GRcade

I have completely forgotten everything about Primer at this point in time. It's about Guy Pearce with amnesia or some gooseberry fool, right?

Skarjo wrote:That also counts for H, who has categorically not understood the film.

Its impossible to understand without reading about it.

On 3 or 4 occassions stuff is just dropped into the plot as if its something we should know about, when in fact its never been mentioned before.

And its nothing to do with the time travel, thats fairly straight forward (although I think the premise might have a hole or two in it somewhere), the problem is that while doing the time travel, stuff gets mentioned that the characters clearly know about, but the viewer hasn't heard of before, which makes it hard to distinguish between stuff thats changed because of the time travel and stuff that just happened anyway.

HSH28 wrote:Primer - WTF/10

When you get to the end of a film and you aren't quite sure you have a handle on anything that happened or if it even made sense...its probably not a great film. I'm not saying I want everything explained, but when you make a film about time travel like this then you'd better have a clever way to wrap it up so that in the end whats happened makes some kind of logical sense.

It does make logical sense, you just need to watch it another 5 times to figure it all out.

Alternatively:

The fact that the film needs 9 timelines to explain everything when we only really see two (and not much of either of those), I think stands as not being logical.

Fine then Banjo; Eat this.

In defence of Hostel 1.

This is a movie that opens with a dick collection of American knobhead college students in Amsterdam. To get why the rest of this is important, remember that this movie is made two years after the invasion of Iraq. These loud-mouth American twats 'invade' a country they know little about other than being rich in weed and exploit the strawberry float out of it, starting fights in clubs, strawberry floating hookers, getting wasted, bottling the hostel they get locked out of for returning after curfew (so, you know, breaking internationally rules because they think they can because they're paid-up Americans) and basically representing everything that the rest of the world resents about America.

Then, everything kicks off, and the Americans realise that they fundamentally do not understand this part of the world. They understand neither the history, the culture nor the driving emotional forces of the locals and get completely destroyed by a powerful group more co-ordinated, organised and ruthlessly devoted to their cause than they could have possibly anticipated.

They are killed, mutilated and humiliated by a power they did not understand and, through a few pyrrhic victories, are eventually able to walk away with a modicum of self-respect, but nothing more. Meanwhile, the organisations they fell afoul of operate largely unimpeded, as their retaliation neither understood nor effectively engaged the true enemy.

The entire film is a detailed allegory of the war in Iraq. It's a more effective satire of America's painfully impotent efforts in the middle east than any Oscar-grabbing mastabatory soul-searcher.

HSH28 wrote:

Skarjo wrote:That also counts for H, who has categorically not understood the film.

Its impossible to understand without reading about it.

On 3 or 4 occassions stuff is just dropped into the plot as if its something we should know about, when in fact its never been mentioned before.

And its nothing to do with the time travel, thats fairly straight forward (although I think the premise might have a hole or two in it somewhere), the problem is that while doing the time travel, stuff gets mentioned that the characters clearly know about, but the viewer hasn't heard of before, which makes it hard to distinguish between stuff thats changed because of the time travel and stuff that just happened anyway.

They had literally no money when making the film. All money they did have was spent on film stock and they could only afford enough to do one take of shots, and they also trimmed the script so that only the key scenes were in there. This leads to the film being even mor like a puzzle, but all of the pieces are there, and the film is short enough that you can rewatch it and spot new things each time.

HSH28 wrote:The fact that the film needs 9 timelines to explain everything when we only really see two (and not much of either of those), I think stands as not being logical.

Then you don't understand the difference between 'logical' (which it is relentlessly) and complicated (which it is even more so).

satriales wrote:They had literally no money when making the film. All money they did have was spent on film stock and they could only afford enough to do one take of shots, and they also trimmed the script so that only the key scenes were in there. This leads to the film being even mor like a puzzle, but all of the pieces are there, and the film is short enough that you can rewatch it and spot new things each time.

I don't think that makes it a good film, just an unfinished one.

HSH28 wrote:

satriales wrote:They had literally no money when making the film. All money they did have was spent on film stock and they could only afford enough to do one take of shots, and they also trimmed the script so that only the key scenes were in there. This leads to the film being even mor like a puzzle, but all of the pieces are there, and the film is short enough that you can rewatch it and spot new things each time.

I don't think that makes it a good film, just an unfinished one.

Why?

Skarjo wrote:

HSH28 wrote:The fact that the film needs 9 timelines to explain everything when we only really see two (and not much of either of those), I think stands as not being logical.

Then you don't understand the difference between 'logical' (which it is relentlessly) and complicated (which it is even more so).

It isn't logical to make a film that requires 9 timelines to make logical and only show tiny parts of it.

Makes me think that it was supposed to be far simpler, but because of a lack of explanation/not thinking it through, it requires a ludicrously complicated timeline to make logical, what actually isn't.

Skarjo wrote:

HSH28 wrote:

satriales wrote:They had literally no money when making the film. All money they did have was spent on film stock and they could only afford enough to do one take of shots, and they also trimmed the script so that only the key scenes were in there. This leads to the film being even mor like a puzzle, but all of the pieces are there, and the film is short enough that you can rewatch it and spot new things each time.

