This movie really could have been so much more. The idea would have been much better off with someone who actually wanted to make a decent movie, instead of a porno gorefest. The first half of the movie consists almost entirely of sex, talk of sex, drugs, and talk of drugs. Instead of, hey, maybe develop the characters a little so the audience might care about them and make their plights a little more tense, the filmmakers decided to have a lot of party scenes and annoying main characters acting like idiots until, uh oh, we didn't plan on being tortured, oops! The sad thing is, there are hints of something more intelligent beneath the surface, but the surface is piled so high with garbage that it's lost. For example, while at a sex club (wow, original!) one of the characters mentions something along the lines of "paying to do anything you want to a person," of course he means sexually, but we know the basic plot of the movie involves the same concept with death and torture instead of sex. One of the characters is supposed to seem like a nice guy, but still never really develops enough for us to care. The main character has absolutely no depth other than a childhood story and his shallow interaction with his friend. The last half or so of the movie actually starts to gain momentum, and the first half not been an entire waste of film, I could have walked away with more than a feeling that I'd just watched 15 minutes of an okay movie, and an hour and fifteen minutes of porn and senseless gore. Sadly enough, the idea of this movie was put into the wrong hands. A little less than halfway through, my friend turned to me and said, "Maybe I picked up the wrong movie..." to which I replied, "Yeah, I think you got Eurotrip by accident." I am baffled as to why they decided to write the first half like they did. I guess I was hoping for something deeper. Don't watch this expecting anything special, be ready for lots of nudity and lots of incredibly disturbing gore mixed randomly, the two not even seeming to fit like they would in a slasher flick.
1,650 Reviews
Physiological Scares
stiff515 October 2007
Recently I picked up Hostel at my local movie store and decided to give it a try. I finished watching it and had very mixed feelings. First off, this film is not nearly as gory and disgusting as advertised. It is although, very graphic, and NOT for the squeamish, I just expected more out of it. The pop-up scares aren't effective and the first half of the movie is all soft-core porn. So what makes this movie a decent horror movie? The physiological scares. That is what got to me. The overwhelming feeling of being tied and up and tortured to death. Having no escape. For that was very effective and stomach curdling. The sex and nudity was all not needed, but for people looking for that kind of stuff, it's all here. The acting was pretty good. No bad performances. Hostel is a kind of movie where you'll either love it or hate it. But overall, an OK horror film. Not my favorite, but not terrible.
A Nasty Horror Flick
anchorman36016 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I rented Hostel expectimg it to be very scary and gross. It wasn't so much scary but it was very sick like I thought it would be. It's about two American guys and an Iceland guy who check into a hotel hoping to stay their for a couple of nights. However they soon find out that they won't be checking out. The first half an hour of the movie or so is just them trying to have sex with several different women. However that seems to be for a reason. Some whores sleep with them and take them to get tortured.
From the 30 minute mark on it is all suspenseful and fast paced. You get to see feet get cut, drill no body, toes clipped, fingers cut off and eyes get burned out. So if you love torture you'll really enjoy this movie.
From the 30 minute mark on it is all suspenseful and fast paced. You get to see feet get cut, drill no body, toes clipped, fingers cut off and eyes get burned out. So if you love torture you'll really enjoy this movie.
Deeply unpleasant on one level; thrilling on another it works for what it sets out to do but is a very basic and cynical affair that will put many off
bob the moo18 November 2008
Hostel was one of those films described as "torture porn" and, with my low tolerance for gore, I decided to give it a miss at the cinemas and dismiss it if anyone brought it up. However as it came on TV a month or so ago I decided that maybe I was being unfair by not giving it a try. It did sit on my HDD for a month though as somehow I never was in the mood until I forced myself to watch it. It does what you expect it to do and there should be no surprise that it is very gory throughout. What surprised me was how gripped I was by it as I squirmed in my seat and had the emotional "flight" response while sitting there. In that sense the film works because for all but the most hardened viewer it will have you feeling ill and get your heart beating. However while it did achieve this, it did it by simply going direct for being as sadistic and graphic as it possibly could.
In a way there is a "build-up" to the main gory bits but this is less of a decision so much as a necessary evil of having any sort of story. The first thirty minute or so are essentially the guys getting honey-trapped into this Eastern-European world of heartless torture and then from there we have gore for varying reasons (and here the makers give us nudity to prevent the male target audience getting bored). You never really care about the characters or the story because the tension is not about "what is happening next" as it is about the act you are watching. It is a cynical horror movie in this way as it has a very simple atmosphere and a very simple target or gore. While you are watching it the sheer cruel horror of it might stop you thinking but ultimately it is a soulless affair that reminds me of the viral "2 girls 1 cup" video. You see both are the type of thing you want to watch but also don't want to see, both also are entirely about seeing horrible things from the remote safety of your home and of course both generally get a "hands over eyes, open-mouth but yet unable to look away" response from viewers. This is all Hostel is going for and this is why I have real reservations recommending it because as a "film" it is pretty poor.
Those that love gore will love it though because in this area it excels. The effects are horrifically realistic and are delivered in clear, cruel shots. The actors do a great job of convincing in their pain, horror and fear and this is part of the gore voyeur aspect of the film. As characters though they are poor and can do nothing with the script other than be young and geeky/sexy/beefy/stoned* (delete as appropriate). Hoffman's portrayal of power is the only exception because, while a bit whacked out, he perfectly captures the sheer indifference to live that real evil has. Roth's direction doesn't show much in the way of subtlety but he knows what his audience want and how to give it to them. The lack of anything beyond this in his delivery or script can be easily seen in the way that the film doesn't even try to do something with the fact that we are getting entertainment from watching people torture/kill others for their entertainment. Normally in this sort of thing there would at least be some reference to this conflict but here Roth is part of his audience and sees nothing wrong at all with what he is doing which is a problem for me, not that he needs to be "ashamed" but just that a film should not just be a load of filmed gore with no heart or reason to care.
Hostel is a gory horror movie that is entirely about being repulsed and thrilled by the graphic and sadistic acts portrayed with excellent special effects. Those looking for this will be pleased with it but the majority will be turned off. For some it will simply be too gory to watch and they will get no pleasure from witnessing hell on earth I totally understand where they are coming from. However the majority of viewers will not be those that struggle with gore but just object to the cynical way that it is put on the screen without any real attempt at using it as part of the film or story no, here the gore is the all and there is nothing else to watch it for. This factor alone makes me stronger in my decision to ignore this genre for what it is because being good at what you do doesn't mean that it is right for you to do it in the first place.
In a way there is a "build-up" to the main gory bits but this is less of a decision so much as a necessary evil of having any sort of story. The first thirty minute or so are essentially the guys getting honey-trapped into this Eastern-European world of heartless torture and then from there we have gore for varying reasons (and here the makers give us nudity to prevent the male target audience getting bored). You never really care about the characters or the story because the tension is not about "what is happening next" as it is about the act you are watching. It is a cynical horror movie in this way as it has a very simple atmosphere and a very simple target or gore. While you are watching it the sheer cruel horror of it might stop you thinking but ultimately it is a soulless affair that reminds me of the viral "2 girls 1 cup" video. You see both are the type of thing you want to watch but also don't want to see, both also are entirely about seeing horrible things from the remote safety of your home and of course both generally get a "hands over eyes, open-mouth but yet unable to look away" response from viewers. This is all Hostel is going for and this is why I have real reservations recommending it because as a "film" it is pretty poor.
Those that love gore will love it though because in this area it excels. The effects are horrifically realistic and are delivered in clear, cruel shots. The actors do a great job of convincing in their pain, horror and fear and this is part of the gore voyeur aspect of the film. As characters though they are poor and can do nothing with the script other than be young and geeky/sexy/beefy/stoned* (delete as appropriate). Hoffman's portrayal of power is the only exception because, while a bit whacked out, he perfectly captures the sheer indifference to live that real evil has. Roth's direction doesn't show much in the way of subtlety but he knows what his audience want and how to give it to them. The lack of anything beyond this in his delivery or script can be easily seen in the way that the film doesn't even try to do something with the fact that we are getting entertainment from watching people torture/kill others for their entertainment. Normally in this sort of thing there would at least be some reference to this conflict but here Roth is part of his audience and sees nothing wrong at all with what he is doing which is a problem for me, not that he needs to be "ashamed" but just that a film should not just be a load of filmed gore with no heart or reason to care.
