All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
Ho boy. I'll be a man and admit that I did indeed fall victim to the hype of this movie. I don't know what those people were smoking when they saw this at screenings but it definately messes with your sense of taste in movies. This movie was terrible. And they had to call an ambulance for two people because they had panic attacks from this movie? Anyone have a gay bell to ring for them?
Hostel starts off in Holland with two American backpackers (Jay Hernandez and Derek Richardson) and an Icelandic backpacker having a lot of fun. They smoke some drugs, go to a club and get drunk, go to some type of brothel where Richardson punks out of having sex with an extremely attractive looking woman, head back to their hostel, smoke some more drugs, talk to a European about a hostel in Slovakia while a man and woman are having a euphoric sex episode right behind them.
On the train to Slovakia they meet up with a very strange dude that is the owner of the torture house and gives them even more positive feedback on the women in Slovakia's hostel. They arrive in Slovakia at another hostel that appears to be heaven. The women are gorgeous, they are very and I mean VERY friendly, and they even devirginze Richardson.
Yeah this is horror movie, just be patient.
The Icelandic backpacker never returns to the hostel so the Americans decide to go have some more fun with their new found lady friends. The girls give them some type of oral drug that causes them to pass out, but only Richardson is found unconscious.
Richardson awakes in a very scary looking place and is tortured to death. The only thing I will say about this scene is that it makes you appreciate your Achilles tendon a little bit more after seeing it.
Hernandez wakes up in a storage closet in the club he was at the night before and heads back to his hostel only to find out he was checked out along with his friends.
He meets up back with the two friendly Euro girls and asks them to take him to his friends. They do exactly that and bring him to the torture house. Hernandez is eventually locked in a room and is tortured by a German lunatic that seems to have some type of breathing problem. By a miracle, Hernandez escapes and manages to strike a little bit of vengence into the workers of the facility.
He eventually escapes with an Asian woman who seems to have lost her "eye" for detail (thank you I'm here all night) and has to go through many road blocks in suposedly "deserted" eastern Europe. He eventually comes across the two Euro women and the guy that lead them to the hostel and runs them down with his car.
They get to the train station, Asian chick kills herself when she sees what her face looks like, and gives Hernandez a chance to escape.
In the end, Hernandez gets to kill the proprietor of the torture house and eventually heads home minus a couple of fingers.
Okay. Where do I start? The acting is horrendous. I swear if this film had any lesser quality of camera work it would be a straight to DVD film. Eli Roth said at a Q&A after a screening that he wrote the screenplay in 2 1/2 weeks. It shows. I am really pissed off that people are hailing this movie. Why? WHY? I guess it goes to show if you put a big name on a movie like Tarrentino you can get any movie put in theaters.
Now I am a gorehound, I love gore in movies, so don't say that it is too violent for me, because that is the ironic thing. There is NOT enough gore. The torture scenes are probably about 10 seconds MAX, and their is not enough of them.
The beginning of the film goes very slow and it just made me actually want to visit Europe even MORE. Is that what this film was trying to portray? If I speak with my American accent (which what does that sound like by the way?) an extremely hot European goddess will sleep with me? I'm there. But they did portray Americans in a bad light here I think. Does the world really see us as this stupid? That's a shame.
* out of ****
The one star goes for the amazing looking women at the beginning of this film. Wow.
I hope to see this at some point this weekend. I was a very big fan of Roth's debut, "Cabin Fever," so I'm hoping I will enjoy this. I know what you mean though, about the hype. I thought "Saw" was one of the most overrated horror flicks in a long time (and its sequel was even worse). In the meantime, I got me some "Bloodrayne" to watch!
I hope to see this at some point this weekend. I was a very big fan of Roth's debut, "Cabin Fever," so I'm hoping I will enjoy this. I know what you mean though, about the hype. I thought "Saw" was one of the most overrated horror flicks in a long time (and its sequel was even worse). In the meantime, I got me some "Bloodrayne" to watch!
Haha Bloodrayne.
I'm not here to discourage people from seeing Hostel though. I hope people realize that. I know people have different tastes in movies and I respect you all. Nothing personal, but I just don't understand this one.
Maybe I don't like slashers, now that I think about it. Cabin Fever was a decent movie.
I can't really say that when I look at movie listings I look for the horror films first. Maybe that's why. I don't know. But I mean from the trailer and the hype that surronded this movie I thought it was going to be one of those movies that you just had to see, and when you are like 40 or 50 can tell your grandkids that you saw it in the theaters because it is like a classic movie. Like how Halloween or Texas Chainsaw Massacre is regarded now, you know what I mean?
I like good movies. Whether they are horror, action, comedy, drama. I just like a good movie. This just didnt do it for me.
Haha thanks bert you really got me thnking about what I like in movies.
Well, Mr. Romance has been around long enough that I kinda' have a feeling for what he likes, I think.
But you gave this one a pretty heavy dis, so I gotta take that into account too before dropping, like, 15 bucks (I like me some snacks while I watch!)
I'll wait for more reviews, but it sounds like DVD might not be too far off in the future if I decide to wait on it!
Yeah I know I'm sorry. I really don't like to dis movies because I know how hard the process of making a movie is and its not really my place to label someone elses work. But I'm sorry, I really feel like I was violated, haha. I feel like I got lead to one of those hostels with the advertising and ended up getting tortured!
Go see it though, I mean like I said before I will never ever tell people to not see a movie, that just being a jerk. I'm sure there are some movies I like that people don't and vice versa. That's whats great about movies. There's something for everyone!
I thought this was great though it was pretty overhyped. This wasn't nearly as sick as Roth has been saying. Most of the torture scenes were implied and even what they did show wasn't as nasty as one would expect from the ads.
The characters were well-developed (even the torturers themselves) and even though they were a bunch of stupid fratboys, they were at least entertaining to watch.
The buildup was pretty good. Even though the first half of the film seemed like Eurotrip 2, there was a growing, ominous feel as it went on. Then when the film finally got to business, it was pretty suspenseful and managed to sustain a pretty sinister atmosphere throughout.
The lack of subtitles got on my nerves a bit. Most of the time, I didn't care but their abscence in the scene with Paxton and The German Surgeon really pissed me off. It would definitely have kicked the scene up a notch if you understood what they were saying.
All in all, this is one of the best horror films I've seen in a while. Highlights include The Dutch and American Businessmen and Takashi Miike's cameo. I'd recommend this to diehard horror fans. Just as long as they don't go in believing all the hype Roth and QT have built.
I thought this was great though it was pretty overhyped. This wasn't nearly as sick as Roth has been saying. Most of the torture scenes were implied and even what they did show wasn't as nasty as one would expect from the ads.
The characters were well-developed (even the torturers themselves) and even though they were a bunch of stupid fratboys, they were at least entertaining to watch.
The buildup was pretty good. Even though the first half of the film seemed like Eurotrip 2, there was a growing, ominous feel as it went on. Then when the film finally got to business, it was pretty suspenseful and managed to sustain a pretty sinister atmosphere throughout.
