Janelle Meinke

I was too busy covering my eyes to notice any of the social commentary that you're talking about. Is it a scary movie - are you fucking kidding?

Sally Hunter

There's got to be a better way to get across a little social commentary than buy cutting peoples body parts off while they watch.

Randy Mosier

I agree that the movie wasn't particularly scary, in fact the scariest part was when we were rooting for Pax to escape. I think I was more afraid of what I might see happen than anything I did see. Your right though very good horror film. Stands with Constantine and Emily Rose as the best of the year.

Parker

NO matter how loyal a friend Pax was, Hostel suffers from the typical horror film flaw where a character does something that no sane person would ever do in REAL life. Bravery is one thing, but there's no way that guy goes back in there, no way. Why to save a drowning girl? Sorry no sale.

Hostility

Okay so Hostel is a better movie than Cabin Fever, but how is this guy ever gonna top the nigger joke - that shit is classic.

Sqeem 2

In my book this makes it two in a row for Mr. Roth, and it couldn't happen to a cooler guy. He's got much love for horror films and he lets it all hang out in his. I will admit that Cabin Fever was more funny than scary, but it still gave me the shakes, especially the scene in the cave. Hostel on the other hand is a surehanded masterstroke that puts Roth up among the best. Eli's Comin

sirdizzy

I don't even know how to comment. I have never seen a worse movie. I hated Saw and then was able to actually like its sequel but Hostel has no redeeming values at all. Have we reached such a point in society that we are so numb to violence and the horrors humans could visit on another that we need or like these kinds of films. With Saw the main character is trying to teach them a lesson on living life to the fullest, with Hostel it is about glorifying in the torture and death of others.

Since when is torturing, murdering and doing horrible acts of violence on another human being a story. What they did was akin to say what the Nazi's did to the jews committing horrible acts of violence on another but if this movie had been about nazis torturing jews rather than yuppies torturing tourists you would have been sickened to your very soul.

Garbage beyond garbage, god how I miss you Clark Gable, Jimmy Stewart, Cary Grant oh bogey where have you gone. Where are movies that have stories that are good has society truly reach such deparavity that we glorify ourselves in watching people being brutally massacred. I am going to go wash my eyes out then my brain with a little Ole John Wayne and the Quite Man.

sirdizzy

Two adventurous American college buddies, Paxton and Josh, backpack through Europe eager to make quintessentially hazy travel memories with new friend Oli, an Icelander they've met along the way. Paxton and Josh are eventually lured by a fellow traveler to what's described as a nirvana for American backpackers--a particular hostel in an out-of-the-way Slovakian town stocked with Eastern European women as desperate as they are gorgeous. The two friends arrive and soon easily pair off with exotic beauties Natalya and Svetlana. In fact, too easily. Initially distracted by the good time they're having, the two Americans quickly find themselves trapped in an increasingly sinister situation that they will discover is as wide and as deep as the darkest, sickest recess of human nature itself--if they survive.

Why? Who sat back and said to themselves you know what a pornographic film is missing, it's missing some sadomasochistic torture. Because that's what Hostel is, it's half porn and half the sickest most depraved ideas that can be splattered on the big screen masquerading as a film. The movie is utter and complete garbage, it hasn't a single redeeming value and those who try to say that between all the bloodshed and gore that the movie tells a story are fooling themselves. Much like those in the movie who pay to torture another human being you yourself are like a voyeur into this world delighting in the brutality and the desensitizing of modern society. The characters in the movie did what the Nazi's did to the Jews as they reveled in the torture and the death of others, yet if this movie was about Nazi's torturing Jews rather than yuppies torturing tourists you would have been sickened to your very soul. Movies should have a purpose it can be nearly anything as long as they know they are movies. A movie could be purely for entertainment ala the popcorn film. It could be the emotional love story that is overly sappy and clichéd hence the chick flick. It can be political like Syriana need I say more. But when movies like Hostel come out that have no purpose other than to sicken and just simply go so far beyond what anyone else has ever done before at that point I must cry foul. Why don't we stop take a step back and admit that we have seen everything we could ever possibly see and instead focus on what we want to see. I don't want to see people die gruesomely, I'd rather see love, I'd rather see mystery, I'd rather laugh and be happy then take a voyeuristic look into a world that I would never ever want to be apart of.