Hostel is a gory horror movie that is entirely about being repulsed and thrilled by the graphic and sadistic acts portrayed with excellent special effects. Those looking for this will be pleased with it but the majority will be turned off. For some it will simply be too gory to watch and they will get no pleasure from witnessing hell on earth I totally understand where they are coming from. However the majority of viewers will not be those that struggle with gore but just object to the cynical way that it is put on the screen without any real attempt at using it as part of the film or story no, here the gore is the all and there is nothing else to watch it for. This factor alone makes me stronger in my decision to ignore this genre for what it is because being good at what you do doesn't mean that it is right for you to do it in the first place.
Horror movie set in Eastern Europe with great doses of guts and gore
ma-cortes16 March 2007
The film deals about two(Jay Hernandez and Derek Richardson) American backpackers tourists and a third(Gudjonsson) from Iceland travel across European touring.They are looking for sex,promiscuous girls,drugs,booze and amusement. They begin in Switzerland,Belgium and Amsterdam where are informed a hostel in Bratislava(Slovakia) that offers sexy and beautiful girls.When arrive there,they actually encounter hot and delicious girls.But early their dreams become in bloody nightmares.Firstly are threaten by violent children,after the friends are disappearing.Meanwhile Jay Hernandez realizes that the hostel contains a horrible secret.
This creepy film display mystery,suspense,restless horror,tension,shocks and great lots of blood and guts.The first part movie is an usual teen movie ,plenty of sex,disco,drugs,scatological jokes ,but later when they're going into hostel and the terror appears is when turns and makes more horrifying,more terrible,more thrilling and more gore.The movie contains tense sequences of hair-rising terror and loads of violence and gore,courtesy of make up specialists Greg Nicotero and Howard Berger(Land of the dead among others).The casting is principally formed by two promising actors, Jay Hernandez(World Trade Center,Carlitos'way:rise to power,Ladder 49,Torque)and Derek Richardson(Dumb and dumber).Appear uncredited the directors Takashi Mike(Ichi the killer,a film as violent as this one) and Eli Roth.Sinister and eerie atmosphere is well made by the cameraman Milas Chadima.The motion picture is professionally directed in the Czech Republic by Eli Roth ,nowadays become in terror movies expert,he directed ¨Cabin fever¨,¨Grindhouse¨and Hostel II also produced by Quentin Tarantino and Boaz Yarkin and again with Jay Hernandez along with a new cast by Bjou Phillips and Jordan Ladd.
This creepy film display mystery,suspense,restless horror,tension,shocks and great lots of blood and guts.The first part movie is an usual teen movie ,plenty of sex,disco,drugs,scatological jokes ,but later when they're going into hostel and the terror appears is when turns and makes more horrifying,more terrible,more thrilling and more gore.The movie contains tense sequences of hair-rising terror and loads of violence and gore,courtesy of make up specialists Greg Nicotero and Howard Berger(Land of the dead among others).The casting is principally formed by two promising actors, Jay Hernandez(World Trade Center,Carlitos'way:rise to power,Ladder 49,Torque)and Derek Richardson(Dumb and dumber).Appear uncredited the directors Takashi Mike(Ichi the killer,a film as violent as this one) and Eli Roth.Sinister and eerie atmosphere is well made by the cameraman Milas Chadima.The motion picture is professionally directed in the Czech Republic by Eli Roth ,nowadays become in terror movies expert,he directed ¨Cabin fever¨,¨Grindhouse¨and Hostel II also produced by Quentin Tarantino and Boaz Yarkin and again with Jay Hernandez along with a new cast by Bjou Phillips and Jordan Ladd.
Unrealistic and not scary.
requiem28726 January 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I didn't like Hostel. The premise is frightening. The idea of being drugged, kidnapped, tortured, and killed by people who are paying to do it, is a great concept for a film. It's just too bad that the movie couldn't decide what it wanted to be.
It starts off like "Eurotrip" or any number of cheesy teen sex comedies. Lots of fake boobs and characters acting idiotic, in a fake atmosphere. Scenes in dance clubs that don't look realistic. You know, the types of places where people are dancing to loud music, but somehow can talk to each other in a normal tone of voice and everything is brightly lit so you can see all the movie extras pretending to dance in the background. Just like all the clubs, I've ever been to, right? Anyway, this goes on and on until the bloodshed starts, giving us absolutely no reason to feel anything for the main characters.
Then it turns into the horror film it should be. The scenes of torture are effective and psychologically scary if you imagine yourself in the situation, but in the context of the rest of this movie it just becomes ineffective.
Then the end of the movie turns into an unrealistic revenge fantasy that's played out, for the most part, for laughs. Kids payed in bubble gum help the good guy get away by smashing the bad guys heads in with rocks as they chew away and blow bubbles. The two girls and guy who set them up are easily killed when they luckily appear in front of the getaway car. The man that killed his friends just happens to be on the train on the way home so he can kill him and somehow not get blood on himself, then continue on his way. So is the movie supposed to be realistic, scary, or funny? It's falls short of any of these things. Eli Roth needs to pick one and do it.
The music is terrible. Not in the fact that the music itself isn't good, but for the fact that, A: it doesn't fit the movie, and B: There's way to much of it. There's a scene where the Characters are merely walking across a courtyard, and the music sounds like it should be a fight scene in Harry Potter. Completely out of place and distracting, further telling you this is just a movie no need to feel anything for the characters or get scared.
You can do a good compare and contrast between this movie and "Wolf Creek" which came out a couple weeks ago. Everything that is wrong with "Hostel", was done right in "Wolf Creek". Both movies are about young travelers getting into horrifying situations, however in "Wolf Creek" the characters actually act like normal human beings therefore you feel disgusted when they get tortured and killed. It's genuinely frightening and realistic, and by all means not "fun" to watch. It makes you feel horrible inside. It's REALISTIC HORROR. To make a stupid analogy. If "Hostel" and "Wolf Creek" were movies about Viet Nam, "Wolf Creek" would be "Platoon", and "Hostel" would be "Rambo: First Blood Part Two". (Note how neither would be "Full Metal Jacket" cause it's to good to be used in this analogy).
I gave "Hostel" a 3 out of 10 for a frightening concept, and the puke was a nice touch. . . If you're about to get tortured and killed chances are you're gonna puke. . . Realism, Eli. More realism please.
It starts off like "Eurotrip" or any number of cheesy teen sex comedies. Lots of fake boobs and characters acting idiotic, in a fake atmosphere. Scenes in dance clubs that don't look realistic. You know, the types of places where people are dancing to loud music, but somehow can talk to each other in a normal tone of voice and everything is brightly lit so you can see all the movie extras pretending to dance in the background. Just like all the clubs, I've ever been to, right? Anyway, this goes on and on until the bloodshed starts, giving us absolutely no reason to feel anything for the main characters.
Then it turns into the horror film it should be. The scenes of torture are effective and psychologically scary if you imagine yourself in the situation, but in the context of the rest of this movie it just becomes ineffective.
Then the end of the movie turns into an unrealistic revenge fantasy that's played out, for the most part, for laughs. Kids payed in bubble gum help the good guy get away by smashing the bad guys heads in with rocks as they chew away and blow bubbles. The two girls and guy who set them up are easily killed when they luckily appear in front of the getaway car. The man that killed his friends just happens to be on the train on the way home so he can kill him and somehow not get blood on himself, then continue on his way. So is the movie supposed to be realistic, scary, or funny? It's falls short of any of these things. Eli Roth needs to pick one and do it.
The music is terrible. Not in the fact that the music itself isn't good, but for the fact that, A: it doesn't fit the movie, and B: There's way to much of it. There's a scene where the Characters are merely walking across a courtyard, and the music sounds like it should be a fight scene in Harry Potter. Completely out of place and distracting, further telling you this is just a movie no need to feel anything for the characters or get scared.
You can do a good compare and contrast between this movie and "Wolf Creek" which came out a couple weeks ago. Everything that is wrong with "Hostel", was done right in "Wolf Creek". Both movies are about young travelers getting into horrifying situations, however in "Wolf Creek" the characters actually act like normal human beings therefore you feel disgusted when they get tortured and killed. It's genuinely frightening and realistic, and by all means not "fun" to watch. It makes you feel horrible inside. It's REALISTIC HORROR. To make a stupid analogy. If "Hostel" and "Wolf Creek" were movies about Viet Nam, "Wolf Creek" would be "Platoon", and "Hostel" would be "Rambo: First Blood Part Two". (Note how neither would be "Full Metal Jacket" cause it's to good to be used in this analogy).
I gave "Hostel" a 3 out of 10 for a frightening concept, and the puke was a nice touch. . . If you're about to get tortured and killed chances are you're gonna puke. . . Realism, Eli. More realism please.