The lack of subtitles got on my nerves a bit. Most of the time, I didn't care but their abscence in the scene with Paxton and The German Surgeon really pissed me off. It would definitely have kicked the scene up a notch if you understood what they were saying.
All in all, this is one of the best horror films I've seen in a while. Highlights include The Dutch and American Businessmen and Takashi Miike's cameo. I'd recommend this to diehard horror fans. Just as long as they don't go in believing all the hype Roth and QT have built.
Yeah Takashi Miike's cameo was definately awesome. Now that man knows torture!
I honestly wouldn't, but I have a free ticket because "Kong" crashed out both times I saw it. The second time is when I got the ticket. I feel I could pay for "Hostel" and possibly enjoy it, whereas I can use my free ticket on "Bloodrayne" and not feel too badly when it turns out being the piece of shit it most likely is. As for the people I'm going with... well, their bad. Not to mention, "Bloodrayne" is at 7:45 and "Hostel" is playing at 10:15... should the two theaters be rather close... well, hello two shows for free.
Name some movies that you liked and i will tell you if Hostel is for you. it WILL leave an image in your head and guyjackson you can't say it didnt leave an image in your head. because im sure something is left in everyones head the only scene that i think could of been better is
MINOR SPOLIERS
the eyeball cutting scene
end of spoiler
other then that the movie i think was excellent. i can not wait for the Dvd and i might just go see it again. WELL WORTH the ticket price if you wanna know more info PM me
I plan to see this, but I hate it when shit like this is overhyped. "ooh one of the most horrific movies of all time" as one ad said or the paramedics being called? Yeah okay. This thing better live up to the hype, but I highly doubt it.
I hope to see this at some point this weekend. I was a very big fan of Roth's debut, "Cabin Fever," so I'm hoping I will enjoy this. I know what you mean though, about the hype. I thought "Saw" was one of the most overrated horror flicks in a long time (and its sequel was even worse). In the meantime, I got me some "Bloodrayne" to watch!
Bloodrayne! ARe you kidding me!! OMFG How is Uwe Boll making movies still, he needs to be shot!
Didn't know Takashi Miike had a cameo, but it's not surprising.
You know I'm sure that QT and ER may have built it up too much, but at the same time, general audiences now just aren't used to what film buffs are. Imagine if they re-released some grindhouse and foreign stuff in theaters now...people would be up in arms, not to mention passing out and vomiting.
First off, I loved Miike's cameo. The moment he walked into the frame I had to keep myself from laughing. I loved it! "Be careful. You could end up spending all your money in there." Hi-bloody-larious! Right at that exact moment was when the movie was the best it could be, with his little cameo. I almost wanted to yell at the screen. No! Stay! Do that thing you do so well and shock the hell out of these stupid mainstream audience members behind me!
I suppose it's basically impossible to review this film without comparing it to Roth's previous work, so let's just get that out of the way: I didn't like it as much as Cabin Fever in some ways, but in other ways I liked it more. To me it didn't seem like there was as much all out blood and gore as Fever, what with all the blood vomiting and skin peeling and the like. However, what's there was quite nice. Some severed fingers (four), some severed limbs (a leg), numerous slashings, shootings, beatings, machete's hitting people, acetylene torches to the eye, chainsaws and drills and scalpels. Oh my! If Cabin Fever was a cake, Hostel is a cupcake. It's still a cake, in theory, but you can't help but feel a little cheated. Still, I was quite entertained by the second half of the movie.
Which is my main problem. Cabin Fever was spread out. The characters and the gore were intermingled, and there was a good flow to the movie. We'd get some comic relief, some gore, some humor, some gore. It had that twisted sense of humor that it managed to keep in balance with the blood and guts ahoy. The only thing I hated was the half dozen false endings. Well, the problem with Hostel is not the ending, though truthfully it wasn't that great. And the Japanese girl throwing herself in front of the train, okay maybe, but it seemed like a bit of deus ex machina to get the main guy out of there while throwing in a bit more blood. Meh. My main problem with Hostel was the pacing. This isn't one movie, it's two short movies and a third peeking its head in the door. The first half of the movie could have been fleshed out and turned into a feature length American Pie-esque comedy, following the two Americans and their obnoxious (but entertaining) Icelandic friend Oli in their attempts to find some girls.
Then they hit the hostel, and there's about twenty minutes of a suspense/thriller that acts as a buffer between the comedy and the horror. Then the horror finally kicks in for the final act of the movie. Again, with a bit of time and work it could have easily been developed into a separate movie. The concept of the Elite Hunters wasn't fleshed out anywhere near what it could have been. How cool a concept? Pay a double digit grand and you can have your pick of people to do with as you wish? That could have been the most sick and twisted movie this side of anything by Miike.
But unfortunately nothing really gets to where it should have gone. Sure, watching a skinny German guy slip on blood and accidentally cut his leg off with a chainsaw is funny as all hell, but I kind of expected more. I can't really explain it. This was a movie that when I left the theater I didn't have that feeling I normally have when I leave. It's not bad, but it's definitely not the follow up to Cabin Fever it's been hyped to be.
To answer your question guyjackson, yes we/they do. I mean look at Bush version 2.2?
Haha well I see your point. We do have a numbnutz as our leader.
I still remember an article the day after election day on some magazine in Europe that said "How could 59,566,221 people be so dumb?! Four more years of Dubya!"
I almost fell off my chair laughing when I saw that because it's so true.
But Kenny I'm actually quite curious as to what the "sterotypical" American is viewed as in Europe. Like are we seen as just arrogant, self-centered, spoiled brats? That's what Eli Roth's girlfriend said (She's Natalya from Hostel, the dark haired girl from the Slovakian hostel). Or something else? And feel free to say what you want, I am quite open-minded and I don't get offended at all. You can PM me if you dont' want to say it in the forum.
And are our sterotypes of certain countries the same over there too? Like the French are arrogant, English are passive, etc, etc?
Oh and PS the women in Europe are MUCH better than the ones we have here. But that's just me
Well mostly fat and dumb, except for girls on Miami Beach, I'm not kidding. Dumb because of the amount of school you guys have, fat because of all them fastfoodchains. I'm not saying it's true, but that's how they view you. Also an American on vacation in Europe is mostly fat, wears shorts and has binoculars. It's not true of course but...
We, Belgians, view the English as calm, relaxed a bit gay teadrinkers oblivious of what's going on in the world. I don't agree because I've been to London. All I can say is you don't find beautiful women in the big city, you have to look for them in the villages
The French are friendly people and totally adore their language, we can speak it for a bit so probably we don't get to see their bad side.
The Dutch on the other hand, we view them as dumb stoners. We speak the same language but they have this really weird accent. You could say we've been in war ever since Belgium went independent, but expressed verbally. They see us the same way so it's a really funny situation between our countries (America/Canada-like)
Haha! That's classic. I might have to put that in my signature.