Near the end of this movie when Paxton finally takes some vengeance on the men who would commit such brutality you find yourself almost insanely cheering for him. It has nothing to do with Jay Hernandez performance as an actor nor does it have anything to do with the directing of Eli Roth or even the story itself, the reason you find yourself cheering so blindingly for him is that because the men he is about to kill our monsters. We have all heard stories of monsters as we have been tucked in for bed of ogres, giants and even goblins but the proprietors of this Hostel are true monsters. Their depravity is so far beyond anything that you could ever imagine that you cheer for and root for Paxton to eradicate them from the very earth. What does that say about the movie that it portrays such horror and sickness that you find yourself rooting for murder and death in a violent manner.

Words truly fail me on how much I disliked this movie, if you could give a negative score to a movie as far as ratings go I would. Garbage beyond garbage, god how I miss you Clark Gable, Jimmy Stewart, Cary Grant oh bogey where have you gone. Where are movies that have stories that were good, has society truly reached such depravity that we glorify ourselves in watching people being brutally massacred? Hug someone you love, enjoy a good book, take a nice long hot bath but whatever you do avoid this movie at all costs.

0 stars out of 5

Adam

Clearly, Sir Dizzy hates this movie, and as a film goer, that is his right. But to dismiss Hostel as pointless is to miss the entire point of the film. Hostel is a movie about excess. The very notion that we party, do drugs and--yes--go to the movies, while people in third world countries are dying by the thousands every day, speaks volumes about our society. I suppose I'm going out on a limb by suggesting such, but no more so than Sir Dizzy comparing Hostel to the Holocaust. This is a "horror" film, and anyone going in thinking otherwise has no reason to bitch. I go to see a love story if I want to see something romantic. I go to see a mystery if I want to be intrigued. I go to political films if I want to think. I go to horror movies because I want to be horrified, and Hostel is horrifying, but it's also surprisingly artisitic. And yes Sir Dizzy, there is a story amongst the bloodshed, and I'm here to tell you so. Eli Roth has cleverly composed a story about what you speak of in your negative rant. This a movie about ugly people doing ugly things. I say if Hostel disgusted you, then it did it's job. It isn't a comedy. And while we're on the topic of comedy, Hostel is far more disturbing than Hitch was funny. Further more, Hostel is a morality tale. As was the case with Quentin Tarantino's masterful Pulp Fiction, each character who commits a dastardly act in this film, ultimately pays for their sin. No it isn't a pretty movie, but what on earth made you think it would be. Again, this is a "horror" film in every sense of the word. Jimmy Stewart, Clark Gable, and John Wayne are masters of their craft, there is no doubt about that, but Eli Roth is also a master of his craft. He's shown an ugly side of human nature to be sure, but one that most likely exists. That may bother you, but we all know that the biggest monster of all is mankind. I'm not suggesting that kindness and charity is dead. Far from it. But the biggest atrocities in our history were committed by human beings. Eli Roth didn't make this stuff up. and he certainly isn't making a film that condones this behavior. If he did, all the baddies in this film would go unpunished. Listen, Hostel isn't a film for everyone. But it is extremely well crafted and far smarter than Sir Dizzy is giving it credit for. Yes it's brutal and yes, it's ugly, but as a work of horror, it's extremely efficient. If you aren't a fan of the genre, then don't go. Essentially, Sir Dizzy has condemend this film because it worked on him the way it's supposed to, and that doesn't make sense to me. Usually, when I give a bad write up to a comedy, it's because it didn't make me laugh. Sir Dizzy hates Hostel because he found it too sadistic. That's like me saying I hated Napoleon Dynamite because it was too damn funny. Furthermore, the Dizz gave a favorable review to that abomination Elektra, a clumsily executed actioneer without a pulse. His negative rant towards Hostel is far more passionate than his positive review for that movie. Food for thought. On a final note, this piece isn't meant as a personal attack on Sir Dizzy. This guy definitely loves movies and I have a lot of respect for him, but I find his take on Hostel extremely misguided and pretty unfair.

sirdizzy

The funny thing is the only reason I saw Hostel is because I got to the movies late and missed Memoirs of a Geisha which I ended up seeing the next day and loved. I was always very wary about seeing Hostel as I skipped seeing it for three other movies I saw this month. I am somewhat of a movie whore, I see almost everything in due time. Last year alone I watched 432 films and just in January I am already up to 29. I just never find all the time to write reviews for them so I pretty much just leave that to what I see in the theatres where I average about 100 films a year.