I don't think that makes it a good film, just an unfinished one.

Why?

Because theres so much missing, its literally not finished.

Skarjo wrote:Fine then Banjo; Eat this.

In defence of Hostel 1.

This is a movie that opens with a dick collection of American knobhead college students in Amsterdam. To get why the rest of this is important, remember that this movie is made two years after the invasion of Iraq. These loud-mouth American twats 'invade' a country they know little about other than being rich in weed and exploit the strawberry float out of it, starting fights in clubs, strawberry floating hookers, getting wasted, bottling the hostel they get locked out of for returning after curfew (so, you know, breaking internationally rules because they think they can because they're paid-up Americans) and basically representing everything that the rest of the world resents about America.

Then, everything kicks off, and the Americans realise that they fundamentally do not understand this part of the world. They understand neither the history, the culture nor the driving emotional forces of the locals and get completely destroyed by a powerful group more co-ordinated, organised and ruthlessly devoted to their cause than they could have possibly anticipated.

They are killed, mutilated and humiliated by a power they did not understand and, through a few pyrrhic victories, are eventually able to walk away with a modicum of self-respect, but nothing more. Meanwhile, the organisations they fell afoul of operate largely unimpeded, as their retaliation neither understood nor effectively engaged the true enemy.

The entire film is a detailed allegory of the war in Iraq. It's a more effective satire of America's painfully impotent efforts in the middle east than any Oscar-grabbing mastabatory soul-searcher.

That's hardly incisive, I thought most people came to that conclusion. Primarily, I was mocking you for potentially defending the sequel, which is hilarious in its bluntness while simultaneously making a fool of itself. Actually, the original is very similar, at least for the first hour, as I've never stayed interested long enough to finish watching it.

HSH28 wrote:

Skarjo wrote:

HSH28 wrote:The fact that the film needs 9 timelines to explain everything when we only really see two (and not much of either of those), I think stands as not being logical.

Then you don't understand the difference between 'logical' (which it is relentlessly) and complicated (which it is even more so).

It isn't logical to make a film that requires 9 timelines to make logical and only show tiny parts of it.

Makes me think that it was supposed to be far simpler, but because of a lack of explanation/not thinking it through, it requires a ludicrously complicated timeline to make logical, what actually isn't.

Do you know what the word 'logical' means?

It's a perfectly logical film. One thread of logic carries the film through it's entirety. That it need multiple watchings and timelines to discover the one logical playthrough simply makes the film complicated; not illogical nor ludicrous.

Banjo wrote:

Skarjo wrote:Fine then Banjo; Eat this.

In defence of Hostel 1.

This is a movie that opens with a dick collection of American knobhead college students in Amsterdam. To get why the rest of this is important, remember that this movie is made two years after the invasion of Iraq. These loud-mouth American twats 'invade' a country they know little about other than being rich in weed and exploit the strawberry float out of it, starting fights in clubs, strawberry floating hookers, getting wasted, bottling the hostel they get locked out of for returning after curfew (so, you know, breaking internationally rules because they think they can because they're paid-up Americans) and basically representing everything that the rest of the world resents about America.

Then, everything kicks off, and the Americans realise that they fundamentally do not understand this part of the world. They understand neither the history, the culture nor the driving emotional forces of the locals and get completely destroyed by a powerful group more co-ordinated, organised and ruthlessly devoted to their cause than they could have possibly anticipated.

They are killed, mutilated and humiliated by a power they did not understand and, through a few pyrrhic victories, are eventually able to walk away with a modicum of self-respect, but nothing more. Meanwhile, the organisations they fell afoul of operate largely unimpeded, as their retaliation neither understood nor effectively engaged the true enemy.

The entire film is a detailed allegory of the war in Iraq. It's a more effective satire of America's painfully impotent efforts in the middle east than any Oscar-grabbing mastabatory soul-searcher.

That's hardly incisive, I thought most people came to that conclusion. Primarily, I was mocking you for potentially defending the sequel, which is hilarious in its bluntness while simultaneously making a fool of itself. Actually, the original is very similar, at least for the first hour, as I've never stayed interested long enough to finish watching it.

I never claimed I was incisive. I believe I preluded the post with a picture of a sea turtle picking a fight with a small child.

The sequel ups the ante in a way perfectly keeping with the original. It takes the brave and risky move of exploring the torturers' motivations without lessening the impact of what they are doing. It does so by effectively exploring their motivations as a criticism of capitalism; that they are the necessary result of fundamentally separating extreme wealth from a connection to the society that generates it. The balance is achieved perfectly with the one who experiences, crushing, humbling acknowledgement of the horrors he has inflicted set against the guy who effectively lets his 'PR-friendly' image drop and reveals the true psychopath within.

The central characters inverse the standard gender roles; the virgin is the first to die. The sole survivor does so solely on the basis of her extensive wealth and how that feeds into the established capitalist criticism of the film. And she does not survive in tact.

Two awesome films.