That's funny that you say Miami Beach women are the best. Every European I talk to always says that. I think in America, the west coast girls from California are our eye candy, but Miami does have a good amount of beautiful women.
I'm not going to lie, people in our country are kind of on the large side. The comedians here always remind us about that. I mean I'm 6-1 (186cm), 170 lbs. (77kg) and people view me as a health freak. I'm like, "Um no I just don't eat fast food every freakin day like you do."
The school thing I find kind of wierd though. I think we go long enough but after like age 13 they just repeat everything we learn over and over again every year, haha.
That Belgian view on the English is hilarious. I think it's kind of the same here, but I personally like the British alot. Especially their women. I'll take Keira Knightley and Sienna Guillory over Britney Spears and Paris Hilton anyday (preferably at the same time )
The Dutch I really don't know too much about, or how America views them for that matter, but your description sounds funny as hell. That's how they were portrayed in Hostel it seemed.
Yeah I don't know what's up with that America/Canada thing. Again, the comedians here love to pick on them, and I don't know why. But those can be some funny jokes, haha.
Anyway thanks for your feedback, Kenny. I really appreciate it. It's always great to see how America is viewed by Europeans.
I thought this movie was pretty bad and in fact of the worst horror movies I've ever seen. Sure, some of the violence was intense and shocking and the general idea of people paying to torture was scary, but it seems that Eli Roth forgot to concoct a solid plot to integrate those torture scenes and instead went straight for the shock value and in my opinion it didn't work at all.
SPOILERS BELOW The script just seemed half written to me. They made the movie (according to IMDB) three times faster than your average movie and it shows. First off, the entire first half of the movie was a mess, nudity just for the sake of nudity and it didn't really get me caring for any of the characters, I just thought they were horny idiots. Sure it showed a good time going bad but they could have done that in more effective ways that could also be more tasteful and add more to the plot later on. The only one I slightly cared about was the blonde who was killed off first. The dialogue was also over the top. Sure, guys can be guys but it just seemed over the top, unrealistic and it dragged on for too long in that tone instead of building some decent suspense. Also the development with paxton and the girl he didn't save came across as cheesey rather than emotional and something to think about later. When the torture did start I thought it was going to be intense and scary but it finally spiraled off in one of the dumbest plots I've ever seen. When he finally managed to escape I thought it was stupid that he went back and like I said, his story with the little girl didn't convince me that he'd run into a torture house to rescue someone he didn't even know. The part with the van was also laughable. It moves out the way and low and behold, the three bad guys in a perfect spot to run over. Extremely poorly written in my opinion and was based on a coincidence that wouldn't happen. It was also a far fetched coincidence that there were signs all the way to the train station from the torture house and that he managed to get there without taking a wrong turn. The kids that beat up the people chasing them were also unrealistic. I don't care where they are from but I don't think kids would just take a baseball bat to peoples skulls like they did. And finally, when paxton gets on the train with the main bad guy, I had had enough. Of all the places he could have gone he gets on the same train. It just seemed like a poorly written amateurish script. But I was saved as after paxton got revenge it just ended. No wrap up whatsoever, no big twist, nothing of the sort. It just ended. I know this isn't the kind of story where the good guys win and the hostel gets taken down as I understand too many people were involved, but again the ending seemend like the script was unfinished.
Overal, the movie was based on nothing more than shock value. It was scary to think about that happening to you but there was no point when I really cared for the character and had my heart beating as he was being chased or anything like that. The last act of the script was based on poorly written, far fetched coincidences and the ending was one of the worst endings I've ever seen. So my rant is over, if anyone would like to respond to what I've said feel free as I am open minded to see why people enjoyed this movie, but the fact remains I didn't -Matt
You're a good man, Matt. It's good to see you have a brain inside that head of yours.
I say you and I head over to Europe, meet some of these "hostel" chicks and just not take that ecstasy pill. Sound like a plan?
Best Eurotrip ever..
And hopefully by that time, the dark haired chick that played Natalya will break up with Eli Roth when she realizes how bad of a moviemaker he is, because I have dibbs on her.
wow i didnt know he was with her... oh well im glad someone agrees with me though that its a poorly written script as most people are raving about it but i honestly feel that if another screen writer (even some of the better writers on here) had stumbled across that hotel site that inspired the movie first, they would construct a better, more suspenseful and overal, a higher quality script. In fact, I think I could even do that as it seems I know more about constructing belieavable and well rounded characters than mr roth does. Maybe ill make that my next project just for fun. anyway see you in europe -matt
Sorry if someone has already said this (I didn't read the past posts and I just found this out so I have something to say), but I saw on http://www.upcominghorrormovies.com that they are making a Hostel 2.
Sorry if someone has already said this (I didn't read the past posts and I just found this out so I have something to say), but I saw on http://www.upcominghorrormovies.com that they are making a Hostel 2.
I just wanted to write to you guys so you can be enlightened on the greatest line in screenwriting history. It was spoken in this film and it was right at the beginning.
"Man I hope beastiality is legal in Amsterdam, because that bitch is a hog."
Eli, you have to teach me your secret. Pure genius. I only hope I have the lingustic skills you possess during my writing career.
Good film, better gore, realistic feel and everything horror needs but it wasn't scary or sick.
I honestly think people overreacted about this film, Devil's Rejects is more violent for me. It has more moments where you feel uncomfortable; this did not have any that did the job.
Soft-core porn? Nudity makes a film soft-core porn nowadays? Did Janet Jackson really screw up society to call Hostel porn? Bullshit. Eurotrip was similar without the horror stuff and it had more dick in it than Jenna Jameson on a Tuesday.
The DVD special features so far are pretty good as well.
It took me some time, but I finally got around to this on DVD... and I thought it mostly sucked. Just another overhyped horror flick, all though I did initially have hope for this one as I was a fan of Roth's first film, "Cabin Fever."
My biggest problem with this movie is that it somehow managed to be incredibly boring despite the T&A in the beginning and the blood and guts towards the end. However, both of these aspects make for my negativity towards "Hostel." It just does not click. The first forty minutes felt like three hours. It was like porn only not as much fun. Besides, I'm not picking up a flick about torture and mutilation to watch forty minutes of mediocre softcore.
So, finally, we make our way to the notorious warehouse where all of this goes down. While it certainly did not drag along like the first half, I still felt it was a very big letdown. Like someone had all ready pointed out, alot of the gore was implied and when it was shown it just wasn't as effective as I thought it would be. The infamous "eye-gasm" scene was so over the top, that it lost its scare factor. Instead, it just looked... well, fake.
However, there were some highlights to all of this. Besides the eye scene, the gore that is shown is fairly well done and made believable by Greg Nicotero. Also, the acting was surprisingly pretty good for a movie like this (read: horror). Finally, Roth shines in the dark humor department, which is what I thought made "Cabin Fever" so good. My favorite scene in this is when our protagonist exacts some revenge on the woman who lures him to the warehouse in the first place.
