Customer Reviews
Deeply Flawed Satire 
2008-05-31
"Does Eli Roth know pain?"
Well, after viewing "Hostel," I can assure you that Roth knows pain, he knows all about it. Somewhere in his vast collection of horror movies in his bedroom-- probably right around the nudie woman pictures, Guns and Ammo Magazines, and a framed picture of his smiling and assured, self-portrait on the mantel above his bed-- there would be a DVD of his second film, "Hostel." Let me tell you-- this film is pain: in all its agonizing and slow, torturous glory, as if hell-bent on stupefying its audience. Yet, I still kinda like it... but it has made me dumber.
Two obnoxious Americans--perfecting the persona of the frat boy cliché-- must fight to survive torture at the hands of those damn ugly foreigners. That's pretty much all that needs to be said about plot-- the film, which is solely rooted in comedy, torture, and ti*s, is obviously not to heavy on the subtext-- yet, one still may see the film as depicting the current state of foreign views on pro-war America, as in the film, Americans fetch a high price when bought to torture and kill, and I don't think it's because they like us. Still, it would be interesting to see how the film went over in some European countries, as well.
You see, the film is silly, plain and simple: a sort of summery of all that is wrong in modern horror movies. Yet, it may go with the modern flow, and although it's rowing up s*it creek, and it may actually have a paddle, it's still s*it creek, nonetheless. Yet, again, it's still going somewhere. All these gray areas are present when speaking of "Hostel's" likeability.
Since, the characters don't develop much out of the roles of lambs to the slaughter-- but are slightly admirable if you like Roth's brand of "Porky's" like humor. Yet some may belive that the film fits into that modern term "torture porn," but other than the fact that term is often idiotic-- how come violence in horror only gets a backlash, when other genre's/ directors (Michael Bay, anyone) are just as gratuitous-- the film is only to be taken semi-seriously, even when the horror kicks in. Still agonizing, yes. Yet, such as a scene in which a character decks himself out in armor to evade capture, it's obvious that it can't be all serious, can't it? I hope not!
Moreover, it's a wonder how Roth can make such biting--no matter how much of it may be accidental--social commentaries that tap into modern fears, so timely, but still can be such utter laugh fests. His first film was "Cabin Fever," a film about a virus, that was released shortly after SARS broke out--and although Roth may seem little too cocksure in his films, and his films may never be nothing more than decent drunken midnight movies, there's still something oddly likeable here, even if it is mind numbing, obnoxious, and crass. That my reader, is what may have Roth's name stick out with the camp-satire of the Frank Henenlotter's (Basket Case, Brain Damage) in the horror film industry-- and that's not being shipwrecked in s*it creek, either.
** (Out of 5)
whats up with the system 
2008-05-01
this was a great performence a real bloody and gorey tortureing movie hostal part2 was dissapointing but this first one was great.
The Complaints Are Baseless or Misguided 2008-04-24
As you can see by my title, I ran across quite a lot of complaints about this movie before I watched it. "It had a bad plot," people said. "It was porn for the first 40 minutes, and its transition into gore was really sudden." "The acting was bad," "the directing was terrible", "the story sucked", etc., etc.
When I watched it I was very pleasantly surprised to find that all these complaints were wrong. Sure, some of them were based on truths, but I think people distorted them simply because they didn't like the premise. Yes, the first 20-30 (NOT 40) minutes of the film had quite a lot of nudity in it, but it was by no means porn! And though I'm not a great fan of mindless sex, at least it wasn't pointless. The sex is what lured the main characters into the hostel in the first place. And the transition into the gore was not sudden, but quite easily handled--in fact, I'm surprised at the wonderful job that Eli Roth did at transforming the mood from light and flippant into dark and unfathomably disturbing.
The acting was by no means bad. Jay Hernandez, I believe, did a spectacular job as Paxton. It is fascinating to watch Paxton's character change from a carefree college student obsessed with sex and girls to a troubled man that delights in vengeance against his torturers. The other actors did their job well (though Derek Richardson as Josh, while mostly skillful, needed to work on his whimpering).
Now for the story. As you all should know, it's about three college-age men that backpack across Europe looking for sex, and they're recommended to a hostel, which turns out to be a place that people get tortured (seriously, the plot is better than I made it sound). Eli Roth didn't add many fancy or unexpected twists into his screenplay; you won't see the kind of surprise endings that the Saw franchise is famous for. But everything Eli Roth does have in here he made sense of. He uses very little unnecessary material, and he does a great job at subtle foreshadowing so that, in the end, everything makes sense. Please pay attention to the scene where Paxton tells Josh about a childhood memory of watching a girl die, because it foreshadows what would have otherwise been a really dumb (er, I mean Gryffindorish) moment in the script.