They Thought They Have Found the Lost Paradise of Sex
.But Actually They Found Hell on Earth
claudio_carvalho6 February 2007
Warning: Spoilers
The American pals Paxton (Jay Hernandez) and Josh (Derek Richardson) meets with the Islander Oli (Eythor Gudjonsson) in Paris and the three backpackers travel together to Switzerland, Belgium and Amsterdam having Barcelona as final destination, looking for sex, drugs and booze. While in Amsterdam, they meet Alex (Lubomir Bukovy), who shows pictures of gorgeous women in gang bang, and suggests the trio to visit the hostel in Bratislava, Slovakia, a place crowded of hot, promiscuous and sexy girls. When they arrive, they meet three delicious girls in the hostel and they believe they have found the lost paradise of sex on Earth. But sooner they find that they have been sold to a sadistic group of the Elite Hunting, and their dream becomes their worst nightmare.
"Hostel" is brutal and gore, and obviously not recommended to sensitive audiences. The scary and sadistic story may be unfair with people from the beautiful Amsterdam and Slovakia, uses clichés and plays with the stereotypical of Americans and Europeans, but it is good and original and disclosed in an adequate pace. I saw in the past some movies about snuff, pornography, human hunting, but this is the first time that I see a movie where foreigners are sold for sadistic persons, showing another face of the dark side of mankind. There are many posters in the rentals advising that this movie is sick, disturbing, gross etc., and I do not understand how viewers can be surprised with what they see. Would they expect a 2005 remake of the wonderful "The Sound of Music"? I have seen exactly what I expected: a violent and bloody horror movie. My vote is seven.
Title (Brazil): "O Albergue" ("The Hostel")
"Hostel" is brutal and gore, and obviously not recommended to sensitive audiences. The scary and sadistic story may be unfair with people from the beautiful Amsterdam and Slovakia, uses clichés and plays with the stereotypical of Americans and Europeans, but it is good and original and disclosed in an adequate pace. I saw in the past some movies about snuff, pornography, human hunting, but this is the first time that I see a movie where foreigners are sold for sadistic persons, showing another face of the dark side of mankind. There are many posters in the rentals advising that this movie is sick, disturbing, gross etc., and I do not understand how viewers can be surprised with what they see. Would they expect a 2005 remake of the wonderful "The Sound of Music"? I have seen exactly what I expected: a violent and bloody horror movie. My vote is seven.
Title (Brazil): "O Albergue" ("The Hostel")
Somewhat stylish, but very trite and predictable!
ralph_2ndedition6 March 2006
The plot, in short: Three backpackers, two Americans and one Icelander, does Europe by train with two major goals: To get high and nail as many women as possible... In Amsterdam they accidentally learn of a hostel in Bratislava, Slovakia where sex-mad women thirst for men in general, and American men i particular. They of course decide to go there and at first it seems the rumors were true. But they soon learn that the hostel is nothing more than a front for a bizarre club, where people can pay a huge fee to get to perform unspeakable acts...
My 2 cents: The director and writer Eli Roths biggest accomplishment before Hostel is Cabin Fever (2002) - weather or not that is something good is a matter of personal judgment. That he got two Evil Dead'ers (Scott Spiegel and FX-genius Gregory Nicotero) interested in his script is not at all surprising. But how he got Quentin Tarantino to executive produce (and thereby act as "posterboy" for his flick) is, to me, a total and utter mystery.
Hostel has potential, I'm not going to take that away from it. The thought that a place exists where rich people pay money to torture and kill other people is interesting. And a story about a kidnapped person who finds himself locked in that very place, waiting for his assassin, should make for a great film! The film is wonderfully lit, specifically in the torture chamber-scenes. And the set-dressing in those scenes are marvelous. It really feels like Roth found these places - and just shot them as the were. But the lighting, set-dressing and potentially-rich story, unfortunately, ends the positive things I have to say about Hostel.
It is frustrating to see a story that could have been so exciting and horrific get so utterly fumbled up! The movie is an hour and a half long, and takes a whopping 50 minutes to get to the place that is supposed to be the scene of terror and creepiness. The nearly hour-long "intro" is spent observing the backpackers while they party, get high and watch naked ladies in Amsterdams Red Light-district. When the story finally starts to focus on whatever is wrong with the Slovakian hostel it points everything out to such an extensive degree that it feels like Roth wants to put a stupid-hat on every member in the audience. I sat, in vain, and waited for him to take the lid off, go "ta-daa!" and show me something intelligent that I had missed. But it never happens and when the lid, towards the end, slowly slides off on its own accord it turns out that the ones you suspected were bad guys were in fact...bad guys. The ones you suspected were dead...were dead. And the entire movie ends the way you suspected it would all along.
Jay Hernandez (Paxton) and Derek Richardson (Josh) doesn't do to shabby in the two leads. But Roth has stayed true to Hollywood formula and chosen picturesque before personality, and the bigger part has unfortunately been given to Hernandez - instead of Richardson who I thought were more likable, and more interesting to watch.
Spanish director Koldo Serra made El tren de la bruja in 2003. A short-film about a man who agrees to partake in an experiment and suddenly finds himself strapped to a chair in a dark room. He hears metal objects being handled and someone pacing back and forth in the room. When the light is turned on it dawns on him that he will probably be tortured to death. Serras short-film is fifteen minutes long. It was filmed in two days and is scary as hell! Hostel is both longer and has, as it first seems, more story to build on. But it still wants to base the horror in exactly the same sort of scenes as Serras short - and fails miserably! Hostel is, probably, made specifically for an American teen-audience, where drugs and naked women represent half of the movies pull. Blood and bodyparts make up the other half. If you watch this and expect anything more sophisticated than some blood and naked breasts you'll be disappointed.
My 2 cents: The director and writer Eli Roths biggest accomplishment before Hostel is Cabin Fever (2002) - weather or not that is something good is a matter of personal judgment. That he got two Evil Dead'ers (Scott Spiegel and FX-genius Gregory Nicotero) interested in his script is not at all surprising. But how he got Quentin Tarantino to executive produce (and thereby act as "posterboy" for his flick) is, to me, a total and utter mystery.
Hostel has potential, I'm not going to take that away from it. The thought that a place exists where rich people pay money to torture and kill other people is interesting. And a story about a kidnapped person who finds himself locked in that very place, waiting for his assassin, should make for a great film! The film is wonderfully lit, specifically in the torture chamber-scenes. And the set-dressing in those scenes are marvelous. It really feels like Roth found these places - and just shot them as the were. But the lighting, set-dressing and potentially-rich story, unfortunately, ends the positive things I have to say about Hostel.
It is frustrating to see a story that could have been so exciting and horrific get so utterly fumbled up! The movie is an hour and a half long, and takes a whopping 50 minutes to get to the place that is supposed to be the scene of terror and creepiness. The nearly hour-long "intro" is spent observing the backpackers while they party, get high and watch naked ladies in Amsterdams Red Light-district. When the story finally starts to focus on whatever is wrong with the Slovakian hostel it points everything out to such an extensive degree that it feels like Roth wants to put a stupid-hat on every member in the audience. I sat, in vain, and waited for him to take the lid off, go "ta-daa!" and show me something intelligent that I had missed. But it never happens and when the lid, towards the end, slowly slides off on its own accord it turns out that the ones you suspected were bad guys were in fact...bad guys. The ones you suspected were dead...were dead. And the entire movie ends the way you suspected it would all along.
Jay Hernandez (Paxton) and Derek Richardson (Josh) doesn't do to shabby in the two leads. But Roth has stayed true to Hollywood formula and chosen picturesque before personality, and the bigger part has unfortunately been given to Hernandez - instead of Richardson who I thought were more likable, and more interesting to watch.
Spanish director Koldo Serra made El tren de la bruja in 2003. A short-film about a man who agrees to partake in an experiment and suddenly finds himself strapped to a chair in a dark room. He hears metal objects being handled and someone pacing back and forth in the room. When the light is turned on it dawns on him that he will probably be tortured to death. Serras short-film is fifteen minutes long. It was filmed in two days and is scary as hell! Hostel is both longer and has, as it first seems, more story to build on. But it still wants to base the horror in exactly the same sort of scenes as Serras short - and fails miserably! Hostel is, probably, made specifically for an American teen-audience, where drugs and naked women represent half of the movies pull. Blood and bodyparts make up the other half. If you watch this and expect anything more sophisticated than some blood and naked breasts you'll be disappointed.