All in all, I wouldn't even say it was the hype that killed this for me or made me feel even more dissapointed than I actually might be. Instead, I would just blame the boredom factor. It's never a good sign when an hour and a half movie feels more like three and has me looking at the clock on the wall every so often. Roth has talent, I don't doubt that. However, I think he is better suited with his comedic skills than his horror side.
Thought it was pretty much crap, myself. Roth's 0 for 2 as far as I'm concerned. I seriously disliked Cabin Fever, and this one was no better. Roth's a Troma guy from way back -- he can even be seen floating about in the background in a few Troma flicks -- and it's apparent where he got his sense of style and storytelling from. The only difference is, he's no Lloyd Kaufman.
I love a good horror/comedy, but if I wanted dick and fart jokes I'd watch Porky's. Roth's "humor" is inane in the worst kind of locker-room way, and no offense to anyone, but aside from a few well-done moments of gore interspersed between Cabin Fever and Hostel, I don't see how anyone can say the guy's got talent.
Worst of all, he's a hype-machine; both his movies he's proclaimed to be "totally sick and fucked up!" They are, yes, but in a bad way. If you're going to talk smack, it shouldnt' be one ounce more than what you can actually back up.
As I stated, I didn't like Cabin Fever at all (in fact, I thought it was horrid and symbolic of everything that's wrong with horror today) but I'm always willing to give a first-time director a second chance. Now that I've seen his second chance, I won't be giving him a third. The 'tard.
This was a pure SHIT BALL! I wasn't hyped about seeing it. I didn't wanna see it. I was drug to see it and I laughed the whole way thru and shook my head at the times I wasn't doing that... this movie was for "teens" to work themselves up. It was built up so much that the only place to go was down...
Cabin fever blew goat nuts and porked chickens in the butt and so did Hostel... Roth is a SLOP DONG and this movie is testament to that fact.
Shock horror can't be done in today's society. The late 60's and early 70's are over and that's where all the shock horror was left. Anybody trying to do shock horror today just looks foolish.
Nah, I wouldn't go so far as to say it can't be done today. Takashi Miike, as mentioned in this thread, is a very skillful and inventive filmmaker with a taste for the morbid, macabre and extreme (though he, too, has his hits and misses). So for the most part he's proof that it can be done, and can be done well.
What a pussy. If you've got a WEAK stomach do not go to a bloody horror movie. And from what I recall, the gore wasn't perticualarly bad, except the eye scene.
But anyway, did this woman even read the bloody sypnosis? Does she even know the definition of a horror movie? Stupid old b....
Shock horror can't be done in today's society. The late 60's and early 70's are over and that's where all the shock horror was left. Anybody trying to do shock horror today just looks foolish.
Balt, I am prolly alone in saying this but I though of the 2006 remake of The Hills Have Eyes was shocking... Don't go off on how poorly this movie was..blah blah blah.. I'm talking about the gore. That movie actually made me feel sick. Sorry for getting off topic.. I'll post a review I guess...
Hostel was oddly better the second time. I saw it in theaters and it was just okay but for some reason I thought it was like two hours long because of the slow beginning.
I recently rented the unrated dvd. I didn't notice a difference. The only thing I noticed that was different was when *I think his name was josh?* Was being tortured and it showed the drill stabbing him.
I rented this one today. I agree with the slow beginning... Fifteen minutes into the film, my boyfriend was like, "You sure this is the one you wanted to watch?" I told him, "Yeah, it's supposed to be scary." Well, I waited and waited for something to happen... When it finally got to the torture scenes, well, those really messed me up. I can't say I liked it, but I can't say I didn't like it either. Could it have been done better? Yeah. Could have been done a lot worse, too.
Award winning screenwriter Available screenplays TINA DARLING - 114 page Comedy ONLY OSCAR KNOWS - 99 page Horror A SONG IN MY HEART - 94 page Drama HALLOWEEN GAMES - 105 page Drama
Balt, I am prolly alone in saying this but I though of the 2006 remake of The Hills Have Eyes was shocking... Don't go off on how poorly this movie was..blah blah blah.. I'm talking about the gore. That movie actually made me feel sick. Sorry for getting off topic.. I'll post a review I guess...
Hostel was oddly better the second time. I saw it in theaters and it was just okay but for some reason I thought it was like two hours long because of the slow beginning.
I recently rented the unrated dvd. I didn't notice a difference. The only thing I noticed that was different was when *I think his name was josh?* Was being tortured and it showed the drill stabbing him.
It was alot better to watch the 2'd time... wierd
second time I would give it **1.2 out of *****
Hills have eyes was too much for you, huh? Alright, it still sucked and the gore was absurd at best! The "Hollywood" standard jelly they use for blood takes any and all realism out of any and all gore.
Watch the original HHE, even, and you'll see a disturbing look at "gritty" reality. Even though Craven is a SLACK JAW PONY PISSEr who stole every idea he's ever had, along with John Carpenter... < Who took the idea for Halloween from Bob Clark >
Pieces is simulated "SHOCK" horror. This is a movie that is "disturbing" Hills have eyes is not "SHOCK" horror, cause nobody can do "SHOCK" horror anymore... I'm sorry you all are set to the standards you are but in reality this shit has been done better by 20 and 30 and 40 years in H.G. Lewis's world.
I'm going to go ahead and agree with that. I don't think shock horror can be done in a Hollywood setting. It's just not that feasible. And most of Hollywood's gore effects look like they came straight out of the K&B workshop. I don't agree, however, that shock horror can't be done at all in this day and age. I think Takashi Miike's really raised the bar in that regard.
Ironically, I think Takashi Miike was part of the downfall of Hostel. Once his name gets mentioned, that really raises expectations. I think it was a mistake on Roth's part to do so, especially since Hostel was pretty standard in the gore department.
The gore is pretty...gory, but only in small burts. For eg, the first fort minutes of the film contain not a single drop of blood, and eems more like a raunchy roadtrip movie. An hour later in the film, a girl is getting her eye chopped out in an extremely grpahic sequance.
Put it this way. Gore is hard to find. We'll never be satisfied as an audience. Hollywood ruins many things. If we want gore go on imdb.com, look up a movie called salo 120 days of sodem. go to the thread and click the thread that is like: disturbing yeah right?
In the thread everyone names the most disturbing and goriest movies made. If you want gore there you go.
Watch the original HHE, even, and you'll see a disturbing look at "gritty" reality. Even though Craven is a SLACK JAW PONY PISSEr who stole every idea he's ever had, along with John Carpenter... < Who took the idea for Halloween from Bob Clark >
Balt, I watched the original like you said. I will admit the MOVIE itself scared me but the remake made me sick more so than this. I think the original was definately better, you were right.