I also loved the fact that Eli Roth and the sound editors didn't splurge on the screams. In fact, when the screams get particularly loud, the editors actually turned them down and instead increased the other noises (such as the chainsaws or, most memorably, the snapping of sharp scissors). You can't know just how pleased I was that they didn't blast me from my seat with 100,000 decibels of pure sound.
I also loved the score, which moved away from the overly-creepy style of horror films and more towards the dramatic form. It suited the film better, because this film was really not scary. However, it was truly disturbing and horrific (hence the term "horror film"). It is dumbfounding to witness this appalling display of human brutality and its marked effect on the characters (namely Paxton--he has an absolutely haunting terror in his eyes during the last half-hour of the movie). This brutality is made all the more effective by Roth's refusal to use the safer, less inciting "cut-to-black" techniques found in cheap horror films. No, he shows us everything. In great, bloody detail. And it is gross.
The trailer said the movie was based off true events. I'm guessing it probably meant the premise as opposed to the actual characters, but either way it's entirely believable. Humans are cruel creatures, and they go to insane lengths to continue in their destructive depravity. It was Roth's effectiveness in conveying this theme that made me give this movie a 5-star instead of a 4.
This movie is a must-see for horror fans, or for MATURE viewers. If you cannot see past the gore, you should probably not watch this movie. If you can, however, you need to watch this at least once (more, if you can stomach it), despite the side effects of a churned stomach and a severe jolting of the emotions and senses.
Mild compared to some films 2008-04-09
I applaud this film for actually taking the time to establish the characters, which rarely happens in this type of genre. Usually, we get a brief glimpse of their lives before they are ultimately killed off one by one. However, I really wish it didnt waste 3/4 of the film with a boring plot.
If you love the torture/horror genre, then this will be a dissapointment for you. The true action doesn't beging until about 20 minutes from the end of the movie and by then you are already bored out of your mind. The torture scenes are quite brief actually and while effective, they are nothing truly gut wrenchingly grotesque or even flinching, especially if you are used to watching films like this. Any of the Saw films easily beat Hostel in the blood and gore department and they do it in a wicked and tortureous way. Hostel is not even remotely scary or chilling. There are no jumpy moments. There are no spooky or clever moments. For those who are not used to or dislike this genre, then perhaps this film may affect you. Otherwise, its a forgettable and overrated film.
HORROR IN THE TRUEST SENSE OF THE WORD 2008-03-17
overall, i feel like it has a pretty standard formula. the first half of the film is spent getting to know the characters. many party scenes scattered about with lots of gratuitous nudity. about 45 minutes in, the real "meat" of the film kicks in. i dont want to spoil too much in the overall story. there are very sinister things at work here, and you get bits and pieces of that throughout the movie.
basically its the story of three backpackers, and a trip they'll wish they would have never taken, if they can survive till the credits..
to most, this is no more than an exploitation film, but theres a lot more to it than that. its a film about exploitation. you see the main characters not only exploiting women throughout the first half of the film, but an entire nation, if not an entire continent. you see them exploiting the womens' bodies, laws of amsterdam, and the simple fact that they're americans. as time goes on, they become the exploited. they are now the exploited. imagination is the only limit on what can be done to them. for a price. [ironic.. although nothing can justify what happens to them]
the social commentary can probably be noticed by anyone other than a five year old. in our internet ruled, ebay enriched society, nearly anything we want can be obtained for a price. the movie also plays on many americans feelings of foreigners and vice versa.
theres a lot here past all the gore and nudity most people wont be able to realize, and thats fine. first, the camera work. in the opening scenes theres a lot of ambient camera runs with bright colors. as time goes on the color fads and the camera work has a much more frantic feel, perfectly complimenting the events onscreen.
Eli Roth hired an orchestra to perform a lot of the music for the film. there is a simple tri-note riff with a deliciously sinister vibe you hear it throughout the film on different instruments from time to time. a very epic score overall. i especially like the work in the later sequences-intense.
the voilence is extremely graphic, featuring some the most realistic and disturbing torture sequences you'll probably ever see.
for the faint of heart- do not watch this. you've been warned.
opening night-2 ambulances at the site. one woman left early and ended up passing out and falling on the ground. another woman thought she was having a heart attack and called 911. she wasnt really, but still. thats one crazy opening. this isnt for everyone.
this is a horror film in the truest form of the word. its disturbing and horrific. it will stay with you for days-if not weeks-after seeing it. anyone with a strong stomach and even a remote interest in horror should deffinitely check this out.
there's loads of great special features in this 2 disk director's cut. multiple commentaries, deleted scenes, alternate ending, 4 featurettes, interview with Takasha Miike, and more.