Missing important points
kenn-johnson-16 November 2006
It would seem from the majority of the comments on this film that very few of the people making these comments have any real insight into film production or what some film makers are attempting to communicate to an audience. With that in mind, here are some things I discovered upon viewing this film: (1) The story is new and unique. Thank goodness for any film that is not a sequel, a remake, or a film based on some decades-old television program. (2) The director uses the Xenophobia most Americans have about Europe and the citizens of those countries to very good effect. He plays on those fears, throws fuel onto that fire, much like Tobe Hooper did with rural areas in the U.S. in "Texas Chainsaw Massacre". (3) I was impressed by the build-up of uneasiness leading up to the torture scenes, the prevading sense of something "off bubble". If the characters had not been tenth-degree horndog party animals intent only on having a good time, they might have been more suspicious of the strange events taking place around them, which - in my mind - justifies the scenes of debauchery to show how oblivious these guys were. (4) A great number of things often have to be done in a film to appease The Studio. I saw several scenes that appeared to be included seemingly at the behest of The Studio for "saleability", and were not necessarily included for story-telling. There is also a desire to "one-up" each other in the Studio System, which publicly decries sex and violence while unofficially tells Producers to "give us more, and make it even more shocking than (fill in the blank)". All-in-all, while this film is not for the squeamish, it does have some things to say that create discussion and dialogue about a number of things, from how we view foreign cultures to how we treat each other. Any film that can generate that kind of thought while providing innovation deserves applause.
Interesting take on the old "off the beaten track" horror film
boy_in_red23 August 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Eli Roth enjoys his homophobia- it was there in Cabin Fever too. You can have a character bleating on about being a human who doesn't eat dead things, but he's not afraid to throw out the odd "faggot" I swear it's like the return of 80s machismo, except no one really missed it. And it's a shame because it's a distraction. More than that, it makes his characters pretty difficult to feel for. I guess he makes up for it by implying Josh, one of the more likable of the 3 main protagonists, could well be gay himself. It adds a dimension to the homophobia that was lacking in Cabin Fever- though Roth really doesn't follow through beyond vague implication.
The film is effective in building tension and is for the most part engrossing. But it really is nothing new, and certainly not worthy of the hype. Yes it's gory, but the gore is for the most part cartoony in nature. Dismembered body parts aplenty, but these don't guarantee fear or tension and perhaps for this reason I honestly didn't find it too disturbing. Besides, lets face it, we've seen it all before in Saw.
But if you want to spend a couple of hours enjoying a slightly America-centric (bad eastern europeans will do anything for money, unlike wholesome vegetarian American backpackers who just want to get laid and see the world), take on the old theme of "in danger and off the beaten track" film it's a worthy choice.
The film is effective in building tension and is for the most part engrossing. But it really is nothing new, and certainly not worthy of the hype. Yes it's gory, but the gore is for the most part cartoony in nature. Dismembered body parts aplenty, but these don't guarantee fear or tension and perhaps for this reason I honestly didn't find it too disturbing. Besides, lets face it, we've seen it all before in Saw.
But if you want to spend a couple of hours enjoying a slightly America-centric (bad eastern europeans will do anything for money, unlike wholesome vegetarian American backpackers who just want to get laid and see the world), take on the old theme of "in danger and off the beaten track" film it's a worthy choice.
Serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever.
Charlotte_Kaye9 July 2006
Warning: Spoilers
It's not scary. It's not funny. It's not stylish. It's not suspenseful, exciting, thrilling or chilling in any way. It's not intelligent enough to even be viewed as some warped social commentary. It's not ambitious enough to do anything other than present gratuitous T&A and gore in the dullest manner imaginable. Hell, it's not even entertaining. What it really is is an exercise in being completely and utterly pointless aside from presenting violent scenarios and nude women in third world countries with unlikely silicone enhanced bodies. The "plot" involves a trio of students (two Americans and a foreigner) vacationing in Eastern Europe who eventually stumble upon a pay-to-slay type business that specializes in making your sickest dreams come true (i.e. customers paying a high price to get to slaughter a real live person). And I am using the world "eventually" because it takes around an hour for this movie to get to the real horror content. First we have to sit through an excruciating hour dedicated to the juvenile frat boy antics of characters who stay wasted on booze and drugs and pay hookers for sex. A whole hour of this crap.
Our "heroes" are stupid, irritating, immature, one-dimensional and thoroughly unlikable. By the time their lives are in danger, you could care less what happens to them. I know I didn't. I was actually rooting for the generic, anonymous bad guys to tell you the truth. To make matters worse, this film has a tacked on ending that tries to let the sole survivor enact his vengeance. These scenes are absolutely ludicrous and riddled with coincidence. Certain characters just happen to be at a certain place at the right time. Hey, there's three of them now crossing the street right in front of me just as I'm trying to escape the town! Well what do you know? How bout I run 'em all over! There's another one who happens to be on the same train as me as I'm leaving the country! Well I'll follow him into the bathroom... etc. etc. etc. The end.
This movie is absolute garbage from start to finish. It's nothing new or interesting. There is some gore, but it's pretty much what's expected and nothing too shocking for anyone who has already sat through films like Texas Chainsaw Massacre or Dawn of the Dead. Director Eli Roth may be 35 years old, but his brain functions at the level of someone 20 years his junior based on his juvenile screenplay and uninspired direction. Roth himself later claimed he made this film "to show Americans' ignorance of the world around them" and in the process only ended up showing his own ignorance when it comes to film- making. Absolutely the pits!
Our "heroes" are stupid, irritating, immature, one-dimensional and thoroughly unlikable. By the time their lives are in danger, you could care less what happens to them. I know I didn't. I was actually rooting for the generic, anonymous bad guys to tell you the truth. To make matters worse, this film has a tacked on ending that tries to let the sole survivor enact his vengeance. These scenes are absolutely ludicrous and riddled with coincidence. Certain characters just happen to be at a certain place at the right time. Hey, there's three of them now crossing the street right in front of me just as I'm trying to escape the town! Well what do you know? How bout I run 'em all over! There's another one who happens to be on the same train as me as I'm leaving the country! Well I'll follow him into the bathroom... etc. etc. etc. The end.
This movie is absolute garbage from start to finish. It's nothing new or interesting. There is some gore, but it's pretty much what's expected and nothing too shocking for anyone who has already sat through films like Texas Chainsaw Massacre or Dawn of the Dead. Director Eli Roth may be 35 years old, but his brain functions at the level of someone 20 years his junior based on his juvenile screenplay and uninspired direction. Roth himself later claimed he made this film "to show Americans' ignorance of the world around them" and in the process only ended up showing his own ignorance when it comes to film- making. Absolutely the pits!
Moral Choices and the Dark Side of Humanity
BigMez20 December 2005
I just got back from an L.A. screening of Hostel. I haven't seen an effective horror film like this in a long time. My stomach was still knotted up after we left the screening. The last time I felt like that was when I saw ALIENS for the first time about 19 years ago. Since then, no other horror film has ever made me feel like that. I certainly didn't expect it from this one. As much as I loved Cabin Fever, I'm not blind to the shortcomings of its script. As such,I was expecting more of the same from Hostel - dark humor, gore, and a sense of dread. I'm happy to see that director Eli Roth has taken a big step forward in becoming a better storyteller and filmmaker.
Admittedly my heart sank when the film began. The scenes introducing the main characters were blandly shot and edited. All I could think was, 'Oh no. Roth succumbed to some unseen studio pressure to make a normal-looking horror flick'. The style was typical of the what you'd see in crap like I know what you did last summer. But in very subtle ways, the blandness gets washed away and as our heroes enter the threshold of Hell, the style of the film changes as well. This, I learned during the Q&A afterwards with Roth, was intentional.
If you've read some of the other reviews posted here from people who saw it at the Toronto Film Festival, you get the general idea of the story. Contrary to what you might've heard, this is not a 90 minute film on torture. The torture scenes are brief and to the point. Roth doesn't wallow in pointless gore. And this is where I think it shows how he's improved as a filmmaker. He's more interested in scenes and ideas that move the story forward. Yes, there is plenty of gore, but it's relevant to the story and doesn't exist just for it's own sake.
One of the aspects of this film that made it so powerful was how Roth created a sense of helpless and inevitability. He provides the dark setup, throws in a sympathetic character, and begins twisting the screws and ratcheting up the suspense. This isn't a movie where you turn off your brain to enjoy it. On the contrary. The more you think about it, the more horrifying it becomes. You begin putting yourself into the character's situation and wondering what you'd do. When you realize that there is no hope for the character, no way to escape, no 'buddy' who's gonna turn up at the last minute to save the hero, and not a shred of humanity or compassion to the antagonists, real fear begins to set in.
Another great element in the script is how the 'survivor' makes moral choices that define their character. Instead of being merely reactive like the characters in Cabin Fever, the survivor makes several decisions which change the course of the story. It's a sign of well thought-out script and a filmmaker who cares about the fate of his characters.
