfying latent brutal instincts, I think it can also serve to exacerbate them. I know from my own experience at watching porn anyway, it makes me exacerbate like buggery!

"Roth also portrays females as the torturess, as well as the torture victim. Something which also makes my blood curdle. Just because they got tits doesn't neccessarily exempt them from the same destructive ego-centric character typically associated with patriarchal dominance."

Lol, I think your being sensationalist. How do you win in this argument? Women can't be tortured and they can't torture. Can they do anything? Should they be seen and not heard? I think women are 20 times more capable of destructive acts than men if provoked, they crazy man.

"I think women are 20 times more capable of destructive acts than men if provoked, they crazy man."

Oh Yeah sure LOL :dance: that figures, seeing as it is women who start all the wars and mostly take in part in them these days. Oh and all those female tyrants throughout history responsbile for genocide and the rape of the environment.

I can see where you pulled that one from.:rolleyes:

Their are many sick movies out their that make you think what kind of disturbed person thought of this... but its entertaining.. and if your stupid enough to get your killing spree ideas from the movies then obviously your not an original. .. plus hostel was an awesome movie, i don't know why everyone says its so disturbing theirs worse out their.. i can't wait to see the second movie :thumbsup::stoned:

Slightly off topic, but I came across a review for the film Natural Born Killers which seems pertinent to this debate.

Quote:

---

After viewing this film many, many times since I first saw it I came to the conclusion that this film basically put on screen my feelings as to why I disliked and still continue to dislike the 90's/Post-Millenium American Pseudo-Culture. At first I did not understand it (the metaphors and such) but having viewed it countless times over the past few years I have developed an understanding of this truly remarkable film.

Critics over the years have panned this film as a 'glorification of meaningless violence', when in fact the film itself is basically the 90's equivalent to Kubrick's 'Dr. Strangelove', where it turns the paranoia of a nation into satire and then deconstruct it in the best way possible. Everybody who is reading this review right now has probably seen the film anyway so I won't reiterate the plot, but what I will do is try and help explain the concept of the film since it's quite obvious that there are a few people out there who don't understand this film.

The 90's - A decade after the Reagan years and a time for the next generation to settle down and basque in the trails of excess that the previous decade left behind. What are we left with in Western Civilization? Media sensationalism and the counter-culture of people who watch car crashes.

Oliver Stone very much plays on the idea of 'serial-killer-turns-media-story-turns-pop-icon' which has been quite evident in the cases of people such as Charles Manson and Richard Ramirez. What Oliver Stone manages to do is portray the negative in the 90's, particularly American pseudo-culture in the 90's. You have Rodney King, O.J Simpson, Tonya Harding, Waco, The Menendez Brothers... and all these things are linked by a single medium, 90's television. The sensationalism of the media saturates most of Western Civilization today, and we live in a world where it's more important to see celebrities on the front of magazines or right-wing televangelists telling us that we need to give them money than it is to focus on the real issues that exist in this world. 'Natural Born Killers' relates to this. What 'Natural Born Killers' plays on is the question - 'why did we, the people, turn on to CNN and watch a white bronco cruising through the streets of Los Angeles one day in 1994?'. In turn, 'Natural Born Killers' plays on the culture-question - 'why do people stop to see car crashes?'. It also asks the question - 'Is that guy on television crazy because he's killed 90+ people or am I crazy for watching a white bronco cruise through the streets of Los Angeles?'. So there are 3 questions that 'Natural Born Killers' raises without a lot of people really understanding them. What the film does - instead of answering these questions - is let the viewer decide for himself or herself whether the serial killer on television is crazy for killing people or we are crazy for actually watching a serial killer talk on television.

So why do the critics despise this film? The critics despise this film because what they see on the film is themselves in Wayne Gale. Robert Downey Jnr accurately portrays the absolute false hysteria and false machismo of tabloid figures such as Geraldo Riviera and Oprah Windfrey et al, in his characterisation of Wayne Gale. He plays the archetypal media figurehead that lives in newsrooms, talking into mobile phones, smoking cigarettes, drinking coffee, watching television and living deceitful private lives. Another reason why the critics hate this film is because of the subversive message that it portrays in the script. The writers grew up in the 50's and 60's when the paranoia of Cold War was still in their faces everywhere they went. After the Cold War was over these same people started asking themselves, "well, who is the enemy now?". Some of them started realising that the enemy wasn't 10,000 miles away hiding in a mountain, the problem was not attached to a very large metal object that goes 'boom!', but rather the fact that the real enemy is in the corporations and media, the real power of a nation doesn't rely in the leader but the television. 'Natural Born Killers' subversively explains this, that THEY are the problem, and many members of the mainstream media didn't like because they were what the film was about.