And I gave Elektra a possitive review because it entertained me, I was never at any moment in Hostel entertained. I was revolted, I was disgusted, I was shocked and I was sickened but never for one moment of the film was I entertained. I can't be possitive about a movie that doesn't entertain me rather just praying on my emotions and trying to make me at ill ease the entire movie. I also gave the same score to Passion of the Christ for nearly all the same reasons, I do not need to see the brutality of human nature, I know it exists, I just don't need to see it. If the movie could give me something more than just the brutality, a story other than the fact that there are monsters in this world, something to keep me interested in the film and entertained I would have been able to see some merit in the film but as far as I am concerned there was no value to this movie in the slightest.

I went in knowing what I was most likely going to get and hoping beyond hope the movie had something more to offer, it didn't.

I am not the biggest fan of the Horror genre because of all the genres it has the least to offer. My favorite director of all time is Alfred Hitchcock and I am always angry when I hear him labeled as a horror director. Sit down and watch a Hitchcock film sometime perferably Psycho as it is the closest he ever got to doing horror, he managed to frighten you and thrill you and he never at anytime needed to show you anything horrorific in the least. Hitchcock was suspense and thrills but he never was horror. That's the problem with modern Horror the movies have taken out some of the better elements of their predesecors and instead try and survive on shock value alone. Gone is the thrills, gone is the suspense, without giving away the ending of the movie is their any moment in Hostel that you didn't see coming that was in the slightest suspenseful, no absolutly not.

Movies need be more than one-up-manship, being gorier being more horrific is just an excuse for poor directing, poor writing and the inabilty to be creative. And I am shocked Adam that you would compare Pulp Fiction to Hostel. Pulp Fiction had a story, it was the intermingling of lives and how an event can effect another like a ripple in a pond. Yes, it is a little bit gory, yes it is a little bit graphic but the story telling is marvelous and it does not rely on its shock value to be memorable. What is the most memorable line from Pulp Fiction, do you know what they call a quarter pounder with cheese in france, the royale with cheese. Why is that revelant because that line the most famous line in the movie showed that gansters and the badasses of society have inane conversations just like the rest of us, just like we are having now. That is storytelling, that is memorable.

I will have to agree to diagree with you on this one, you cannot make me see the value in Hostel and I doubt I can make you like it less. So since I bought two Hitchcock films today Lifeboat and Notorious, I think I will sit down and watch a true master at his craft and not a poor excuse for one in a dumbed down genre, in a desensitized world.

On a sidenote, Hostel will probably stick with me longer than Elektra ever will because it did stir more emotion in me and in all fairness is probably more memorable because of that. But to that I have to say it is easy to hate, it is much harder to truly love.

Adam

Sir Dizzy,

Point well taken, and you're right. We'll have to agree to disagree. You are right about Alfred Hitchcock though. He is one of the all time greats. However, I still maintain that Roth is not a poor execuse of film maker. He just works in a genre that you don't appreciate and that's fine. As for my comparing Pulp Fiction to Hostel, you obviously missed the point I was trying to make. They are vastly different in terms of story structure, but both movies are morality tales. I never said Hostel was a better film. But it is memorable, just not in a way you care for. Horror is a tricky genre. I love subtlty and restraint, but even horror films of the "in your face" variety can be artistic. Movies like The Exorcist and Seven don't hold back, and they're incredibly effective. While I wouldn't put Hostel in the same league as those pictures, it still works on a similar level. To each his own I suppose. But then that's what makes film so great. What kind of world would this be if we all liked the same thing--A BORING ONE!

sirdizzy

This whole conversation has got me thinking about the entire horror genre as a whole, where does horror begin and where does it end. When Van Helsing came out just awhile back it gave the studios the perfect excuse to rerelease classic horror movies in dvd collections refered to as the Legacy series. These Legacy Collections are wonderful and they gave me the oppurtunity to see movies like 1931's Dracula, 1931's Frankenstein and my personal favorite 1935's The Bride of Frankenstein. These movies are without question considered horror movies as they are the forefathers of the genre but yet if they were to be released today they would not be put in the horror genre instead they would be considered drams's or action movies. So that begs the question when did the horror genre evolve from one of story to one of shock. I think this is why many people have the misconception that Hitchcock was a horror director because most modern audiences exposure to Hitchcock is limited to movies like Psycho and The Birds, movies that could possibly fall in the genre of horror or once did.