For horror fans, this is an absolute must-see. It's so refreshing to see a horror movie that actually makes you feel uncomfortable and one in which you have no idea what's going to happen next. As for the gore, I was surprised by what they got away with. Although there were no credits at the end of the film, the cut I saw was rated R by the MPAA and according to Roth, he didn't cut anything out.
Admittedly my heart sank when the film began. The scenes introducing the main characters were blandly shot and edited. All I could think was, 'Oh no. Roth succumbed to some unseen studio pressure to make a normal-looking horror flick'. The style was typical of the what you'd see in crap like I know what you did last summer. But in very subtle ways, the blandness gets washed away and as our heroes enter the threshold of Hell, the style of the film changes as well. This, I learned during the Q&A afterwards with Roth, was intentional.
If you've read some of the other reviews posted here from people who saw it at the Toronto Film Festival, you get the general idea of the story. Contrary to what you might've heard, this is not a 90 minute film on torture. The torture scenes are brief and to the point. Roth doesn't wallow in pointless gore. And this is where I think it shows how he's improved as a filmmaker. He's more interested in scenes and ideas that move the story forward. Yes, there is plenty of gore, but it's relevant to the story and doesn't exist just for it's own sake.
One of the aspects of this film that made it so powerful was how Roth created a sense of helpless and inevitability. He provides the dark setup, throws in a sympathetic character, and begins twisting the screws and ratcheting up the suspense. This isn't a movie where you turn off your brain to enjoy it. On the contrary. The more you think about it, the more horrifying it becomes. You begin putting yourself into the character's situation and wondering what you'd do. When you realize that there is no hope for the character, no way to escape, no 'buddy' who's gonna turn up at the last minute to save the hero, and not a shred of humanity or compassion to the antagonists, real fear begins to set in.
Another great element in the script is how the 'survivor' makes moral choices that define their character. Instead of being merely reactive like the characters in Cabin Fever, the survivor makes several decisions which change the course of the story. It's a sign of well thought-out script and a filmmaker who cares about the fate of his characters.
For horror fans, this is an absolute must-see. It's so refreshing to see a horror movie that actually makes you feel uncomfortable and one in which you have no idea what's going to happen next. As for the gore, I was surprised by what they got away with. Although there were no credits at the end of the film, the cut I saw was rated R by the MPAA and according to Roth, he didn't cut anything out.
At least there was a coherent plot
b-bird3323 May 2007
Not to give too much away in case you haven't seen the film, I did feel a little sick at one point. However, there was a beginning, a middle and an ending and, there is a small chance that this could really happen to you. Based on actual happenings during the World Wars, (where does anybody get their ideas from), I thought that this was quite a good horror film.
At one point, I had to laugh, (my youngest son has been accepted by two universities to study Medicine - he wants to become a Surgeon), and so I found this film quite entertaining. Quite frankly, I wouldn't mind watching this film again at a later date.
At one point, I had to laugh, (my youngest son has been accepted by two universities to study Medicine - he wants to become a Surgeon), and so I found this film quite entertaining. Quite frankly, I wouldn't mind watching this film again at a later date.
Horrendous, with emphasis on the 'horror'
betterthanliz6 January 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I'm not sure if this is a spoiler, so I figured I should do that to be safe.
First of all, I didn't see this movie voluntarily. That being said, it was even stupider than I expected. Probably the worst thing I have ever seen or could even contemplate seeing. The characters were lame(I couldn't bring myself to feel any sympathy for them), the story line sucked(mostly because the story was "see porn! meet creepy people! see more porn! watch people get their limbs hacked off by psychopaths for fun! escape! REVENGE REVENGE REVENGE!!"), the gore was over-the-top and completely sickening. I alternated between wanting to throw up and just wanting to cry, not because it was sad, or you felt extremely sorry for these poor people who were being mutilated to the tune of $25,000, but because I couldn't imagine any sane, semi-rational human being enjoying this movie.
I want my $7.50 back. And the hour and a half i spent with my hands over my ears waiting for it to be over.
First of all, I didn't see this movie voluntarily. That being said, it was even stupider than I expected. Probably the worst thing I have ever seen or could even contemplate seeing. The characters were lame(I couldn't bring myself to feel any sympathy for them), the story line sucked(mostly because the story was "see porn! meet creepy people! see more porn! watch people get their limbs hacked off by psychopaths for fun! escape! REVENGE REVENGE REVENGE!!"), the gore was over-the-top and completely sickening. I alternated between wanting to throw up and just wanting to cry, not because it was sad, or you felt extremely sorry for these poor people who were being mutilated to the tune of $25,000, but because I couldn't imagine any sane, semi-rational human being enjoying this movie.
I want my $7.50 back. And the hour and a half i spent with my hands over my ears waiting for it to be over.
Honey Trap...
azathothpwiggins5 May 2020
HOSTEL is best seen knowing nothing about it. Director Eli Roth has made a tricky movie here, with a lot of seemingly harmless buildup leading to a crescendo of visceral terror and anguish. The three western tourists are likable, young males out for a bit of fun. They are oblivious to the trap into which they've fallen. Hell has to literally open up around them before they take notice.
Part horror / cautionary tale, part sadistic blast of jet-black humor, and part social / political commentary, Roth builds the story slowly, revealing the truth in one big, shocking switch. The motivation behind the ordeal is what places this movie a step above typical, so-called "torture porn". It's ingenious really, in a sort of cynical, demonic way. Not for the squeamish or the easily offended...
Part horror / cautionary tale, part sadistic blast of jet-black humor, and part social / political commentary, Roth builds the story slowly, revealing the truth in one big, shocking switch. The motivation behind the ordeal is what places this movie a step above typical, so-called "torture porn". It's ingenious really, in a sort of cynical, demonic way. Not for the squeamish or the easily offended...
Upgrades Horror Movies...
Vic_max25 October 2007
This movie is a clear step above most horror movies. It helps raise the bar for all horror movies by simply having a nice mix of movie elements that work well together.
Basically, the movie is about three American college guys who venture out of Amsterdam and into a region of Slovakia looking for more extreme female interaction. Once they arrive, they begin to suspect that everything may not be as good as it seems when one by one they start disappearing.
Although this seems like a typical horror plot, the movie is well-done and believable. The European scenery, interesting characters, decent dialog and fast-moving pace of the movie completely separate it from the typical "waste of time" horror movies.
I also give the director high marks for not making this a gore-fest and overfocusing on nothing but blood and guts. The result is that he has created a real movie - and a good one.
This is a pretty decent horror flick. If you're in the mood for this kind of movie and don't want a mindless slasher-fest, this will do nicely.
Basically, the movie is about three American college guys who venture out of Amsterdam and into a region of Slovakia looking for more extreme female interaction. Once they arrive, they begin to suspect that everything may not be as good as it seems when one by one they start disappearing.
Although this seems like a typical horror plot, the movie is well-done and believable. The European scenery, interesting characters, decent dialog and fast-moving pace of the movie completely separate it from the typical "waste of time" horror movies.
I also give the director high marks for not making this a gore-fest and overfocusing on nothing but blood and guts. The result is that he has created a real movie - and a good one.
This is a pretty decent horror flick. If you're in the mood for this kind of movie and don't want a mindless slasher-fest, this will do nicely.
Hostel is hands down the worst movie of 2005!
mockdonkey16 April 2006
Warning: Spoilers
This movie is just plain awful. The violence, sex, and language is gratuitous. The characters are flat, the story banal, the acting stiff, the music contrived, and to top this all off, it's one of the most shallow movie I've ever seen.
Creative writing professor Jack Harrel, in his essay "What Violence in Literature Must Teach Us," defines violence as gratuitous when it is "free, unearned, or unjustified."According to Harrell, for violence to be warranted in a piece (whether or not it's in the horror genre), we must care for the characters, the violence must occur for a reason, and the violence must come at some cost.
Hostel meets none of these guidelines. First of all, the main characters are unworthy of any of our sympathy. Backpacking through Europe, the three, all male main characters' main interest throughout the film is getting laid and smoking pot. That's their entire motivation. Isn't the feeling of horror generated from the viewer worrying about a character getting hurt or killed? How is this suspenseful feeling supposed to happen when the characters are constantly saying crude things like "you're so gay" and "pu**y" and taking pictures on their phone of their sexual exploits in a bar bathroom stall, and screaming when a male character puts his hand on their leg? The only thing this does for me is offend.
Why does the violence occur? Apparently for a fee one can have the thrill of killing someone in whatever means they wish. Unfortunately this has absolutely nothing to do with the "story" (I use this term *very* loosely here). All of a sudden the main characters start disappearing from the "story" and start entering some kind of green lit "killing room" where they get tortured to death by some demonic person who has a short cameo earlier in the film. This is not a reason. When we find out later how this killing is sort of like an attraction for rich adrenalin junkies, the only thing one can possibly feel is apathy. Apathy for the story. All *this* just for *that*!!!