Why do the general public despise this film? Because the same people who hate this film are the same people who the film-makers were laughing at when they made it. When the character of Mickey is on the television giving his interview, and the film cuts to a simple black and white image from a stock house of a typical American family sitting around the television, the same people who hate this film are the typical American family sitting around watching the interview, glued to the television like mindless zombies.

---

Love that movie also... just watched it two days ago.. :thumbsup:

I loved hostel myself, I thought it was an eerie concept. I'm usually not a fan of gore movies, I am really big on suspense. But even tho the deaths look highly realistic and there are some VERY disturbing scenes, I thought it was a good movie simply because it scared the bejeezus out of me.

The fact that it's fake *does* provide a safety net of sorts for me, as I realize that it's just a story. Would I watch it if it were real? Absolutely not. I didn't watch the beheadings of the soldiers when they were all around the internet, because I thought it was just sick.

"Oh Yeah sure LOL that figures, seeing as it is women who start all the wars and mostly take in part in them these days. Oh and all those female tyrants throughout history responsbile for genocide and the rape of the environment."

I thought we were talking about domestic violence here? But your right, women are highly vulnerable and need to be huggled and buggled and kept away from icky things that might make them feel scared.

Back on the subject: the way I see it (and I believe a guy responsible for butchering a bunch of innocent people in the UK a decade ago also quoted), murderers don't come from those films, those films come from murderers. Any attempt to link hostile acts to violent entertainment always comes out unsuccesful, why? Because people were sadistic before they invented the sadistic film. Speaking of which, kindly give us a few links to your sources of information because so far i'm unconvinced it's any kind of problem but your own thinking too hard about one film.

hey dude, if you want a movie to really bitch about, get "August Underground Mordum" off a torrent site.. people on my movie forums seem to think that the people that were killed and tortured, were actually killed and tortured and i'm likely to believe... there are some things that you just can't fake, and well..


i ain't even watched the damn thing, i wanted to see how 'sick' it was so i downloaded it and skimmed through it..


hostel is a kids story to this shit...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by B.Basher

Back on the subject: the way I see it (and I believe a guy responsible for butchering a bunch of innocent people in the UK a decade ago also quoted), murderers don't come from those films, those films come from murderers. Any attempt to link hostile acts to violent entertainment always comes out unsuccesful, why? Because people were sadistic before they invented the sadistic film. Speaking of which, kindly give us a few links to your sources of information because so far i'm unconvinced it's any kind of problem but your own thinking too hard about one film.

---

You can hold a genre such as the Roth/Tarantino "sicko-pact" spree responsible for grinding violence into the minds of impressionable young people. They may not go and start killing people, but most certainly it will play a part in moulding some of them into becoming more aggressive and less compassionate human beings as a result.

TV influences people. IF it influences people to buy things they don't need, to beleive lies, to live their lives according to materialist values, to conduct their social interactions in many different ways, then why not also to kill people?

People start acting like characters they aspire to be from their favourite shows, I've witnessed myself do it unconciously. IF it is capable of homogenising and mediating society to an unhealthy playing field, is it also not capable of isolating people and turning them into sociopaths?

You have to look back further than the start of the film.

Individual circumstances are by far the most influencial factors in the creation of the psychopath of course, but the evidence is still there there that sometimes people do go nuts and copy violence from films so you cannot say films are beyond reproach.

Sometimes people just do it out of sheer badness. When A Clockwork Orange was re-released in 1999/2000(?) following the death of Stanley Kubrick, in the town where I lived at the time, in the outskirts of London, where as it happens Kubrick also filmed 2001, a man my age was attacked and beaten by a gang of 14-18 year olds outside the cinema, on the night or around the weekend it was re-released. This is a regular occurence in that town, in fact when I lived there I was scared to go out the front door.