Movies like the Creature from the black Lagoon or the Mummy once were considered horror movies but when they remade the Mummy with Brendan Fraiser several years back nobody and I mean nobody considered it a horror movie instead its an action or popcorn flick.

Where does the slasher come into all this. Horror once was about frigtening you silly, I remember as a kid being terrified of movies like the Nightmare on Elm Street. I think that portion of the horror genre began in the 1970's when horror movies began to chance with pictures like the Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Wes Craven's the Hills have Eyes (which sadly they are remaking).

Horror movies of the 1980's were slasher films, they were you Freddy's they were your Jason's, it was Mike Myers who terrified and thrilled you and eventually it was Chucky that made you laugh at the riddiculous nature horror had become. We are suppose to be terrified of a doll that should be easily smashed under foot, I think not.

So where does Hostel fit into all this, its not the horror of the 30's as it does not even compare to movies like The Bride of Frankenstein. It's not a movie of the 1940's where the Mummy and The Creature from the Black Lagoon reigned. Nor is it a movie from the 1950's where the Blob and the House of Wax existed. Nor can it compare to Pyscho nor the Birds of the 1960's.

Is it a slasher movie, the horror subgenre it most closely resembles like 1974's The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. If this is so why do I like the Texas Chainsaw Massacre and despise Hostel so much. Its not a movie of the 1980's where Freddy and Jason gave me nightmares as a child. The movie didn't frighten me, it didn't entertain me, it didn't draw me in with stories of man made monsters like Frankenstein nor of creatures of the night like Dracula. So what is Hostel where does it belong in the Horror genre, a genre I once liked but am slowly beginning to despise.

Are you a horror fan, do you love older horror movies or do you like the contemporary ones. Where do we draw the line in the sand for what is horror and what is not and what is a good movie and one that is bad because it doesn't bother with a story, nor character development nor do we take anything away from it more than disgust.

Adam

Sir Dizzy,

That's an interesting point you make about the horror genre. I suppose you could say there are sub genres. The truth is, I do love the classics. The old Universal monster movies are extremely close to my heart. I grew up on them. I guess for me personally, I judge a movie on how I feel after it's over. Seven for example left my stomach in knots but I recognize that it was supposed to leave my stomach in knots. Therefore, I wouldn't necessarily say I got entertainment value out of it. But I did find it thrilling and provocative. The same could be said of Hostel. For me anyway. I wouldn't dare compare it to the likes of Frankenstein for it is an entirely different kind of horror. As for what kind of horror films I prefer, it varies. I'm a fan of subtle, understated horror (I feel like I'm one of the very few who really appreciated Exorcism of Emily Rose). I love horror with a comical edge (I'm a huge fan of American Werewolf in London, Evil Dead II, Creepshow, Re-Animator, and Return of the Living Dead). I enjoy experimental horror (chalk me up as a big fan of Blair Witch Project--let the insults begin). I love claustrophobic thrillers (i.e. Alien, John Carpenter's The Thing). I enjoy horror flicks with a little social commentary (George A. Romero's Dawn of the Dead is one of my all time favorites). I even have guilty pleasures in the form of some of the movies you mentioned (Friday the 13th, Child's Play). And, as I've already discussed in bold detail, I do like extreme horror on ocassion (i.e. Hostel, Audition, etc.). As for which are the most effective, I would go with the films that leave more to the imagination. Psycho and Halloween rank as two of the all time greats. Still, I think there is room for all of these sub genres. I get something different out of all of them. Hostel is scary to me because it suggests that man is capable of just about anything. It may be ugly and it may be disgusting, but it's also compelling. It hits close to home because the killers depicted in this movie could live right next door to us. These are men who kill because they are completely numb to everything else life has to offer. The very idea of that is horrific. Something you didn't really touch on is the stylistic choices Roth makes in this film. You commented on the tone, and the gore, but I don't remember you talking about this film's undeniable style. It is a competent thriller in that you have no idea how a certain character is going to make it out of this horrifying situation. The final twenty minutes of this picture in particular are very tense, and Roth does a good job building that tension. I can respect that you hate the film because of what it suggests and how it's characters behave, but to call Roth incompetent as a director in a dumbed down genre isn't all together fair. He is a talented film maker and the jump he's made from the silly Cabin Fever to this, is astonishing. Again, I can understand your loathing towards Hostel because of what it has to say and how it says it, but as a work of true horror this is vastly superior to the numerous genre films we saw last year (i.e. Amityville Horror, Boogeyman, Cursed, The Fog, The Man etc.). In my mind, those are incompetant films. On a final note, you should try and hit Horror-Fest in October. You'll clearly see that I love a wide range of genre films. And in fact, I'm always up for screening suggestions. Send me a few.