Well, I finally saw this one via Netflix. Hm. Well, I was pretty bored for the first twenty minutes. While I may appreciate a good sets of tits as much as the next guy, I was beginning to think Roth started his writing for The Red Shoe Diaries or some other soft porn franchise. It was some decent character development, but as a premise to get the film going, it sucked. These guys are touring Europe for the sole purpose of getting laid and they get snookered into a hostel of death. Kind of hard to have sympathy for them so far.
Then one of them disappears (amidst which we get a torture museum along with a cheap scare) and then, the nice one gets whacked. Hm, ok. The film still is not interesting. Sure, I'm curious enough to want to know what the hell is going on, but this building don't have a lot of blocks.
Finally, oh finally, the film got interesting. Survivor starts putting his two and two together and weird stuff starts to go on like there's an intricate plan in all of this rubbish somewhere. What kind of writers takes 40 minutes to...oh wait, I've done that....crap.
Anyway, from the point where there's one left and he starts the quest to learn what happened, the film finally gets some momentum. We still don't know what the hell is going on, but finally it's ok because there seems to be some light at the end of the tunnel. (I did think to myself it was going to be a very short movie if German guy pulled the trigger on Survivor, hehe.) Survivor survives (that's his job) and finally unravels the whole puzzle in no time flat.
We expect that, no spoilers there. Then...
SPOILERS
he goes back for Asian girl which whom he has no connection except a regret from childhood. he save her and (WTF?!?!) she kills herself. Not sure if he cleared his conscience or not there.
I am back and forth with this one. It has a lot of idiotic points and a moronic premise to it. The actual plot behind the hostel was bizarre and engaging, if not downright disturbing and believable.
Oh, and I don't believe the Salad guy was the owner of the hostel/kill-farm. Not at all. Just a client who wanted to try his hand at surgery. Someone else owns it. We never knew who that was but there were a lot of people in on it. It is this final point that will allow this film to have enough staying power to warrant a sequel. The question is: how can they add to the original?
I don't review too many movies -- and avoided saying anything on this one because I was so late in the game -- but since George has bumped this up I'm gonna chime in and say I detested this movie. DE-TEST-ED!! And I love horror movies.
The plot holes are ungodly. Those chicks just "magically" appear in front of his car? And that guy at the end just "happens" to be on the same train. Coincidence is one thing, but this is absurd. It's like he wrote this over the weekend or something.
The so-called gore was laughable. That eye scene? That was some of the fakiest looking crapola I have ever seen. That yellow shite pouring out was just stupid. And the asian chick can sure run around pretty well following the kind of trauma that would leave most people in complete shock -- if it didn't kill them outright.
The sex? Completely gratuitous. Offensively so. I don't mean morally -- I mean as an author and someone who appreciates film. They were boobs for the sake of tossing in boobs and saying "Hey look! We got boobs over here!" and absolutely nothing else.
This was the laziest horror film I have ever seen. If you actually liked this film you should be ashamed of yourself.
This I didn't think sucked as horribly as a lot of people say. People speak of this like it is the worst horror movie ever made, at the end of the day you have to remember that it's just a horror movie. It's safe to say that it's not going to win an oscar, but compared to the rest of the shit that passes for horror movies today, I thought this was good. There's complaining about the gratuitous nudity and the drugs and the gore, but not very many horror movies havn't exploited these three elements in some way? But now all of a sudden it's so wrong for this to be in a horror movie???
I think the major handicap for this movie was just it's hype. I think if it wasn't as hyped up as it was, people would have had a more open mind towards it. I think everybody expected something great, when it's just another horror movie. It's better than a lot of other horror movies that come out (when they're not remakes) Other than Audition, the Blair Witch Project, and the Ring and other Japanese horror movies, and maybe scream I don't know many other good horror movies that have come out the last ten or fifteen years that were any better than Hostel was. Cabin Fever I thought was okay too, neither movie was scary, but better than the other "horror" movies that come out today. I think the horror genre has become so ridiculous that it's hard to come out with another classic like The Exorcist or the Shining in the first place.
"Picture Porky Pig raping Elmer Fudd" - George Carlin "I have to sign before you shoot me?" - Navin Johnson "It'll take time to restore chaos" - George W. Bush "Harry, I love you!" - Ben Affleck "What are you looking at, sugar t*ts?" - The man without a face "Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to death." - Exodus 31:15 "No one ever expects The Spanish Inquisition!" - The Spanish Inquisition "Matt Damon" - Matt Damon
I think this idea had a lot of potential. I can see Eli chatting with Quentin about this "idea" he had. If someone described the idea to me, I'd be all over it too. Imagine this. Q has Kill Bill going and he chats with Eli over whatever Eli got special thanks for on that film. Before they part company, Eli chimes in:
Eli: Hey, Q, I've got this movie idea I want to tell you about. See what you think.
Q: Ok. I'll probably tell you to f**k off, but go ahead.
Eli: Well, it's about this hostel in Europe -- you know, the places kind of like hotels, but they're not?
Q: Ok, sure.
Eli: Well, these people run this hostel for the purposes of luring travelers to kill them.
Q: Why would they do that?
Eli: Well, it's kind of a game for the rich. You know, what would it be like to kill someone? So this exclusive club of people owns the hostel and takes the travelers and people pay to kill them, torture them, whatever and however they want to.
Q: That's cool. But what would the movie be about?
Eli: Well, um...some guys who go there and get killed?
Q: Cool. I could go for some good torture scenes. Go with it.
<<After Hostel is released, Q is in the audience watching the film.>>
Q: Damn, I should have asked to read the script first...
Oh man, can you see this as an Oliver Stone movie? Talk about some cross genre mixing. I wish I could convey the hilarity of the images passing through my head right now... First, it would be at least an hour longer while we explored the life history of the chicks they screwed and why they're in the business. There'd be this long drawn out travel montage while he explains how they happened to end up in front of our survivor's car. Not to mention the suicide speech before that one jumped in front of the train. Ah, good stuff...
Hostel...the frightening new drama from Oliver Stone...
This occurred to me after awhile. In the scene where the boys crawl up the fire escape into that room where they are told about the evil hostel in Slovakia, there is a couple theoretically having sex right there. The woman is on top of the man gyrating or whatever. Anyway, this movement continues in the background of the ENTIRE scene. She keeps moving. He keeps running his hands all over her.
Not to make it a pornographic post, but in retrospect, that's a bit unrealistic, isn't it? I mean, alcohol lowers your inhibitions while simultaneously being an anti-aphrodesiac. Therefore, he might screw whatever moves, but he'd be pretty limp trying to do it. If he were high or drunk, he'd never last through a scene that long.
I guess virgins shouldn't direct porn either... Sorry, Eli. Nice try.
As Bert said, I feel ashamed. I thought Hostel wasn't as bad as people said, though I do see the gaping plot holes and gratutious sex scenes that were not necessary to say the least.
I think what catches me, and what catches me in many films, is the concept. I can sometimes see over poorly executed films because I enjoy the concepts. I mean, a Hostel that people are abducted from so the rich can torture and kill a person for a price. That's pretty good. In the right hands, it would have been a killer of a movie (no pun intended).
