Hostel

Hostel was one of those films described as "torture porn" and, with my low tolerance for gore, I decided to give it a miss at the cinemas and dismiss it if anyone brought it up. However as it came on TV a month or so ago I decided that maybe I was being unfair by not giving it a try. It did sit on my HDD for a month though as somehow I never was in the mood until I forced myself to watch it. It does what you expect it to do and there should be no surprise that it is very gory throughout. What surprised me was how gripped I was by it as I squirmed in my seat and had the emotional "flight" response while sitting there. In that sense the film works because for all but the most hardened viewer it will have you feeling ill and get your heart beating. However while it did achieve this, it did it by simply going direct for being as sadistic and graphic as it possibly could.

In a way there is a "build-up" to the main gory bits but this is less of a decision so much as a necessary evil of having any sort of story. The first thirty minute or so are essentially the guys getting honey-trapped into this Eastern-European world of heartless torture and then from there we have gore for varying reasons (and here the makers give us nudity to prevent the male target audience getting bored). You never really care about the characters or the story because the tension is not about "what is happening next" as it is about the act you are watching. It is a cynical horror movie in this way as it has a very simple atmosphere and a very simple target or gore. While you are watching it the sheer cruel horror of it might stop you thinking but ultimately it is a soulless affair that reminds me of the viral "2 girls 1 cup" video. You see both are the type of thing you want to watch but also don't want to see, both also are entirely about seeing horrible things from the remote safety of your home and of course both generally get a "hands over eyes, open-mouth but yet unable to look away" response from viewers. This is all Hostel is going for and this is why I have real reservations recommending it because as a "film" it is pretty poor.

Those that love gore will love it though because in this area it excels. The effects are horrifically realistic and are delivered in clear, cruel shots. The actors do a great job of convincing in their pain, horror and fear and this is part of the gore voyeur aspect of the film. As characters though they are poor and can do nothing with the script other than be young and geeky/sexy/beefy/stoned* (delete as appropriate). Hoffman's portrayal of power is the only exception because, while a bit whacked out, he perfectly captures the sheer indifference to live that real evil has. Roth's direction doesn't show much in the way of subtlety but he knows what his audience want and how to give it to them. The lack of anything beyond this in his delivery or script can be easily seen in the way that the film doesn't even try to do something with the fact that we are getting entertainment from watching people torture/kill others for their entertainment. Normally in this sort of thing there would at least be some reference to this conflict but here Roth is part of his audience and sees nothing wrong at all with what he is doing – which is a problem for me, not that he needs to be "ashamed" but just that a film should not just be a load of filmed gore with no heart or reason to care.

Hostel is a gory horror movie that is entirely about being repulsed and thrilled by the graphic and sadistic acts portrayed with excellent special effects. Those looking for this will be pleased with it but the majority will be turned off. For some it will simply be too gory to watch and they will get no pleasure from witnessing hell on earth – I totally understand where they are coming from. However the majority of viewers will not be those that struggle with gore but just object to the cynical way that it is put on the screen without any real attempt at using it as part of the film or story – no, here the gore is the all and there is nothing else to watch it for. This factor alone makes me stronger in my decision to ignore this genre for what it is because being good at what you do doesn't mean that it is right for you to do it in the first place.

Recently I picked up Hostel at my local movie store and decided to give it a try. I finished watching it and had very mixed feelings. First off, this film is not nearly as gory and disgusting as advertised. It is although, very graphic, and NOT for the squeamish, I just expected more out of it. The pop-up scares aren't effective and the first half of the movie is all soft-core porn. So what makes this movie a decent horror movie? The physiological scares. That is what got to me. The overwhelming feeling of being tied and up and tortured to death. Having no escape. For that was very effective and stomach curdling. The sex and nudity was all not needed, but for people looking for that kind of stuff, it's all here. The acting was pretty good. No bad performances. Hostel is a kind of movie where you'll either love it or hate it. But overall, an OK horror film. Not my favorite, but not terrible.

It would seem from the majority of the comments on this film that very few of the people making these comments have any real insight into film production or what some film makers are attempting to communicate to an audience. With that in mind, here are some things I discovered upon viewing this film: (1) The story is new and unique. Thank goodness for any film that is not a sequel, a remake, or a film based on some decades-old television program. (2) The director uses the Xenophobia most Americans have about Europe and the citizens of those countries to very good effect. He plays on those fears, throws fuel onto that fire, much like Tobe Hooper did with rural areas in the U.S. in "Texas Chainsaw Massacre". (3) I was impressed by the build-up of uneasiness leading up to the torture scenes, the prevading sense of something "off bubble". If the characters had not been tenth-degree horndog party animals intent only on having a good time, they might have been more suspicious of the strange events taking place around them, which - in my mind - justifies the scenes of debauchery to show how oblivious these guys were. (4) A great number of things often have to be done in a film to appease The Studio. I saw several scenes that appeared to be included seemingly at the behest of The Studio for "saleability", and were not necessarily included for story-telling. There is also a desire to "one-up" each other in the Studio System, which publicly decries sex and violence while unofficially tells Producers to "give us more, and make it even more shocking than (fill in the blank)". All-in-all, while this film is not for the squeamish, it does have some things to say that create discussion and dialogue about a number of things, from how we view foreign cultures to how we treat each other. Any film that can generate that kind of thought while providing innovation deserves applause.

This movie really could have been so much more. The idea would have been much better off with someone who actually wanted to make a decent movie, instead of a porno gorefest. The first half of the movie consists almost entirely of sex, talk of sex, drugs, and talk of drugs. Instead of, hey, maybe develop the characters a little so the audience might care about them and make their plights a little more tense, the filmmakers decided to have a lot of party scenes and annoying main characters acting like idiots until, uh oh, we didn't plan on being tortured, oops! The sad thing is, there are hints of something more intelligent beneath the surface, but the surface is piled so high with garbage that it's lost. For example, while at a sex club (wow, original!) one of the characters mentions something along the lines of "paying to do anything you want to a person," of course he means sexually, but we know the basic plot of the movie involves the same concept with death and torture instead of sex. One of the characters is supposed to seem like a nice guy, but still never really develops enough for us to care. The main character has absolutely no depth other than a childhood story and his shallow interaction with his friend. The last half or so of the movie actually starts to gain momentum, and the first half not been an entire waste of film, I could have walked away with more than a feeling that I'd just watched 15 minutes of an okay movie, and an hour and fifteen minutes of porn and senseless gore. Sadly enough, the idea of this movie was put into the wrong hands. A little less than halfway through, my friend turned to me and said, "Maybe I picked up the wrong movie..." to which I replied, "Yeah, I think you got Eurotrip by accident." I am baffled as to why they decided to write the first half like they did. I guess I was hoping for something deeper. Don't watch this expecting anything special, be ready for lots of nudity and lots of incredibly disturbing gore mixed randomly, the two not even seeming to fit like they would in a slasher flick.

HOSTEL is best seen knowing nothing about it. Director Eli Roth has made a tricky movie here, with a lot of seemingly harmless buildup leading to a crescendo of visceral terror and anguish. The three western tourists are likable, young males out for a bit of fun. They are oblivious to the trap into which they've fallen. Hell has to literally open up around them before they take notice.

Part horror / cautionary tale, part sadistic blast of jet-black humor, and part social / political commentary, Roth builds the story slowly, revealing the truth in one big, shocking switch. The motivation behind the ordeal is what places this movie a step above typical, so-called "torture porn". It's ingenious really, in a sort of cynical, demonic way. Not for the squeamish or the easily offended...