MovieChat Forums > Martyrs (2008) Discussion > *beep* film. Litlle disturbing, yes ok, ...

*beep* film. Litlle disturbing, yes ok, but extremly boring and no horror.


I still can't understand how people talk about this piece of crap. It was so hard to keed watching until the end.
A little disturbing, yes it's. But try to watch Hostel or any other really good film.

reply

That last sentence destroys absolutely any credibility you may have had. Hostel is a steaming pile of *beep* next to Martyrs.

reply

Watch your Hostel and Saw, I'll stick with martyrs

reply

I agree about "Martyrs" being an overrated film. It was very tame, boring, and predictable in my opinion. I have seen countless movies more disturbing and better overall than this one, and even a mainstream movie like "Hostel" is more gruesome to me.

reply

Yeah, I didn't find it predictable at all. The reason for the killings was very original. So, if you didn't know that she was going to be skinned alive and left to dangle in a crucified state waiting to be transformed or liberated as they called it, then, I don't get how this can be predictable. As for it being tame or boring well you may have watched too many violent films to the point where it has numbed you into a severe level of psychosis.

reply

Funny how you bring up Hostel -- ignoring the obvious comparisons about quality, that's a film that takes a long time to set up with a bunch of frat guys traveling Europe and getting laid.

Whereas Martyrs starts with a family getting shotgunned and doesn't let up until the end.

reply

Hostel doesn't pretend to be deep, like Martyrs does. Hostel makes you feel comfortable, everything is fun and happy, then it turns everything upside down and your happy comfort is replaced with suspense, disgust, and horror.

Hostel plays with your emotions, and for that it achieves a certain level of greatness.

Martyrs doesn't begin with a family getting shotgunned, first of all. There's about 20 minutes of set up before that. Who didn't see that the monster girl Lucie was fighting was in her own head? That wasn't surprising or shocking. It isn't a terrible movie, there's just no reward, conclusion, or redemption for anyone involved, which sort of leaves you hanging when it's over. It's just dreary and sad. That's obviously fine and worthwhile, but for me it's simply less satisfying.

Both are interesting movies, but Hostel has more varied and intense emotions both for the characters and evoked by the audience, therefore it's more memorable and it's the type of movie I love to see someone watch for their first time.
_______

reply

Hostel doesn't pretend to be deep, like Martyrs does.

Martyrs doesn't really try to be "deep", but it does try to make the viewer think, something that can't be said for most horror films (especially nowadays). If they were trying to be deep, the movie had several chances to do so near the end when they were getting into the religious/afterlife stuff. But the movie wisely chose to leave everything open to interpretation. The movie never once forces any ideals on the viewer.

Hostel makes you feel comfortable, everything is fun and happy, then it turns everything upside down and your happy comfort is replaced with suspense, disgust, and horror.

This is just the same beaten to death horse that exploitation horror movies have been since the 70s. Nothing new or abnormally disturbing here, just the generic set-up to a gorefest (which is all the movie is intended to be). Which is fine, but it's certainly not something that gives the movie some kind of unique quality or merit. It's just a dime a dozen splatter flick, not a particularly good one at that.

reply

This is just the same beaten to death horse that exploitation horror movies have been since the 70s. Nothing new or abnormally disturbing here, just the generic set-up to a gorefest (which is all the movie is intended to be). Which is fine, but it's certainly not something that gives the movie some kind of unique quality or merit. It's just a dime a dozen splatter flick, not a particularly good one at that.



I see what you're saying that it's the same old, same old, but for whatever reason the story and acting really worked for me. Maybe because when I first saw Hostel I was a lot like the guys in the movie.

reply

Hostel could have been a "really good" film, if it had had a decent director. The premise was scary as hell, but it was ruined by Eli Roth's ham-fisted approach - shying away from the gore in the early scenes, then going hilariously over the top with it in the later ones. Presumably he thought he was "building tension" or something.

Combine that with his clumsy characterizations and the remarkable string of coincidences in the third act ("Oh look, all the bastards who got us into this mess are conveniently standing in the middle of the street, right in front of this car I'm driving!") and what could have been a horror classic was reduced to an unintentional comedy. Fun flick, but otherwise a complete waste of potential.

reply

Little do you know it was supposed to be horror comedy the whole time.

reply

Sure it was.

reply

Blah blah blah. "Eli Roth is the antichrist! He should never be behind the directors chair!" Get over it and go write/direct something better if you think you can. Cabin Fever, Hostel, and even Knock Knock are awesome experiences if you can remove your pretentious head from your pretentious anus for only an hour and a half.

reply