But, saying that, from about 30 minutes onwards - it's a pretty decent film until the end choices by our protagonist (who I did'nt feel was a true protagonist to begin with).
I should stop typing this post, because I'm starting to contradict myself too much so I will...
If you actually liked this film you should be ashamed of yourself.
Umm... I liked it, own it, and am ashamed. Call it a guilty pleasure. I guess I just dig the idea of a horror movie set in the backpacking universe as well as wealthy businessmen paying to torture people just for kicks. While I agree with a lot of what people said they hated about the movie, somehow I was able to forgive it. I know. Sorry dude.
I do agree that Eli Roth is an immature filmmaker however. Someone sent a letter to Fangoria criticizing Roth's use of anti-gay slurs. Roth actually wrote back saying he was shocked that the writer was offended by the language rather than the violence of the film and attempted to defend himself simply by saying everyone uses those terms and that the writer is being to PC. His retort was so bad that it actually yeilded a barrage of letters from horror fans basically calling Roth spineless.
He's also done several interviews where he's said things like "people go to the moves to get laid" and "if you can't get laid after seeing Cabin Fever, you're pathetic," making himself sound like a total fratboy douchebag.
And a remake? Nah. Wouldn't work at all. Good directors wouldn't touch it and I think Oliver Stone would just try to turn it into some political statement like all his other films.
As Bert said, I feel ashamed. I thought Hostel wasn't as bad as people said, though I do see the gaping plot holes and gratutious sex scenes that were not necessary to say the least.
I think what catches me, and what catches me in many films, is the concept. I can sometimes see over poorly executed films because I enjoy the concepts. I mean, a Hostel that people are abducted from so the rich can torture and kill a person for a price. That's pretty good. In the right hands, it would have been a killer of a movie (no pun intended).
But, saying that, from about 30 minutes onwards - it's a pretty decent film until the end choices by our protagonist (who I did'nt feel was a true protagonist to begin with).
I should stop typing this post, because I'm starting to contradict myself too much so I will...
I think a lot of people could have done better ith the subject. The premise (which is what undoubtedly sold the film to begin with) was awesome. Big guys pay money to torture and kill people however they want to. Unwitting travellors are lured into the game. Incredible ad disturbing concept. Like I said, this is why it was made. It's original. It's got appeal. It could have been great. Unfortunately, the script stank.
So I was blessed to finally view Eli Roth's signature piece nearly two years after I first heard about it. I think I can sum it all up in three words:
What the fuck?
What the flying fuck was this about? This has to be one of the stupidest, most cliche-driven, poorly written/executed films I've ever seen. I kept waiting for something cool to happen, but it never did.
Okay, so we got these three guys, two Americans and one Icelander and they're total jackasses. Of course one American is a horndog who could care less about anyone/thing but himself and the other guy is a little more sensitive and shy and isn't as quick to have sex with anything that has a vagina. Oh, and they want to get stoned(lolz). Of course they both say fuck, fag, and shit with every other word which made all of their dialogue sound like absolute crap. I know some people curse a lot, but man, in a movie, don't litter the dialogue with it. It sounds so phonie-baloney after a few seconds. "Man, fuck, so I fuckin' went downtown and, fuckin', bought some milk, fuck, and shit man, fuckin' went home." Yeah, you sound like a winner.
So then there's some nudity for a while, and if it wasn't for those naked European chicks, I would have fallen asleep in the first 40 minutes. Nothing was going on except a couple morons expressing how stupid they are.
And then the kind of sensitive American gets kidnapped or something and the hyped up torture/blood begins with classic idiocy. So the guy doing the torturing...he takes a power drill...and drills holes in the guy...and you only see one. I don't know which part of that I loathed more, the fact that it was a drill or you only saw one hole. I thought this movie was supposed to make me squirm. And a drill???? Are you kidding me?? You're in this basement place with all these spikes and sharp things all over the place and you pick a goddamn'd drill? Okay.
Now, I watched this movie over the span of two days and this is where it stopped. So day 2, the horndog American discovers that something fishy is going on so big bad Paxton(that's his name) needs to investigate. Blah blah blah, eventually he's led to the torture area where we see that there's a buttload of other people there getting the crap beaten out of them as well.
So his turn to be beaten up comes. The evil child molester-esque doctor dude comes in and he's waving these long scissors around and points a gun to Paxton's head and there's some nice tension there, but instead what does he do? Why, he grabs a CHAINSAW and cuts off two of his fingers. THAT'S IT? After all that build up you take a chainsaw and cut off his fingers. Okay. Real original. Luke Skywalker getting his hand cut off disturbed me more than that.
So then, of course, the evil child molester-esque doctor dude trips and drops the chainsaw and accidentally cuts himself up and this gives Paxton enough time to grab the gun and shoot that guy dead. Then he runs around like an idiot for a bit and goes outside where there's a bunch of cars. Evidently everyone in Europe leaves their keys in the ignition. hur hur hur.
But wait...suddenly he hears a girl scream! Oh my god! He's gotta go back! He's gotta grow as a character and win our respect even though he's still an idiot! So he runs back into the torture place(keep in mind there's people getting tortured all around, but no, just that one scream that he hears he has to go after).
This is the only scene that got a reaction out of me. The crazy doctor dude is putting a blow torch to this girl's face when Paxton comes to her rescue and guns down the doctor. So then the girl is crying, her face is a mess and her right eye pops out and Paxton doesn't know what to do so he cuts it off and all this yellow eye juice pops out. Pretty gross. I grew a little uncomfortable during that scene, so Eli got something right.
So the girl is screaming her ass off and then two seconds later she's running outside with her hero(she's not screaming anymore, of course, and she's perfectly up to speed. You'd think after having a blow-torch burn at your head for a while you'd be at least a little light headed). They get into the car(because, remember, everyone in Europe leaves their keys in the ignition) and drive away.
Then they drive through an alley and Paxton sees the hot naked European chicks who set him up in the beginning. Likewise, he runs them down. Now, at the same time there's a couple biffs from the torture place who are chasing them in a car as well. One of the hot naked European chicks survived the first hit, but, damn it, got run over by the biffs and dragged for a while. They didn't even stop.
What happens to the biffs, though? Well, they continue for a bit when all of a sudden a bunch of rat street kids block their way(remember how they ran over the chick and dragged her?[shit, they're even on the same team]), well they stopped for the kids, of course, because they need to die and that's what happens. Nice convenient way of killing them off.
Eventually girl-who-got-her-eye-cut-out sees what she looks like in a window and commits suicide. Yeah. Okay, now here's the part that I don't get. I may have missed something during the day break. At the end, Paxton finds the first doctor who killed his friend. My question is, though, how did Paxton know this was the guy? Because the doctor ran off the train, then Paxton's friend bought him a drink...but Paxton never saw him after the train, did he? How could he have known that this guy was behind it all?
