it wasn’t all that bad, and the monster was original and cool, yea it wasent the best costume but what are you gona do it was a low budget film. 
and im pretty sure rawhead rex was a full book.
also im going to make a clive barker thread, any moderators can you move these posts to there.
Rawhead Rex is one of the short stories in The Books Of Blood.
<LINK_TEXT text=“http://www.amazon.com/Clive-Barkers-Boo … 0425165582”>Amazon.com</LINK_TEXT>
your right but you can buy the book separate.
[quote=“Jjp”]
also im going to make a clive barker thread, any moderators can you move these posts to there.
[/quote]
Thats probably a good idea…
Ive always wanted to see a film made out of the thief of always… or in my dreams ive always wanted to make one… that sound pretty bad though… i mean because usually film adaptations are pretty bad but working closely with the author it could work… also its not overtly sexual so it could be more accessible to wider audiences
Btw Barkers just about finished writing The Scarlet Gospels will rap up his hole mythology featureing pinhead and everything…
Isn’t there a Clive Barker thread for this? 
Anyways, what interests me most about Hostel is when you ask people if this could happen in real life. If you ask different people, you’ll get different answers, but if you ask me, I would probably say something like “yes, but I hope not”. And if asked where such a place could be I would probably say in some foreign country far, far away. Which is a bit racistic, but exactly Eli Roth’s point. I don’t think there is such an organisation in the world, but then again, if there was, I wouldn’t know about it. And that’s what I like about the film. There’s this mystery element and fear that such a thing exists “somewhere”. Hostel could have been such a better film, cause the idea is so good. Have yet to see part II though.
Thoughts?
Also, why is this film a horror film? It doesn’t seem to even want to scare us (and Roth knows that gore itself isn’t scary, it’s the thought of it that is). But apart from the extremely short torture scenes, the movie feels more like a thriller to me. There is just one ‘jumpy’ moment, which is in the torture museum. Other than that, it just doesn’t seem to even want to scare the audience. No stuff like creepy, dark halls or “hello is there anybody in there?”-shoutouts.
eli roth said that this organisation is ruled by the russian mafia. in the first film, the email address on the business card of the organisation is hunter@gang.ru, or smg like that which is a little bit cheesy (so is the russian gangster boss in the 2nd film, it almost looks like he is coming from a steven seagal movie…)
[quote=“Dantes Inferno”]
Isn’t there a Clive Barker thread for this?
Anyways, what interests me most about Hostel is when you ask people if this could happen in real life. If you ask different people, you’ll get different answers, but if you ask me, I would probably say something like “yes, but I hope not”. And if asked where such a place could be I would probably say in some foreign country far, far away. Which is a bit racistic, but exactly Eli Roth’s point. I don’t think there is such an organisation in the world, but then again, if there was, I wouldn’t know about it. And that’s what I like about the film. There’s this mystery element and fear that such a thing exists “somewhere”. Hostel could have been such a better film, cause the idea is so good. Have yet to see part II though.
Thoughts?
Also, why is this film a horror film? It doesn’t seem to even want to scare us (and Roth knows that gore itself isn’t scary, it’s the thought of it that is). But apart from the extremely short torture scenes, the movie feels more like a thriller to me. There is just one ‘jumpy’ moment, which is in the torture museum. Other than that, it just doesn’t seem to even want to scare the audience. No stuff like creepy, dark halls or “hello is there anybody in there?”-shoutouts.
[/quote]
Hostel was loosely based on true events, Eli was originally doing a documentary on it. I think it was in Thai land where it happened where poor families would sell members of the family to the mob, and then people (usually business men) would pay to go and kill them. So yes i would say this story could happen.
it was a web site, and nothing proves that it was true, even eli roth doubts it
yea he sure rides off the story alot on interviews and tv shows though, probably a gimmick.
yeah but definitly a good one! sometimes he goes “i started to investigate but…” and some other times he goes : “i wanted to investigate, but…”
yea ahahaha he was saying he wanted to investigate but it just got to deep into and we couldent do it. what ever that is supposed to mean.
I think he meant he thought he could get in trouble if he went deeper into it.
yea well usually when you investigate something that is modern and has something to with killing your going to get into trouble.
By that I figure if it was real and he kept delving into it, he would turn up dead. Seriously I think it just made for good marketing, whether a secret society was really charging rich folks to go into a room to shoot someone in the head or not. Look at THE LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT and THE TEXAS CHAIN SAW MASSACRE. One was a remake of a Swedish film based on a folktale (an Ingmar Bergman film, no less, RIP sir) and the other was based on Ed Gein but very much embellished. That’s how you sell an exploitation film, by sensationalizing the topic. It gets people into seats. And it doesn’t stop at exploitation films. When marketing companies, filmmakers and studios noticed how the scheme worked, they adopted it. Look at a film like FARGO. Based on a true story? Hardly. But it worked to get people’s attention. Whether the events depicted in these films happened or not, they are great films. And if they can squeeze their way into the public consciousness, so much the better.
I actually believe that the site may have existed, but I’m not sure if the thing itself is real. Either way, it’s an original way of using the “based on true events” thing, instead of just saying this it is based on something real, and not saying what. At least he kept to the same explaination in every interview. Would have been really funny if he’d say something different each time.
I find it funny that the organisation is so well-hidden. If there is an explaination for why it is in Part II, don’t tell me, I don’t want no spoilers. Or if there isn’t, don’t say there isn’t. Just don’t say anything. Maybe this is the wrong thread to say that.
Either way, Hostel is an interesting concept that could have been much better, but also alot worse. Wonder how QT might have done it. He has done torture before, and that worked great. Though I doubt he would have used any Stealer’s Wheel songs in Hostel.
yea, i think hostel was done very well i don’t think i would want it any way else, yea QT would make it so much better but then it wouldn’t be hostel.
Quentin did an uncredited rewrite on HOSTEL, so that’s as close as him doing it himself. Of course he didn’t try to step on Eli’s toes, either.
he did? where did you see that?
i know he was involved in the story meeting with Boaz Yakin and Scott Spiegel but i didn’t he actually sat down and rewrote stuff…
Video of Tarantino on Hostel:
ifilm.com domain name is for sale. Inquire now.
He doesn’t say anything about his artistic involvement, but I know he did a script cleanup or something (probably not too much though, I’m guessing he gave more advice so that Eli could learn by doing). He also came up with one of the torture things, but I don’t remember which one. There’s probably some interview out there somewhere.