elianimation.gifvslogosmaller.jpgschwartzbaum_l.jpg

Disgusting filmmaker Eli Roth sounds increasingly desperate. (Recall when he reacted badly to the failure of his Hostel II)? Here’s the latest from his MySpace:

“And did anyone read that absurd article by Lisa Schwartzbaum in Entertainment Weekly, about how she’d never watch a “Torture Porn” film? I think it’s time for her to hang up her critic’s pen. I mean, seriously, I hate to break it to you Lisa, but there is no such thing as “torture porn.” It’s a made up term, made up by people who don’t understand these movies, who are afraid to even watch them, and who feel some bizarre sense of moral obligation to warn the public about them, despite the fact they don’t watch them and never would. Lisa Schwartzbaum has let others define for her what the films are – she admits that she’s never seen any of the Saw films, and that she never would. Well, why wouldn’t you? Because someone else TOLD you that’s what they were? Are you that weak minded that you couldn’t even decide these things for yourself? What makes me sick is her smug, holier-than-thou attitude, as if to say “I wouldn’t watch these films because I don’t enjoy torture!” Well, no shit lady, nobody does, but maybe these films are actually making a statement about torture.

Would you not watch Three Kings because there’s torture in it? What about Marathon Man? And are you implying that the millions and millions of people who do watch these films actually endorse torture themselves? No, it seems to me you’re directly saying it. Well, I have a suggestion: GET ANOTHER JOB. I’m not saying you have to like every movie made, but you do have to see every movie made if you’re going to be a critic, and watch them with a critical eye. But you’re watching them with a prejudice, a prejudice that was decided for you not by the filmmakers, but by some jealous critic who probably wishes he had the balls to actually write and direct his own movie, but who never would because he’s too fucking chickenshit to put himself out there where anyone can take shots at him. It’s too bad, she doesn’t know what she’s missing. Which is why I’m thankful they have Owen Glieberman over there, who’s someone who clearly gets it.

Here’s what film critic Schwartzbaum posted back in July, explaining under the headline “What I Hate” why she refuses to cover Captivity and other ”torture-porn horror” flicks:

This week, my colleague Owen Gleiberman describes the majority of Captivity as being ”not sick enough to disturb anyone who’d go to see this film.” For the sake of readers who appreciate guidance in the nuances of the genre referred to as ”torture-porn horror,” I’m glad Owen took the assignment. I wouldn’t.

It’s quite simple: I hate these movies. I won’t see these movies. Never saw Saw or its sequels, never will. I’m not impressed with the ”quality” of the gore or the ”wit” of the filmmaking. I’m not enjoyably scared; I’m horrified, and not in the way horror fans get off on, groaning and screaming with pack-mentality excitement. Instead, my horror is one of disturbance and anger: Who makes this vile crap? What is remotely defensible about a movie like Captivity, in which a woman is abducted and tortured for the sake of ticket sales? Nothing, that’s what. While moviegoers can vote with withheld wallets, I vote with my computer keyboard. Or rather, the silence of the keys, as I stay away from stuff I have no stomach for seeing, even on the job.