What cost does the violence come at in Hostel? None. The people who get killed are worthless to us and the people who are doing the killing are worthless to us. We care not when some of the people who are doing the killing get killed because we are not sure if they are the ones in charge. There is absolutely no moral bone to chew on here.
Lastly I'd like to talk about one thing in particular that really upset me about this film. Towards the end of Hostel a woman kills herself after looking at the reflection of her newly disfigured face. This is probably the most gratuitous and shallow point of the movie. It's also supposed to be its most dramatic point. First of all this character is only known to us as an Asain women who's friend also goes missing and doesn't want to party. That's it. When the main character rescues her from the hands of the killer due to her screaming, which reminds him of when he let a little boy drown a few years ago, we are surprised to find her in the "green killing room". Her eyeball is dangling out of her socket at this point. Our "hero" decides to finish the job and cut the "tenticles" that keep it attached. As to the importance of this I can not figure. But when she takes a look at her reflection and then throws herself in front of a train in very dramatic fashion I become upset. Think of how many people in the world are "disfigured." Apparently life is not worth living unless your beautiful. That is the only message this movie could possibly have.
How horrible.
Creative writing professor Jack Harrel, in his essay "What Violence in Literature Must Teach Us," defines violence as gratuitous when it is "free, unearned, or unjustified."According to Harrell, for violence to be warranted in a piece (whether or not it's in the horror genre), we must care for the characters, the violence must occur for a reason, and the violence must come at some cost.
Hostel meets none of these guidelines. First of all, the main characters are unworthy of any of our sympathy. Backpacking through Europe, the three, all male main characters' main interest throughout the film is getting laid and smoking pot. That's their entire motivation. Isn't the feeling of horror generated from the viewer worrying about a character getting hurt or killed? How is this suspenseful feeling supposed to happen when the characters are constantly saying crude things like "you're so gay" and "pu**y" and taking pictures on their phone of their sexual exploits in a bar bathroom stall, and screaming when a male character puts his hand on their leg? The only thing this does for me is offend.
Why does the violence occur? Apparently for a fee one can have the thrill of killing someone in whatever means they wish. Unfortunately this has absolutely nothing to do with the "story" (I use this term *very* loosely here). All of a sudden the main characters start disappearing from the "story" and start entering some kind of green lit "killing room" where they get tortured to death by some demonic person who has a short cameo earlier in the film. This is not a reason. When we find out later how this killing is sort of like an attraction for rich adrenalin junkies, the only thing one can possibly feel is apathy. Apathy for the story. All *this* just for *that*!!!
What cost does the violence come at in Hostel? None. The people who get killed are worthless to us and the people who are doing the killing are worthless to us. We care not when some of the people who are doing the killing get killed because we are not sure if they are the ones in charge. There is absolutely no moral bone to chew on here.
Lastly I'd like to talk about one thing in particular that really upset me about this film. Towards the end of Hostel a woman kills herself after looking at the reflection of her newly disfigured face. This is probably the most gratuitous and shallow point of the movie. It's also supposed to be its most dramatic point. First of all this character is only known to us as an Asain women who's friend also goes missing and doesn't want to party. That's it. When the main character rescues her from the hands of the killer due to her screaming, which reminds him of when he let a little boy drown a few years ago, we are surprised to find her in the "green killing room". Her eyeball is dangling out of her socket at this point. Our "hero" decides to finish the job and cut the "tenticles" that keep it attached. As to the importance of this I can not figure. But when she takes a look at her reflection and then throws herself in front of a train in very dramatic fashion I become upset. Think of how many people in the world are "disfigured." Apparently life is not worth living unless your beautiful. That is the only message this movie could possibly have.
How horrible.
Creepy as hell
roar-1821 August 2006
I just watched this movie, after sitting here alone in the dark for the past hour or so i can honestly say that i had to take my eyes of the screen a few times. Some of the scenes are directly painful to watch, you will feel it hurt in every part of your body.
but this is not like a meaningless horror movie, this movie has something else. Maybe it's in the dialogs and the story or maybe in the acting and the setting. I don't know really, maybe it's all of them.
The actors do a great job, the music score is really horror, the story is a little weak, but it keeps it going, and the director is really a genius. I just love the way he plays with camera angles. And the cast in the movie, really says it all. What do a butcher look like ?. See the movie and you will agree. "That is what a butcher looks like". This is also the truth in the other roles.
I loved the film, it is extremely horrifying but still very very entertaining. They brought horror to a new level with this one. And once again Quentin Tarrantino have involved himself in yet a genius flick.
I give it 7 out of 10. The story was a little weak.
but this is not like a meaningless horror movie, this movie has something else. Maybe it's in the dialogs and the story or maybe in the acting and the setting. I don't know really, maybe it's all of them.
The actors do a great job, the music score is really horror, the story is a little weak, but it keeps it going, and the director is really a genius. I just love the way he plays with camera angles. And the cast in the movie, really says it all. What do a butcher look like ?. See the movie and you will agree. "That is what a butcher looks like". This is also the truth in the other roles.
I loved the film, it is extremely horrifying but still very very entertaining. They brought horror to a new level with this one. And once again Quentin Tarrantino have involved himself in yet a genius flick.
I give it 7 out of 10. The story was a little weak.
Worst movie I've seen in a long time
hatriks13 April 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Well, it wasn't so much a 'horror' movie as it was a 'horrible' movie.
I expect that this director will go on to make great snuff films and little else. I guess if I was a 15yr old boy who enjoys endless mindless killing interspersed with plenty of tit shots, I might enjoy this POS.
No one else will enjoy this mess. Except maybe former Nazis.
These days all you need to get a movie deal is apparently the promise that you'll employ the producers wanna-be girlfriend and have at least 5 violent gory deaths. Plot, storyline, or talent not included (or necessary apparently)
The only good thing about this movie is that I didn't have to pay for my ticket to see it. :P And ladies if your boyfriend/husband takes you to see this movie, dump him. He's clearly got something wrong with him.
I expect that this director will go on to make great snuff films and little else. I guess if I was a 15yr old boy who enjoys endless mindless killing interspersed with plenty of tit shots, I might enjoy this POS.
No one else will enjoy this mess. Except maybe former Nazis.
These days all you need to get a movie deal is apparently the promise that you'll employ the producers wanna-be girlfriend and have at least 5 violent gory deaths. Plot, storyline, or talent not included (or necessary apparently)
The only good thing about this movie is that I didn't have to pay for my ticket to see it. :P And ladies if your boyfriend/husband takes you to see this movie, dump him. He's clearly got something wrong with him.
The horror of exploitation
jakerhamilton6 October 2022
Warning: Spoilers
This movie is heavy-handed in ways that will be immediately off-putting to some.
The main characters are young men almost entirely motivated by sex. In this pursuit, they objectify every women in their path, seeking out the most vulnerable, using them for their own needs (e.g. Getting over an ex, providing pleasure/entertainment for a night, etc.). In this pursuit (whether intentional from Roth or not) the first half of the film frequently objectifies the women on screen.
This motivation is then mirrored in the horrors of the dark Slavic town they've wandered into. The women (and staff) of the hostel sell tourists to be carved up by those willing to pay the price. These torturers have a range of motivations (a man who couldn't be a surgeon on account of his shaky hands, a man who no longer gets thrill out of sex, etc.) It's methods are even more disturbing than those of our sex-crazed protagonists, but the concept is the same: use people for your own needs.
Along the way is an exciting adventure. It conveys the fear of the unknown: a strange town with strange customs, people plotting in a language you can't understand, helplessness in the face of forces unseen. And as with many good horror films, the horror is retribution. It is payback for the naïveté of three young men, traveling to a foreign country just to get laid.
The nudity is as over the top as the gore. It exploits fear and lust the way its characters exploit themselves.
The main characters are young men almost entirely motivated by sex. In this pursuit, they objectify every women in their path, seeking out the most vulnerable, using them for their own needs (e.g. Getting over an ex, providing pleasure/entertainment for a night, etc.). In this pursuit (whether intentional from Roth or not) the first half of the film frequently objectifies the women on screen.
This motivation is then mirrored in the horrors of the dark Slavic town they've wandered into. The women (and staff) of the hostel sell tourists to be carved up by those willing to pay the price. These torturers have a range of motivations (a man who couldn't be a surgeon on account of his shaky hands, a man who no longer gets thrill out of sex, etc.) It's methods are even more disturbing than those of our sex-crazed protagonists, but the concept is the same: use people for your own needs.