Ghastly 
2008-07-13
I really enjoyed Cabin Fever, which is partially what made Hostel such a letdown. Hostel is a movie that revels in pure sadism. It's not the first movie to do that sort of thing, but it does so in a way that is gratuitous and rather pointless, as though the writers and producers had lost interest in the plot and were trying to one-up each other to see who could come up with the grossest torture and nastiest injuries. Atmosphere is not a problem in the movie, but the gore-for-the-sake-of-gore element that drives the movie renders it unfulfilling as a viewing experience. The ending is also somewhat silly. Overall, a ghastly movie full of rather grotesque tortures that really don't aim towards any greater contextual purpose except to show off the crew's vivid imaginations. The film is not for those lacking strong constitutions.
So bad it's bad. 2008-06-15
I saw this movie hoping it might be like the first Saw (i.e. have some orginality and true scariness - unlike the sequels), but was highly disappointed.
There is nothing scary, just disgusting torture and violence (that you know is completely fake), so the movie just looks gross, nothing more.
Not that good... 2008-06-12
Really though, what can you expect from the director of that Cabin movie??
I thought this would be like the new name in terror films from the way people were talking, but overall, this was just kind of weak.
The movie had some good gore scenes if that is what you are into and some naked beautiful women which I always enjoy, but as a movie...ehhh...not very exciting.
The story is really linear and boring, not thought-provoking at all, and although I usually love the films that Tarantino endorses, after watching this all that I could think of is, "What the heck was that piece of crap?"
The movie is not completely without merits, as I mention women and gore, but really it was not entertaining. If I wanted to watch a good terror type of film that is also entertaining and meaningful, I would NEVER watch this.
We bought this, watched it once, and then gave it to a friend. Really, if you are a fan of the genre, then check it out, but I would not suggest wasting your money on this. By buying it, you are giving people hope for this level of film making, and really, that is just not right at all.
zero stars for this waist of money 2008-06-09
very bad movie, very disappointing ......I almost fall asleep to it.....just another soft porn with no taste or good story....I am disappointment in Quentin Tarrentino's taste......I loved Kill Bill was very good if you like to see a lot of blood.....but this doesn't has a story that is interesting enough to be made into a film...plus nothing interesting at all happens until the last 25 min. of the movie....so boring, so slow....this is the last Quentin Tarrentino film I will pay money for to see...he obviously has lost his talent.
Make sure you don't eat anything before watching (some spoilers) 
2008-06-06
I've watched my share of horror movies that include substantial amounts of blood and gore, had disturbing and squeamish content that leaves you squirming in your seat in discomfort, and when it comes to the horror genre I'll watch it all. If you like lots of blood and gore and uncomfortable content in your horror movie, this movie would be perfect for you.
Some annoyances I found with Hostel:
While I'm not a big fan of lots of blood and gore, that wasn't what annoyed me about this movie. The characters, 3 young males out having a fun time in Europe, partying and meeting women, were. I couldn't help but roll my eyes in exasperated amusement when their eyes seemed to light up at the mention of easy women for the taking in some Easter European country. This is what gets them into the trouble they find themselves in later on, when all the hacking and cutting begins. I just shook my head and thought, "Men" when they eagerly trekked off to this out-of-the-way country to get some booty. Of course, it seemed like poetic justice that they got their just rewards later on after being lured by 3 beautiful women (bait, if you will).LOL.
Oh, another annoyance I had was the first 30 minutes was a showcase of naked women, and being a woman myself, I didn't find it all that appealing to watch women parading around with no shirts on baring their breasts to all. I don't know about everyone else, but watching 3 young men visit a whorehouse to get laid is not that interesting. I kept waiting for the good stuff to begin!
Anyways, two of the men end up becoming unwilling entertainment to rich men who pay top dollar to torture wayward tourists in all sorts of sadistic and cruel ways. One of the characters gets side-tracked before he can be taken, and slowly realizes that they all were duped and are the "meat" in this little twisted game.
I've seen Hostel 2 as well, and I actually thought that movie had more graphic torture scenes. Hostel isn't all that bad (perhaps for the uninitiated to horror, the "newbie", it would be very shocking and revolting). Yes, I will admit there is a lot of parts that would unsettle and horrify most people, but after watching this movie a 2nd time around its shocking content of torture, blood, and gore seemed diminished somehow. When I first saw this movie, it sickened and disgusted me and I thought, "This is horror??", but after watching it a 2nd time it grew on me and it didn't seem as terrible, so go figure.heh.
This movie is not for everyone. If you can't stomach watching a movie that's story-line revolves around torture with generous amounts of blood and gore, then you won't like this movie. If you want to be disturbed, shocked, disgusted, and horrified give this a try.