You can't hold a film wholly repsonsible for a copy cat killing though, but you can hold it responsbile for influencing the method of killing. That does not incriminate the creator of the film though, he is not directly attributed to the crime, he just thought it up, the copycat was free to choose a different method.

It's art reflecting society, but I am not ready to completely discount the possiblity of there being some sort of a cycle if destruction going on between the two, art depicting society and every other time just a little bit more influencing the behaviour of society back.

"...people were sadistic before they invented the sadistic film."

Not always. Whilst documented history contains countless examples of war and fighting, never at any time has violence been so globally pandemic to the extreme levels we are witnessing today. What concerns me is what effect this kind of media violence will have in years/decades to come. Besides societies current trend towards ever more destructive values, and violent behaviour, there is also this new medium influencing society in many other accountable ways.

A couple of examples.

A Clockwork Orange (film - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
(section British Withdrawal)

Sorry your only getting one link, I can't find a source for the Child's Play 3 copycat killing where two young boys stole a baby and placed it under the wheels of a train in around 1993 I think that was.

BBC News | Politics | No conclusive link between videos and violence

No wait, (too late (10 minutes)). Theres a link, doesn't exactly support my argument though, but its interesting that it comes from the same Home Office who tell us cannabis causes violent behaviour.

Good post man. Links or no links, I take the agnostic approach to the subject. While I definitely agree with your post about media influences (and that was a heavy ass post), I feel that trying to pin the blame of sick and corrupt minds on entertainment shared by millions across the globe is, as I mentioned before, nothing but a scapegoat. However, I do believe the possibility is there, you already put it into perfect words, but while a film might influence someones violent actions, that person is always violent to begin with. That is by no means fair reasoning to try and pin the blame on entertainment (not that you do, just a lot of retarded politicians throughout the years).
You mentioned yourself that gang attacks were a regular occurence in your area. That convinces me that the gang that attacked the old man on the re-release night of Clockwork most likely would have done it either way. They may or may not have gotten a little extra juice from the movie, but there's no real way of knowing in the end.
Also, about that Childs Play 3 killing, I am also certain that no character in that movie treated a baby like that. Yes, the movie features some bloody violence, and a baby, but thats like trying to pin terrorism on action movies because they have lots of guns and bombs in them. In the end, we humans love watching violence, there are sure as hell gonna be more than a few that like to go through with it too.

Thanks man, I tell you it took me several hours and lots of :stoned: breaks to churn that one out, so I am glad you appreciate it.

And less of the "old-man" will you, I said a man MY age, 35 ain't old! :D

I'm not sure about the Child'sPLay3 thing TBH I never saw it. But there was a big hoohah about it when this incident with the kidnapped baby happened, and Child's PLay seemed to take a lot of the flack, and it had to be removed from the shelves as a result.

Whatever is anyones opinion, I still wouldn't trust what the politicians say. You hear everything about how cannabis is linked to psychosis, and very little about the links with poor dietary habits. Whilst cannabis remains banned in this country, fast food producers are still free to promote all sorts of harmful shit to our kids, hydrogenated fats, energy drinks, etc.

Hehe, i'm definitely not saying I agree with politicians. Quite the opposite. I feel I have a built-in precognition that means I automatically discard the theories of any politician or religious figure.

Don't you just love how everytime a kids film comes out, it's plastered all over Burger King and McDonalds? It's like "Do you love Spiderman 3, then come to Burger King and get a free toy!!! (onlywithanextravaluemealcertaintermsandconditions applyconsumptionmayresultincoronarydiseaseandextre mepaininthelowerabdomen)"
If kids were a little more intelligent, they'd be like "What the fuck does Spiderman have to do with Burger King :wtf:" .

:thumbsup:

Yeah the capitalist do put out quite a web of deceit these days.

Thanks for the rep B.Basher. This has been a good debate.

Here's what a reviewer had to say in today's Daily Record:

"This time, it's the girl's turn, which somehow just isn't as easy on the palate."

"...the tension that came from the original's slow realisation of what was going on is absent. Roth increases the gore to fill the gap."

"There's one particular slash-and-scream scene here that is so sickening I'm surprised it got past the censors."