Along the way is an exciting adventure. It conveys the fear of the unknown: a strange town with strange customs, people plotting in a language you can't understand, helplessness in the face of forces unseen. And as with many good horror films, the horror is retribution. It is payback for the naïveté of three young men, traveling to a foreign country just to get laid.
The nudity is as over the top as the gore. It exploits fear and lust the way its characters exploit themselves.
a grim refreshment among the lamely malignant, tired duds that have passed for the Horror genre so far this year
samseescinema18 December 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Hostel
reviewed by Sam Osborn
rating: 3 out of 4
I can't attest to honestly enjoying Hostel. In fact, I often had to resist the reflexive temptation to leave. The film is simply disgusting. I worried that my fellow audience members would be drenched in a fresh, steaming coat of my own vomit, to be absolutely truthful. Someone asked Writer/Director Eli Roth after the screening how he managed to convince the MPAA into an R-rating. Roth laughed at this, mentioning off-handedly that Rob Zombie was to thank. After Zombie returned an astonishing nine times to earn his R-rating for The Devil's Rejects, Roth believed the MPAA just didn't care enough to fight a new director. He even wrote Zombie a thank-you note.
The film surrounds three young men, Josh (Derek Richardson), Paxton (Jay Hernandez), and Oli (Eythor Gudjonsson), and their horrific backpacking trip through Europe. We meet them as they enter Amsterdam, eager to exploit the nation's liberal laws concerning marijuana. But when the night is through, the trio arrive back at their hostel past curfew, only to find themselves locked out. Luckily, Amsterdam native Alex (Lubomir Bukovy) comes to their rescue, offering them a spot at his pad for the night. Alex informs the boys that Slovakia is the untapped gem of Europe for backpackers; that beautiful women simply await strapping young Americans like themselves to steal them away. And, of course, our heroes buy the lie and the next day trek out towards Slovakia.
Once they arrive, they find there are already reservations in Oli's name at a luxury hostel. And when they walk into their room, the boys find Natalya and Svetlana (Barbara Nedeljakova and Jana Kaderabkova) casually nude, sveltely inviting them to the spa. By the end of the evening the group gets itself into bed together, but wakes up the next morning to find Oli missing. No matter, they think, it's just crazy Oli. But things get even stranger when Josh wakes up in a dungeon, only to be drilled through the kneecaps and sliced with a scalpel through his achilles tendons by a businessman-turned-surgeon (Jan Vlasak). What, you might ask, is this dungeon? Well, it's a lucrative business that allows insatiable, adrenaline-addicted citizens of the world's upper tier to pay $5-50,000 to chain an innocent human to a chair and torture them how he/she pleases. Roth read of such a business (explaining the "inspired by true events" curtail) on a website, later explaining the idea to Tarantino, who encouraged him to put the twisted idea to paper. Whether or not the web site speaks truth is immaterial, explains Roth. It's just the fact that somebody thought of it. Anyway, Josh meets his destiny quite quickly (in a nod to Psycho's elimination of the protagonist twist) and puts the aggressive, dodgy Paxton front and center. Paxton starts digging deeper and deeper, questioning the conniving girls as to Josh's whereabouts, and soon he finds himself in a similar situation.
Chophouse films like these, particularly those most prominent of the genre from the seventies, have always been hindered by technology. Make-up just hasn't been good enough to make the gore convincing. But Hostel clearly leaps this hurdle. The film is fun and over-the-top, but holds enough solemnity to tug the audience straight into its torture scenes. The film is so gory that when we watch as two fingers are vengefully dismembered with a scalpel in the final scene, the gore seems tamely benign. Roth fondly recalls the most squeamish of scenes as "the eyegasm scene." All I'll divulge is that the scene has to do with a blowtorch and only one half of a woman's face. I'm confident with my movie-watching habits to proudly brag at an adept tolerance, and even affection, of quality gore. I'm not one to turn away from blood and flailing limbs. But what Roth does to us in Hostel could cause even a mortician to cringe. In short, it's the goriest film I've ever seen.
Many wonder what the "Quentin Tarantino Presents" headline stapled to Hostel denotes. First of all, it doesn't mean Hostel is Tarantino's creation. As Roth explains, Tarantino is a large advocate of the budding filmmaker. He occasionally has "movie nights" in which a gaggle of blossoming directors are invited to Tarantino's pad to check out some films. There, Tarantino riles up the directors and gets them psyched for their upcoming projects. After seeing Roth's first feature, Cabin Fever, Tarantino invited Roth to one such shindig and offered to help out with Hostel. Roth pumped out a first draft script, Tarantino helped with the edits, and agreed to offer the "Quentin Tarantino Presents" headline. From there, Roth took the reigns during the shooting process, and Tarantino returned to help out with post-production and MPAA rating strategies. Technically, Tarantino played Producer of Hostel, but in more ways than one, he was the film's mentor.
As aforementioned, I can't admit to having enjoyed Hostel. I certainly wouldn't watch it again. But for those die-hard fans of the chophouse slasher genre, Hostel's the American masterpiece. Takashi Miike films have certainly lived up to Hostel's gory watermark, but Hostel is the first American film, to my knowledge, to grace such bloody explicitness. Roth even admits to have been deeply influenced by Miike's work, particularly Audition, and Miike actually makes a cameo as one of the business' clients. But despite my physical aversion to Roth's film, I'll admit that it's a grim refreshment among the lamely malignant, tired duds that have passed for the Horror genre so far this year.
reviewed by Sam Osborn
rating: 3 out of 4
I can't attest to honestly enjoying Hostel. In fact, I often had to resist the reflexive temptation to leave. The film is simply disgusting. I worried that my fellow audience members would be drenched in a fresh, steaming coat of my own vomit, to be absolutely truthful. Someone asked Writer/Director Eli Roth after the screening how he managed to convince the MPAA into an R-rating. Roth laughed at this, mentioning off-handedly that Rob Zombie was to thank. After Zombie returned an astonishing nine times to earn his R-rating for The Devil's Rejects, Roth believed the MPAA just didn't care enough to fight a new director. He even wrote Zombie a thank-you note.
The film surrounds three young men, Josh (Derek Richardson), Paxton (Jay Hernandez), and Oli (Eythor Gudjonsson), and their horrific backpacking trip through Europe. We meet them as they enter Amsterdam, eager to exploit the nation's liberal laws concerning marijuana. But when the night is through, the trio arrive back at their hostel past curfew, only to find themselves locked out. Luckily, Amsterdam native Alex (Lubomir Bukovy) comes to their rescue, offering them a spot at his pad for the night. Alex informs the boys that Slovakia is the untapped gem of Europe for backpackers; that beautiful women simply await strapping young Americans like themselves to steal them away. And, of course, our heroes buy the lie and the next day trek out towards Slovakia.
Once they arrive, they find there are already reservations in Oli's name at a luxury hostel. And when they walk into their room, the boys find Natalya and Svetlana (Barbara Nedeljakova and Jana Kaderabkova) casually nude, sveltely inviting them to the spa. By the end of the evening the group gets itself into bed together, but wakes up the next morning to find Oli missing. No matter, they think, it's just crazy Oli. But things get even stranger when Josh wakes up in a dungeon, only to be drilled through the kneecaps and sliced with a scalpel through his achilles tendons by a businessman-turned-surgeon (Jan Vlasak). What, you might ask, is this dungeon? Well, it's a lucrative business that allows insatiable, adrenaline-addicted citizens of the world's upper tier to pay $5-50,000 to chain an innocent human to a chair and torture them how he/she pleases. Roth read of such a business (explaining the "inspired by true events" curtail) on a website, later explaining the idea to Tarantino, who encouraged him to put the twisted idea to paper. Whether or not the web site speaks truth is immaterial, explains Roth. It's just the fact that somebody thought of it. Anyway, Josh meets his destiny quite quickly (in a nod to Psycho's elimination of the protagonist twist) and puts the aggressive, dodgy Paxton front and center. Paxton starts digging deeper and deeper, questioning the conniving girls as to Josh's whereabouts, and soon he finds himself in a similar situation.
Chophouse films like these, particularly those most prominent of the genre from the seventies, have always been hindered by technology. Make-up just hasn't been good enough to make the gore convincing. But Hostel clearly leaps this hurdle. The film is fun and over-the-top, but holds enough solemnity to tug the audience straight into its torture scenes. The film is so gory that when we watch as two fingers are vengefully dismembered with a scalpel in the final scene, the gore seems tamely benign. Roth fondly recalls the most squeamish of scenes as "the eyegasm scene." All I'll divulge is that the scene has to do with a blowtorch and only one half of a woman's face. I'm confident with my movie-watching habits to proudly brag at an adept tolerance, and even affection, of quality gore. I'm not one to turn away from blood and flailing limbs. But what Roth does to us in Hostel could cause even a mortician to cringe. In short, it's the goriest film I've ever seen.