HSH28 wrote:

Skarjo wrote:

HSH28 wrote:

satriales wrote:They had literally no money when making the film. All money they did have was spent on film stock and they could only afford enough to do one take of shots, and they also trimmed the script so that only the key scenes were in there. This leads to the film being even mor like a puzzle, but all of the pieces are there, and the film is short enough that you can rewatch it and spot new things each time.

I don't think that makes it a good film, just an unfinished one.

Why?

Because theres so much missing, its literally not finished.

What's missing? All of the clues to solve it are there in the film. They used everything they filmed because they planned well and knew exactly what film they were making.

I've got the script for A Topiary which was going to be Shane Carruth's next film but he hasn't got the funding to make it yet. It's just as mind-bending as primer and unlike anything a hollywood studio would make. If he can make Primer for less than $10k then i'd love to see what he can do with a couple of $Million.

HSH28 wrote:

Skarjo wrote:

HSH28 wrote:

satriales wrote:They had literally no money when making the film. All money they did have was spent on film stock and they could only afford enough to do one take of shots, and they also trimmed the script so that only the key scenes were in there. This leads to the film being even mor like a puzzle, but all of the pieces are there, and the film is short enough that you can rewatch it and spot new things each time.

I don't think that makes it a good film, just an unfinished one.

Why?

Because theres so much missing, its literally not finished.

Except it isn't, because it's all there.

Skarjo wrote:Do you know what the word 'logical' means?

It's a perfectly logical film. One thread of logic carries the film through it's entirety. That it need multiple watchings and timelines to discover the one logical playthrough simply makes the film complicated; not illogical nor ludicrous.

The fact theres a logical solution to the film that works, doesn't mean that solution is what was intended.

Adding timelines can explain away logical inconsistencies, but because theres so much of the film missing, a more obvious explanation for the complexity is that the way it was originally intended to be had logical inconsistencies.

Anyway, I think thats enough about Primer. It was an interesting idea, underdeveloped.

HSH28 wrote:

Skarjo wrote:Do you know what the word 'logical' means?

It's a perfectly logical film. One thread of logic carries the film through it's entirety. That it need multiple watchings and timelines to discover the one logical playthrough simply makes the film complicated; not illogical nor ludicrous.

The fact theres a logical solution to the film that works, doesn't mean that solution is what was intended.

Adding timelines can explain away logical inconsistencies, but because theres so much of the film missing, a more obvious explanation for the complexity is that the way it was originally intended to be had logical inconsistencies.

Anyway, I think thats enough about Primer. It was an interesting idea, underdeveloped.

No, it was an interesting idea, necessarily and complicatedly executed, that you didn't get.

But yes, let's move on from H not liking something because he didn't get it because this isn't GGC.

Skarjo, I believe you are far too smart to defend the Hostel films (particularly the second), and are playing a particularly involved game of devil's advocate. As I'm not one for relaying social commentary onto film (primarily because I consider myself far too ignorant to present any worthwhile content on the subject), I like to focus on film from a background that could be considered a hybrid of the purely formal with a touch of the aesthetic.

Hostel Part II drops the ball in its final act. One thing it admittedly does well is present the mental psychosis of the guy who was also a mental in Desperate Housewives. His societal upbringing means he has difficulty in committing an atrocity onto a theoretically innocent human being, but over time and after several key events, his inner psychopathy is revealed and he subsequently has no trouble getting his twisted murder on. This is the point where the film makes up for past errors, should it continue down this path and fully explore what it has potentially set up.

Actually, I'd be close to arguing that these scenes make up for the overlong, tedious opening. There is no dread or suspense in the opening hour as everyone knows exactly what's going to happen, it's just occupying time, filling the screen with character beats that no one in their right mind gives a good goddamn about. But when it gets to the torture, things get mixed up. Not immediately, you still get that tiresome scene with the mini-sickle that overstays its welcome, but the two suits (hey, the other one was in Desperate Housewives too), they provide an element of intrigue. The ball is briefly dropped with the savaging by dogs scene, but it picks up with the inner psychopathy I mentioned above.

And then the last 15 minutes happen. All pretence of psychology and intrigue is dropped in favour of some mondo grot and a killer one-liner from Final Girl, and then on top of it you get lumped with an ending scene which does the remarkable job of removing all the wince-inducing gore that preceded it in favour of a decapitation that wouldn't be amiss from one of the poorer Family Guy cutaway gags. So you get a retread of the first film for the opening act, something bordering on interesting for the second act, and then you close with a strawberry floating catastrophe. Eli Roth, you are a special kind of special person.

Then I think we should simply agree to disagree.

The latter third of both films are an example of splatter not seen in most films since the 80s, but the motivation for the splatter, and the reason why the films sparked nothing short of a revolution in the horror genre (where most horror films these days are, retro throwbacks aside, either a derivative of the concurrent J-Horror or gore-porn sub-genre booms of the early 2000s) is because they hit a nerve not yet touched by mainstream horror. That nerve, as all good horror does, constitutes a common fear or concern perverted to a degree only recognisable if we lose control of ourselves; and that, my good Sir, is the basis of the best horror stories in the world.