2007’s 137th Torture/Porn "Treat"!

This actually looks good, even though it's like most torture porn films. I don't know why. It really looks interesting.

Response from Head RAZZberry: okay, moviewizguy...please name ANY movie that doesn't "look good" to you before it's released. It's fairly clear from your recent postings that you have at least some aspirations of becoming a film critic -- and the key word of that job job title implies you're going to be "critical" (in other words, discerning, balanced, at least a tad unimpressed until you have some reason to be). Looks to me like you think EVERY movie that comes along deserves to be considered a classic until proven otherwise. The wiser position, and the one our entire Forum (and our entire ORGANIZATION, for that matter) is dedicated to is the idea that you don't buy into the B.S. that Hollywood uses to promote its product before it's released, and that you call the film-makers on it when they've lied to you.

Have you EVER been utterly disappointed with ANY movie? Here's a challenge for you: Name FIVE FILMS you have seen in your lifetime that you think totally SUCKED (if you've seen even 150 movies, this shouldn't be that hard to do). I'd be Berry Curious 2-C Your List... 

 

And we're wondering...who put up the money for something like this, Ayman al-Zawarhi?  Since he and his boss would be probably the only 2 people on the planet who would consider it a must-see production, the FBI should start staking out theaters: Maybe they'll be stupid enough to come see it in person, and the FBI can jump them (of course, don't we wish it could be that easy!). 

Hollywood, movie fans shy away from "torture porn"

By Bob Tourtellotte Reuters - Friday, July 13 09:22 pm

Torture, it seems, doesn't pay at movie theater box offices like it used to.

In recent years, films dubbed "torture porn" have been the darlings of many a Hollywood producer looking to make a quick buck. The latest such release, "Captivity," opens in theaters on Friday.

But the popularity of movies like blood-and-guts thriller "Hostel: Part II" and zombie flick "28 Weeks Later," appears to have waned, prompting some to wonder if the trend is on its way out.

The answer is yes, depending on the type of movie and whether that genre includes the latest box office hit or miss.

"The horror genre has had more ups and downs over the years -- maybe only musicals have more," said Paul Dergarabedian of box office tracker Media By Numbers. "I think what happens is subgenres like (torture) become popular, then play out."

Dergarabedian noted the old Universal Pictures' monster movies such as "Frankenstein" were hugely popular in the 1930s, but eventually died off. In the 1950s, horror was represented by alien invasion flicks such as "The Thing from Another World," but these went the way of the graveyard, too.

This current wave of horror films seems to have begun in 2004, when Dergarabedian tracked 19 of the movies that raked in more than $1 billion at U.S. and Canadian box offices. The figure was roughly double the $525 million from 13 movies in 2003.

Hits in 2004 included "Freddy vs. Jason," at $82 million, and "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre," at $80 million, both from New Line Cinema. In 2005, Lionsgate Entertainment's "Saw" hauled in $55 million and spawned two sequels.

NO APPETITE FOR BLOOD

In each of 2005 and 2006, Media by Numbers tracked 26 horror movies with gross box office receipts of $841 million and $811 million, respectively. Midway through 2007, some 20 scary flicks have reached silver screens and more than 20 others are expected in coming months.

Youth-oriented, supernatural thrillers and fright flicks like "1408" ($56 million) and "Disturbia" ($79 million) are working. But adult-themed torture fantasies have mostly failed.

"Hostel: Part II" was expected to at least match the $47 million of 2006's "Hostel," but has only generated $17 million in the United States and Canada. "28 Weeks Later" hoped to reach the $45 million of 2005's "28 Days Later" but made only $28 million.

Those numbers do not bode well for "Captivity" and upcoming flicks such as "All the Boys Love Mandy Lane" and "Saw IV." Hollywood producers know it and blame the downturn on a glut of horror in theaters.

"It's overkill," said Courtney Solomon, president of After Dark Films, which is behind "Captivity," the story of a man and woman trapped and tormented in a basement. "I think audiences have said, 'I've had enough.' It's as simple as that."

Anticipating the end of the torture flick trend, After Dark has adjusted its development plans to steer away from a large number of torture movies, Solomon said.

 

I like Silent Hill, despite its flaws.  I talked about that over at the Silent Hill section of this forum, where you posted a reply earlier.  I added another reply with some information about the upcoming Silent Hill 2.

I knew Captivity would get mentioned for the Worst of 2007. I mentioned this topic in the Transformers post in the list of future films that would definitely get trashed. You know what, I'm never gonna see the Saw movies, because all I hear is that there's too much exposition, the camera editing is sh*tty, the twists are knee-jerking, and all the actors turn in overheated performances (including Cary Elwes who, according one review, should make room for a possible Razzie win).

You know, what happened to good horror movies. We want good-ol'-fashioned suspense, riveting characters, a great script, and all that stuff that reviewers talk about. That's why The Hills Have Eyes (the remake) and Snakes on a Plane were highly suspenseful films. They didn't rely on style over substance, or even sensationalistic acts of torture. Even the latter had some humor to it. That's why I'm not into these horror films that feature money shots of someone getting raped (The Hills Have Eyes II) or getting their nuts chopped up (previously said movie and Hostel: Part II). Of course, even the non-torture porn films suck (the PG-13 films or Silent Hill).

By the way, I want to mention the upcoming remake of Halloween. Now I hope that doesn't bomb, because Rob Zombie managed to make a good piece of entertainment called The Devil's Rejects. However, I heard that the film has a backstory to Michael Myers - his whole family consists of his stripper mom and his loser stepdad, and he hates them, but has love for his sister. So he kills them, and gets sent to a mental institution for a while, then breaks out to find his sister. I've heard that he got massive complaints about this, but who could detest? Remember the remakes of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Black Christmas. To quote critic Brian Orndorf of OhMyNews.com: "What happened to nutjobs for the sake of nutjobs?" Well, we'll see how it turns out.

And that's all I got to say. So, ciao.

I thought nothing could be more graphic and disgusting than the execrable "Hannibal Rising." Then I saw this. If this is Hollywood's idea of "entertainment," then everyone in "the biz" needs electo-shock therapy to bring them back to their senses. And since they enjoy depicting such sadism onscreen, maybe the electrodes should be attached not to their heads but (in imitation of their own product) to their genitalia... 

 

I wonder if Lindsay was offered this role?

Elisha Cuthbert - future Razzie nominee??? I think so!!!