Many wonder what the "Quentin Tarantino Presents" headline stapled to Hostel denotes. First of all, it doesn't mean Hostel is Tarantino's creation. As Roth explains, Tarantino is a large advocate of the budding filmmaker. He occasionally has "movie nights" in which a gaggle of blossoming directors are invited to Tarantino's pad to check out some films. There, Tarantino riles up the directors and gets them psyched for their upcoming projects. After seeing Roth's first feature, Cabin Fever, Tarantino invited Roth to one such shindig and offered to help out with Hostel. Roth pumped out a first draft script, Tarantino helped with the edits, and agreed to offer the "Quentin Tarantino Presents" headline. From there, Roth took the reigns during the shooting process, and Tarantino returned to help out with post-production and MPAA rating strategies. Technically, Tarantino played Producer of Hostel, but in more ways than one, he was the film's mentor.
As aforementioned, I can't admit to having enjoyed Hostel. I certainly wouldn't watch it again. But for those die-hard fans of the chophouse slasher genre, Hostel's the American masterpiece. Takashi Miike films have certainly lived up to Hostel's gory watermark, but Hostel is the first American film, to my knowledge, to grace such bloody explicitness. Roth even admits to have been deeply influenced by Miike's work, particularly Audition, and Miike actually makes a cameo as one of the business' clients. But despite my physical aversion to Roth's film, I'll admit that it's a grim refreshment among the lamely malignant, tired duds that have passed for the Horror genre so far this year.
Hostility for "Hostel"
Viperchris18 January 2006
Warning: Spoilers
This movie was not only laughable, but morally degrading and at some parts repulsive to watch. The only reason that I went to see this movie is because I respect Quentin Tarantino's work in other movies, and just because his name was on this one, I caved. Some of the scenes were so STUPID that I found myself laughing at the screen. One scene containing bloody floor and a chainsaw to a leg was purely comical. Another scene where a one-eyed Asian girl jumps in front of a train after viewing her deformed face had me crying. The large amounts of nudity were also not needed and only added to the lack of morality in this film. I would not see this movie ever again and I would encourage others to do the same.
watch with open mind...
olieclay19 January 2007
Just watched Hostel for the second time and thoroughly enjoyed it again though it meanders towards the end and doesn't deliver the catharsis that the degree of vengeance could. I think this is intentional though as we aren't supposed to identify with the characters in a good way, but recognise that their ignorance and chauvinism could be our own. The feeling achieved at the end is liberating in a different sense as in we are still free to heed the main message of the film, and tuck that money back in our wallet before we spend it on an immoral enterprise, such as sleeping with prostitutes who were forced into it, despite the carefree dogma of the age. Barbara Nedeljakova and Prague both look great as well. I liked the nod to the Wickerman, and the more sinister reference of the big ovens (the other thing i got was the feeling of getting more than you bargain for when you delve into a country's history and dig up some nasty stuff. This is particularly true when travelling.)
One final important point is that I think although many viewers will be able to identify to a degree with the blokes in this film, they aren't supposed to be entirely sympathetic characters.
One final important point is that I think although many viewers will be able to identify to a degree with the blokes in this film, they aren't supposed to be entirely sympathetic characters.
Quentin Tarantino/Eli Roth @ his most creepy
stevenm19558 February 2007
Hostel- Quentin Tarantino/Eli Roth @ his most creepy. Alfred Hitchcock stand aside for this one.
I have yet to see a more evil & creepy movie, nor am I a fan of such, however it is frighteningly realistic & quite possible-that a shadowy "business" baits young adventurous male college partiers into unspeakable peril as they're setup by hot enticing European women (the "front"), drugged, & wind up in a most hellish & unspeakable situation; tumbling into a predictable chain of events that feed on the most evil, cruel & inhumane desires of a "bizarre club", whereas grossly sick individuals pay great sums of money to have access & ability to cause horror, pain, terror, torture & live surgical dissection to fellow human beings. The plot opens slowly in Amsterdam with the presence & allure of drugs, parties & promises of hot sexual encounters. Although dragging on, it leaves the audience in a comfortable & predictable place- & thus lets the viewers guard down. A train ride across Europe ends in a Czechoslovakian town as the first sense of fear bridles the unexpected. The unspeakable of actions wields full reign with the most heinous of mans cruelty to man in a truly believable controlled situation- protected by the auspices of business, power, money, & a private paramilitary protected "factory". The unsuspected guest (or audience) falls into a malevolent & uncompromised fear & terror- succumbing to an utterly powerless & hopeless abyss. The realism & potential 'actuality' of a hellhole of such- in today's world is truly believable. I found myself "in the screen" being in the party & riding the train- enticed by these animated European actresses preying on the desires of these guys. It is uncanny how drawing these individuals were. MOST GUYS would have taken the gait, which is the scary creepy part. Look- guys are vulnerable in this world also! As the plot developed I found myself, perspiring, as my respiratory rate became shallow & absent as I found myself gasping at times. In Inferring an "Alfred Hitchcock stand aside for this one", I respectfully ONLY compare the level of anticipation, anxiety, tension, fear, terror & (the viewers) acquired (& actual) visceral somatic (ism) to Hitchcock. This is where it ends. Appreciatively Hitchcock would never take a viewer to this level of disgust.
I have yet to see a more evil & creepy movie, nor am I a fan of such, however it is frighteningly realistic & quite possible-that a shadowy "business" baits young adventurous male college partiers into unspeakable peril as they're setup by hot enticing European women (the "front"), drugged, & wind up in a most hellish & unspeakable situation; tumbling into a predictable chain of events that feed on the most evil, cruel & inhumane desires of a "bizarre club", whereas grossly sick individuals pay great sums of money to have access & ability to cause horror, pain, terror, torture & live surgical dissection to fellow human beings. The plot opens slowly in Amsterdam with the presence & allure of drugs, parties & promises of hot sexual encounters. Although dragging on, it leaves the audience in a comfortable & predictable place- & thus lets the viewers guard down. A train ride across Europe ends in a Czechoslovakian town as the first sense of fear bridles the unexpected. The unspeakable of actions wields full reign with the most heinous of mans cruelty to man in a truly believable controlled situation- protected by the auspices of business, power, money, & a private paramilitary protected "factory". The unsuspected guest (or audience) falls into a malevolent & uncompromised fear & terror- succumbing to an utterly powerless & hopeless abyss. The realism & potential 'actuality' of a hellhole of such- in today's world is truly believable. I found myself "in the screen" being in the party & riding the train- enticed by these animated European actresses preying on the desires of these guys. It is uncanny how drawing these individuals were. MOST GUYS would have taken the gait, which is the scary creepy part. Look- guys are vulnerable in this world also! As the plot developed I found myself, perspiring, as my respiratory rate became shallow & absent as I found myself gasping at times. In Inferring an "Alfred Hitchcock stand aside for this one", I respectfully ONLY compare the level of anticipation, anxiety, tension, fear, terror & (the viewers) acquired (& actual) visceral somatic (ism) to Hitchcock. This is where it ends. Appreciatively Hitchcock would never take a viewer to this level of disgust.
Good horror, non-existent story
The Bod20 December 2005
I like a rip-roaring horror movie as much as the next guy, but this one just didn't do it for me. It certainly felt like it hit all the necessary marks, from nudity and dismemberment to bloody revenge, but at the conclusion, it just felt like eating cotton candy - no real nutritional value, just a sense that I had satisfied some of my prurient appetite without any logical payoff.
The movie was slow in getting started and then the sprinted to a singularly boggling ending. I walked out of the theater asking, "What was the point of all that?" And while this is described as horror, it really should be classified as thriller. There was no explanation or clever twist at the end. Just the end. I'm sure that it will attract an enthusiastic audience of young adults, but the evisceration by the critics will stem any hopes of huge box office.
If your expectations are low enough, and your tastes in gore sufficiently robust, then you are in for a good time. Otherwise, skip this and see a classic Hitchcock film. You'll feel better about yourself.
The movie was slow in getting started and then the sprinted to a singularly boggling ending. I walked out of the theater asking, "What was the point of all that?" And while this is described as horror, it really should be classified as thriller. There was no explanation or clever twist at the end. Just the end. I'm sure that it will attract an enthusiastic audience of young adults, but the evisceration by the critics will stem any hopes of huge box office.
If your expectations are low enough, and your tastes in gore sufficiently robust, then you are in for a good time. Otherwise, skip this and see a classic Hitchcock film. You'll feel better about yourself.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