Well, whatever, instead if escaping, Paxton decides to kill the guy on the crapper. Then he gets on the train and leaves. The end.
I remember laughing my ass off at the marketing campaign for this when it came out. "Hostel is so disturbing that paramedics had to be called in at preview screenings!" OH YEAH! WOOHOO! Yeah, real quick, the only disturbing thing about this movie was how bad it sucked. It was just crap. Aside from the eye sequence, there's just split seconds of torture and blood and body parts. "Devil's Rejects" was a far more disturbing film and far more enjoyable. Check that out. Skip this piece of crap.
And then the kind of sensitive American gets kidnapped or something and the hyped up torture/blood begins with classic idiocy. So the guy doing the torturing...he takes a power drill...and drills holes in the guy...and you only see one. I don't know which part of that I loathed more, the fact that it was a drill or you only saw one hole. I thought this movie was supposed to make me squirm. And a drill???? Are you kidding me?? You're in this basement place with all these spikes and sharp things all over the place and you pick a goddamn'd drill? Okay.
Indeed. Giant pliers, a mallet, and hot oil are preferable, aren't they? (Sorry, I had to).
Seriously though, if you thought Hostel was stupid, imagine what would happen if Roth co-wrote it with the Marquis de Sades and had it rewritten by Michael Bay. That's basically what Hostel II felt like.
Hostel was awesome! Truly awesome, and for $4 million, it is amazing, but Eli was so smart with everything about that movie - filming in Prague, using local "talent", and really everything.
I thought Hostel 2 was also great! Not quite as good, but we lost that shock factor, and it was a differnet story, revolving around teh antags as much as the protags, which was a cool angle.
I'm actually kinda surprised that people had a luke warm reception to it, but it also was a big money maker for sure.
I actually liked everything for the most part. I thought the violence was well done and shocking, and although "over the top" in ways, still realistic. I thought the stroy was also good, and I liked the characters. I also liked how the "twist" was played out with Stuart turning out to be the "bad guy" while his buddy, who was all gung ho about killing, turned out to be unable to go through with it.
I guess what I liked he msot about it was that it didn't follow the original note for note, and dared to be different and able to stand on its own.
Only thing I didn't really like was the train ride sequence. I think it went on too long and didn't really go anywhere. The very end was a bit out there and bizarre, but by that point, it had already won me over.
To toss out my opinion of the Hostels, I hated the first one. Absolutely hated it. You had thin characters who did stupid things and got themselves killed. One barely survived and saved a chick who killed herself. I rolled my eyes multiple times over the course of that one.
Hostel 2, on the other hand, took the established premise, expanded upon it, and then gave us some decent characters. That would be characters on both sides of the fence and we got to see the whole deal in action. I actually enjoyed that one well overand above the first.
To toss out my opinion of the Hostels, I hated the first one. Absolutely hated it. You had thin characters who did stupid things and got themselves killed. One barely survived and saved a chick who killed herself. I rolled my eyes multiple times over the course of that one.
Hostel 2, on the other hand, took the established premise, expanded upon it, and then gave us some decent characters. That would characters on both sides of the fence and we got to see the whole deal in action. I actually enjoyed that one well overand above the first.
I avoided 2 due to my emotional numbness watching the first one, I may give it a go due to the comments today.
"To toss out my opinion of the Hostels, I hated the first one. Absolutely hated it. You had thin characters who did stupid things and got themselves killed. One barely survived and saved a chick who killed herself. I rolled my eyes multiple times over the course of that one.
Hostel 2, on the other hand, took the established premise, expanded upon it, and then gave us some decent characters. That would characters on both sides of the fence and we got to see the whole deal in action. I actually enjoyed that one well overand above the first."
Got to say, Hostel was one of the worst films I've ever seen in my life. Complete tripe from start to finish. I think it should be illegal to make films that bad. : )
I'm surprised to hear some people say Hostel 2 was better. At some point I MAY attempt to watch it.
To say that Hostel was one of the worst films you've ever seen in your life, makes it very clear that you do not like the genre here, cause otherwise, that comment make no sense. Hostel started a revolution in film making...began it's own sub-genre (totrture porn), and was for the most part, very critically acclaimed.
It's obvisouly not for everyone, but it certainly was well done and brought things to the screen that we've never seen before.
Thought I'd resurrect this thread since the topic was active on the Script Club board. There was a lot of talk about Hostel, so here's what a lot of people around here thought of it. To throw out a quick comment to Dreamscale's comment about it being a critically new genre of "torture porn" and it just isn't for everyone.
I concentrate on the storyline, characters, and that sort of thing. Do I have issues with the torture sequences? Not at all. They were cringe-worthy and graphic. Those were done well. Very shocking, in fact.
The issue I had was not the genre, but the writing. The characters were fairly unlikeable and thinly developed. You only felt sorry for them because of the graphic-ness of the torture. The plot was incredibly thin at best and only served (much like porn) to take us into the focal point of the film.
And shall we discuss sheer coincidences? Our lead was given the girl that took them in on a silver platter to wipe out. He had no claim or investment on the girl he saved, and yet he risked his life on that total stranger in an environment where he had little to no chance of surviving himself. And then she killed herself, completely invalidating that action. Then he just HAPPENED to meet the doctor on the train. Seriously?
I give genre very little thought and watch a movie for a movie. I judge genres pretty evenly, keeping in mind (at least a little bit) what they're going for, but for the most part, storytelling is an ancient art that is finite is how it works. This isn't rules. It's a matter of telling a good story however you want to do so. You can have a boring story, but still have a complete one.
This movie, however, eschews plot and character (the most basic storytelling elements) to show us some T&A and watch people get cut up. Hostel 2 worked better. If I hated the genre, then I would dislike the second film, but I don't. That should be proof enough that I'm not dissing the genre. I just think the first film did a poor job of telling a story.
To say that Hostel was one of the worst films you've ever seen in your life, makes it very clear that you do not like the genre here, cause otherwise, that comment make no sense. Hostel started a revolution in film making...began it's own sub-genre (totrture porn), and was for the most part, very critically acclaimed.
It's obvisouly not for everyone, but it certainly was well done and brought things to the screen that we've never seen before.
I like horror films, as long as they are imaginative or well made. Hostel was a terrible film, adolescent and puerile with weak characters and a ridiculous plot with holes that could only be filled by sheer coincidence.
As I say, it was one of the very worst films I've ever had the misfortune of sitting through. It was one of those films that the main characters were so weak that you wanted them all to be killed as quickly as possible so you could go home.
I think our definition of "Revolution" must be substantially different.
For me there was nothing in this film that I'd not seen before. The premise was fairly interesting, but the filmmakers lacked the intelligence to follow through with any interesting concepts that could have come from it.
Anyway, as ever, it's all about opinions. For me this film is pretty much the Nadir of Western filmmaking, a film completley devoid of intelligence, morality and quality.