Vainglorious Bastard

YOu two seem to know just about everything there is to know about horror movies and just movies in general, maybe you should put away the weapons, put your heads together and write a film yourselves - that I would pay to see. Revenge of the Dizzymaster. Incidentally that was an entertaining bit of dialogue, is there anything else you two do not agree on? Night of the back alley abortionist. Sir Dizzy you go first.

sirdizzy

I think in someways you are trying to open a can of worms that is not truly there in hopes of seeing a little action, when in reality I am most likely going to turn my attention to you. So I will answer your question and I will disguss it although I doubt it will garner you the effect you anticiapate.

Have you ever heard of the empty bag test, this is where you place an empty paper bag on a table and the first table you say nothing. Most of the time the bag will remain undistrubed and nobody will look in it. Now if you were to take that same empty bag and tell everyone at the table not to look into it, most of the time they will look in it once you have left the room. Why is this? Its human nature to be curious is why, we are an inquisitive species by nature.

If I were to come out and say that they cannot make movies like Hostel because it is too brutal, the movies would still be made and they would be in more demand than if I hadn't said anything. Now on the same note if I were to tell Adam he can't see Hostel it would only make him want to see it more. It is not my right to say Eli Roth cannot make this movie nor that Adam can't see it and like it for that matter. It is my right to try and educate people on why I thought it was bad and why they shouldn't want to see it not why they can't see it. It is Adam's right to try and defend the movie if he likes and try and open my eyes to a value to the movie that I may have missed. Just like it is your right to be so crude with your question on back alley abortisionist, it may not be appropriate and just silly and stupid on your part but I will answer it.

Abortions aren't going to stop, just like people aren't going to stop having sex, its just not going to happen so what can we do about it, we can stop telling them to stop looking in the empty paper bag is what we can do. We can educate them that the bag is empty and they need not bother with it. In other words abortions should be legal but their should be consquences to such. If you are having unprotected sex and need or want an abortion its your right but you must pay for the bad choices you have made, like it was my right to see Hostel but I paid the price by being disgusted by the movie. A hefty tax, heck we can call it the stupid tax if you like, would be imposed on those who wanted an abortion and for those who can't pay they can pay it off with community service. What would this do, it would do away with your back alley abortionists is what it would do, because their dangerous and deadly work would no longer be needed. This is why prohibition failed, this is why you can argue prolife tell your blue in the face, the ability to only see one side of the arguement will always make you at least half wrong.

I think Adam should have the right to see Hostel if he wants, to like it if wants and I will reserve my right to hate it and argue it with him.

ofalman

Dizzy my boy, I think that bit was just a joke, you need to lighten up before you have a stroke.

Missionary

Yo doe fizzy gots it all fi-diggered out. Dizzy brother at first I thought it ill-advised to take that bait and dignify that shit with a second thought. But ya know I gots to thinkin' about that abortion idea and that shit makes sense. Who's up for some tough legislation - Senator Dizzee done got the floor - s'all you noisy Rascals need to shut it and sit yo white asses down. G'on now - give 'em the DL on that plan Y'see it's only human to mess up y'honor, but if you want to take the easy way out, you need to take your wallet out too. They say we pay for our sins in the afterlife. . but Bro Dizz thinks y'all outta start makin' installments on that shits now. Yea verily! Can I get a Yea Verily? Amen.I can. Keep the faith Brother Dizzy.

Sheryl Lowe

I'm with Adam, this movie has a definable three act story structure, and moves into the final act with a classic confrontational convergance and resolution. In screepwriting terms Sir Dizzy that is a movie with a story. YOu should also stay out of the realm of morality, you don't want to open that up.

Chance Marquez

I think the bottom line here is that the medium of film is the art-form best suited to expose the truth. Look at the many films that chronicled the horrors of Viet Nam, they were not easy films to sit through, but they told it how it was. Same goes for Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan. Unpleasant reality perfhpas, but reality nonetheless. Therefore since Hostel is bringing to light a situation in the world that haowever unpleasant is nonetheless real, why is it any different from the films mentioned above. I'm with Adam, Hostel is an effective movie, that makes it's point and does so in a way that some may find unpleasant and some may find entertaining. Different Strokes for different folks is what it boils down to.