"That's the problem with Hostel: Part II. It's reprehensible on so many levels - not just the horrible violence but also its racist attititude to every East European character."

..

AND according to Roth in the scenes in Amsterdam in Hostel part I, Dutch people speak German!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Staurm

Here's what a reviewer had to say in today's Daily Record:

"This time, it's the girl's turn, which somehow just isn't as easy on the palate."

"...the tension that came from the original's slow realisation of what was going on is absent. Roth increases the gore to fill the gap."

"There's one particular slash-and-scream scene here that is so sickening I'm surprised it got past the censors."

"That's the problem with Hostel: Part II. It's reprehensible on so many levels - not just the horrible violence but also its racist attititude to every East European character."

..

AND according to Roth in the scenes in Amsterdam in Hostel part I, Dutch people speak German!

---

My surname is Roth.

It's a game. It's not real, and i dont think a game CAN go too far. Ever.

So if there was a "game" that vividly portrayed paedophilia, that wouldn't be going too far then? Dunno what you mean by game anyway, its a film, but if there was a game that protrayed that using state of the art graphics...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Staurm

So if there was a "game" that vividly portrayed paedophilia, that wouldn't be going too far then? Dunno what you mean by game anyway, its a film, but if there was a game that protrayed that using state of the art graphics...

---

I was talking in terms of violence.

And it's the same with games, movies and games. They're both getting more violent, but i dont think, in terms of violence you can go too far. You can only get so horrific, and if people want to go watch that kind of stuff than they should be allowed. I dont think movies OR games should be banned because of excessive violence. The vast majority of people who play those kinds of games and watch those types of movies KNOW it's all fake, and know it's not real life.

I dont think anything can be too violent for people to watch, IF they want to watch it.

Hostel II has a somewhat more sexual element, from a sadomasochist stand point, some people are into that.

hostel I was so much better than II

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LIP

The vast majority of people who play those kinds of games and watch those types of movies KNOW it's all fake, and know it's not real life.

---

But It IS real life though, it depicts what sometimes happens, or the level of depravity that society and the sickness of the human mind can and does reach. I don't like the fact that violence is so much a part of modern culture, and I'd rather people didn't put out shit like this. But, if people want to watch it I'm not stopping them.

I'm up for a bit of gore and horror, but Eli Roth is taking it too far.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Staurm

But It IS real life though, it depicts what sometimes happens, or the level of depravity that society and the sickness of the human mind can and does reach. I don't like the fact that violence is so much a part of modern culture, and I'd rather people didn't put out shit like this. But, if people want to watch it I'm not stopping them.

I'm up for a bit of gore and horror, but Eli Roth is taking it too far.

---

Well, i havnt seen either 1 or 2, so maybe im wrong and i'd agree if i saw it.

I did see an advert for it last night [i think, i might be imagining it]

The thing is, what do we class as TOO violent?

TBH I enjoyed Hostel I up until the torture. As a bit of light entertainment after a weeks hard slog it did the trick, two guys off on a trip round Europe ending up in a hostel in E Europe having sex with loads of hot girls.

It's more to do with the suggestion rather than the actual violence you see, although there is plenty of that. In the same way Tarantino uses this to great effect. It just creeps me out when I think about it, I suppose its meant to.

But you know I watched Evil Dead when I was about 9 I think, I used to love zombie and horror movies when I was that age. I think these are more just comedy gorefests, you know a bit nightmare fantasy than sicko torture fests. There is a big difference I think.

tarantino did it with loads of style and if you actually go back and watch resevoir dogs instead of making assumptions youll see the camera actually just moves away from the body, shows absolutely none of the torture, then comes back once the ear is gone. we spent about fifteen minutes talking about how well done that scene was and how it is so often misrepresented as really graphically violent when it fact no violence is shown...that goes for most tarantino violence scenes as well, so id say pay some attention before you slag the guy off. outside of kill bill, where the violence was so fake ridiculous and over the top, if you took it seriously you are just a wussy.

agree with you on hostel though. same with the saw movies after the first one. i dont get my jollies watching people get tortured or on violence for the sake of violence. comparing tarantino to roth is ludicrous. i realize he has his name attached to the movies. that is where it ends though, he doesnt make them