What's wrong with the term? It's easy to see how films like Saw deserve a title that implies dismissal (I've not seen Hostel, and from the sounds of it, I have no desire to), so it seems fair.[/quote]
Its a way of brushing a movie off, as if the only thing it has is gore and nothing else. They are dismissing the story and everything in the film beyond the violence. Often, these movies only have a few violent scenes that are there to punctuate the story and make it that much more visceral. It impacts the viewer because the violence is so brutal and not the "violence off screen" nonsense you get with a lot of Pg-13 movies. It makes you as the viewer, have to deal.
Also, the original Saw doesn't even have that much violence in it. Its just the few scenes that it does have are incredibly intense. People remember it being more brutal because of how it was presented. The sequels did go down a more mean spirited path but even those I wouldn't call torture porn.
To me the term is just a lazy way of describing a violent horror film. Besides, most folks that use the term would lose their minds if they ever tried to watch any entry in the Guinea pig series.