I liked Hostel. It made me feel uneasy and sick to my stomach. I thought the characters were well developed and the acting was also good. My favorite part was when they killed the "likable" guy first and left us with the obnoxious guy. It was a nice curve ball and I think it paid off very well.
Hey Decadence, I'm still shocked that you repeat that this is one of the worst films you've ever seen. Again, I have to say that you must not have seen many horror movies, because it doesn't make any sense that you say this is worse than the majority of crappy horror movies we're subjected to.
You name the horror movie, and chances are I tell you this is better...probably much better. There aren't many that worked like this did on first view. It's actualy a movie that I enjoy watching over and over, because it's just downright well done.
Yeah, Zack, the acting was very good, for the most part. Sure there are many times when you say out loud, oh c'mon, don't do that, or why would he do that, but it's a frickin movie...a frickin horror movie, and for the most part, that means that even the best of the bunch bend reality and believabailtiy.
But when you weigh this movie as a movie against every other movie that's out there, it pales in many areas to a lot of films. For me, there are no genre barriers when it comes to watching a film. That's just a classification -- not a handicap. Should I give a little because this is horror? Should I be stricter on American Beauty because it's a drama? Should I allow a little leniency on Casino Royale just because it's Bond and action-adventure? Not at all. Every movie can be evaluated using the same exact criteria because storytelling is an art that applies to stories. Are these stories? Why, yes they are.
So from a storytelling perspective, I find that Hostel does very well in some areas, but very, very poorly in others. Did it give us some seriously grotesque and disturbing images? Yes, it did. Did it present us with a disturbing view of the world? Yes, it did. But so did Saw, and that movie did a hell of a better job in the dramatic areas.
Hm, isn't that interesting. Saw gave us some intelligent characters, an intelligent premise, some good drama, disturbing images, a ton of blood and gore, a killer twist, and didn't treat us like a bunch of morons. But it's still a horror movie put out not long before this one.
Now, Hostel has a larger scope to it, and that scope gives it a minor appeal, but while one or two strong threads will create an audience, it doesn't improve the movie.
Saw is another little flick that started a slew of imitators. It was great in many ways, but it was terrible in many as well. The acting was Grade D-. The sets were piss-poor, but that's not the screenplays fault, I agree.
Saw is a phenominal success story...for all involved. Was it "better" than Hostel? Most would say Hell yeah, it was, but I wouldn't agree. Hostel was much more shocking..and powerful. And if that's all that Hostel brought to the table, then so be it...but what it brought, it BROUGHT!
Saw is another little flick that started a slew of imitators. It was great in many ways, but it was terrible in many as well. The acting was Grade D-. The sets were p*ss-poor, but that's not the screenplays fault, I agree.
Saw is a phenominal success story...for all involved. Was it "better" than Hostel? Most would say Hell yeah, it was, but I wouldn't agree. Hostel was much more shocking..and powerful. And if that's all that Hostel brought to the table, then so be it...but what it brought, it BROUGHT!
I think Saw is excellent, probably the best Hollywood franchise for years. It's inventive with the best Horror character created since Krueger (Jigsaw).
Hostel had emotion, but it was manipulative and mean spirited emotion based upon sheer savagery.
If I filmed a baby being cut out of a woman's body and then being stamped upon till death, it would be "emotional", but it wouldn't be good filmmaking.
If I filmed a baby being cut out of a woman's body and then being stamped upon till death, it would be "emotional", but it wouldn't be good filmmaking.
Not to mention being in really bad taste. It would be grotesque for the sake of being grotesque. That was actually one issue with Hostel that I had. Torture is one thing, but what the hell was the deal with the people having drunken sex behind the guys talking about going to the hostel?
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, while not the best of that franchise, was a fairly decent film overall, yet it made one huge error. It delivered a lot of exposition during a very distracting dinner scene, where they ate some very odd entrees. The entrees were so completely odd (to us Westerners anyway) that it made the exposition difficult to pay attention to. Hostel made a similar error by delivering a scene with a couple having sex (yeah, full on nude action) in the background. I'm sure many people enjoyed that, but it was bad filmmaking since it distracted from the point of the scene.
Nudity is 90% pointless in most films since it doesn't typically forward the story. It's usually there to give some T&A to the target audience, and Hostel actually did that in several other scenes (to a veritable fault, actually).
Call the nudity in Hostel a mistake if you must, but understand that for T & A Connoisseurs all over America, seeing full on, butt naked Scando babes was a very wise move, and much appreicated. The scenes were done in a way that harkens back to the big 80's, and although gratuitous, they definitely added to teh overall mysitique of the movie.
Call the nudity in Hostel a mistake if you must, but understand that for T & A Connoisseurs all over America, seeing full on, butt naked Scando babes was a very wise move, and much appreicated. The scenes were done in a way that harkens back to the big 80's, and although gratuitous, they definitely added to teh overall mysitique of the movie.
No-one is denying that the film pressed the right buttons for a certain audience. Indeed that is one of the major complaints about it. It was very clear that it was intended as an exploitation piece and deliberately attempted to appeal to a certain group of people.
I don't really want to say anymore on that particular topic as it will delve into the realm of offence.
It did what it did (sex and torture) quite well. As an actual film, as a story it was severely lacking and was also morally repugnant on more than one level.
I really don't want to go on about the film too much, as it gives it more credit than it deserves, but for a film to use torture as a sales device at a time when The US was using torture in Gitmo was somewhat crass and the portrayal of Slovakia, a decent conservative country slowly re-discovering itself was outright racist.
The film had the chance to use these themes intelligently and draw analogies, but it didn't. It used them as outright exploitation.
It's a film that were it possible I would have given minus figures on IMDB, as I think the world would be a better place if it was never made at all.
Ultimately, for me, it's a film with no redeeming qualities whatsoever.
I saw it in the theater with my girlfriend, who is not a horror fan at all. She was shocked, appalled, amazed, and horrified. But when it was all said and done, she said that for what it was, it was extremely well done...and I obviously agree 100%.
But my complaint is not with the gratuitous nudity throughout the film. My complaint is with that one scene in this instance. You have lots of other scenes with scantiliy clad Scandinavians. My complaint is not with the idiotic mindset of "Let's get drunk and get laid." Why? Because I've overheard this very conversation myself. I know their age group hunts for this rather futile goal. In fact, that's the characteristic that carries them to their deaths showing that goal's futility. But the film didn't build them in any way. In fact, I recall being completely bored by the time something finally started going on.
Now, once we got rid of the morons and had our one and only character remaining as he tried to figure out what the heck was going on, it was fairly decent. The idea of an international organization that exists for the purposes of torture is ingenius. I enjoyed how the sequel built on that.
But getting to that interesting part was painful and boring. Coming out of it was irritating and futile. And meeting the girls on the street near the end was just cheap.
It had good points to it, yes. But on the whole, it lacked seriously.
Pages: 
Author
Hostel
Logged
.
Locked Board