User reviews

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.

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.

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.

The film deals about two(Jay Hernandez and Derek Richardson) American backpackers tourists and a third(Gudjonsson) from Iceland travel across European touring.They are looking for sex,promiscuous girls,drugs,booze and amusement. They begin in Switzerland,Belgium and Amsterdam where are informed a hostel in Bratislava(Slovakia) that offers sexy and beautiful girls.When arrive there,they actually encounter hot and delicious girls.But early their dreams become in bloody nightmares.Firstly are threaten by violent children,after the friends are disappearing.Meanwhile Jay Hernandez realizes that the hostel contains a horrible secret.

This creepy film display mystery,suspense,restless horror,tension,shocks and great lots of blood and guts.The first part movie is an usual teen movie ,plenty of sex,disco,drugs,scatological jokes ,but later when they're going into hostel and the terror appears is when turns and makes more horrifying,more terrible,more thrilling and more gore.The movie contains tense sequences of hair-rising terror and loads of violence and gore,courtesy of make up specialists Greg Nicotero and Howard Berger(Land of the dead among others).The casting is principally formed by two promising actors, Jay Hernandez(World Trade Center,Carlitos'way:rise to power,Ladder 49,Torque)and Derek Richardson(Dumb and dumber).Appear uncredited the directors Takashi Mike(Ichi the killer,a film as violent as this one) and Eli Roth.Sinister and eerie atmosphere is well made by the cameraman Milas Chadima.The motion picture is professionally directed in the Czech Republic by Eli Roth ,nowadays become in terror movies expert,he directed ¨Cabin fever¨,¨Grindhouse¨and Hostel II also produced by Quentin Tarantino and Boaz Yarkin and again with Jay Hernandez along with a new cast by Bjou Phillips and Jordan Ladd.

The plot, in short: Three backpackers, two Americans and one Icelander, does Europe by train with two major goals: To get high and nail as many women as possible... In Amsterdam they accidentally learn of a hostel in Bratislava, Slovakia where sex-mad women thirst for men in general, and American men i particular. They of course decide to go there and at first it seems the rumors were true. But they soon learn that the hostel is nothing more than a front for a bizarre club, where people can pay a huge fee to get to perform unspeakable acts...

My 2 cents: The director and writer Eli Roths biggest accomplishment before Hostel is Cabin Fever (2002) - weather or not that is something good is a matter of personal judgment. That he got two Evil Dead'ers (Scott Spiegel and FX-genius Gregory Nicotero) interested in his script is not at all surprising. But how he got Quentin Tarantino to executive produce (and thereby act as "posterboy" for his flick) is, to me, a total and utter mystery.

Hostel has potential, I'm not going to take that away from it. The thought that a place exists where rich people pay money to torture and kill other people is interesting. And a story about a kidnapped person who finds himself locked in that very place, waiting for his assassin, should make for a great film! The film is wonderfully lit, specifically in the torture chamber-scenes. And the set-dressing in those scenes are marvelous. It really feels like Roth found these places - and just shot them as the were. But the lighting, set-dressing and potentially-rich story, unfortunately, ends the positive things I have to say about Hostel.

It is frustrating to see a story that could have been so exciting and horrific get so utterly fumbled up! The movie is an hour and a half long, and takes a whopping 50 minutes to get to the place that is supposed to be the scene of terror and creepiness. The nearly hour-long "intro" is spent observing the backpackers while they party, get high and watch naked ladies in Amsterdams Red Light-district. When the story finally starts to focus on whatever is wrong with the Slovakian hostel it points everything out to such an extensive degree that it feels like Roth wants to put a stupid-hat on every member in the audience. I sat, in vain, and waited for him to take the lid off, go "ta-daa!" and show me something intelligent that I had missed. But it never happens and when the lid, towards the end, slowly slides off on its own accord it turns out that the ones you suspected were bad guys were in fact...bad guys. The ones you suspected were dead...were dead. And the entire movie ends the way you suspected it would all along.

Jay Hernandez (Paxton) and Derek Richardson (Josh) doesn't do to shabby in the two leads. But Roth has stayed true to Hollywood formula and chosen picturesque before personality, and the bigger part has unfortunately been given to Hernandez - instead of Richardson who I thought were more likable, and more interesting to watch.

Spanish director Koldo Serra made El tren de la bruja in 2003. A short-film about a man who agrees to partake in an experiment and suddenly finds himself strapped to a chair in a dark room. He hears metal objects being handled and someone pacing back and forth in the room. When the light is turned on it dawns on him that he will probably be tortured to death. Serras short-film is fifteen minutes long. It was filmed in two days and is scary as hell! Hostel is both longer and has, as it first seems, more story to build on. But it still wants to base the horror in exactly the same sort of scenes as Serras short - and fails miserably! Hostel is, probably, made specifically for an American teen-audience, where drugs and naked women represent half of the movies pull. Blood and bodyparts make up the other half. If you watch this and expect anything more sophisticated than some blood and naked breasts you'll be disappointed.

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.

Not to give too much away in case you haven't seen the film, I did feel a little sick at one point. However, there was a beginning, a middle and an ending and, there is a small chance that this could really happen to you. Based on actual happenings during the World Wars, (where does anybody get their ideas from), I thought that this was quite a good horror film.

At one point, I had to laugh, (my youngest son has been accepted by two universities to study Medicine - he wants to become a Surgeon), and so I found this film quite entertaining. Quite frankly, I wouldn't mind watching this film again at a later date.

I just got back from an L.A. screening of Hostel. I haven't seen an effective horror film like this in a long time. My stomach was still knotted up after we left the screening. The last time I felt like that was when I saw ALIENS for the first time about 19 years ago. Since then, no other horror film has ever made me feel like that. I certainly didn't expect it from this one. As much as I loved Cabin Fever, I'm not blind to the shortcomings of its script. As such,I was expecting more of the same from Hostel - dark humor, gore, and a sense of dread. I'm happy to see that director Eli Roth has taken a big step forward in becoming a better storyteller and filmmaker.

Admittedly my heart sank when the film began. The scenes introducing the main characters were blandly shot and edited. All I could think was, 'Oh no. Roth succumbed to some unseen studio pressure to make a normal-looking horror flick'. The style was typical of the what you'd see in crap like I know what you did last summer. But in very subtle ways, the blandness gets washed away and as our heroes enter the threshold of Hell, the style of the film changes as well. This, I learned during the Q&A afterwards with Roth, was intentional.

If you've read some of the other reviews posted here from people who saw it at the Toronto Film Festival, you get the general idea of the story. Contrary to what you might've heard, this is not a 90 minute film on torture. The torture scenes are brief and to the point. Roth doesn't wallow in pointless gore. And this is where I think it shows how he's improved as a filmmaker. He's more interested in scenes and ideas that move the story forward. Yes, there is plenty of gore, but it's relevant to the story and doesn't exist just for it's own sake.

One of the aspects of this film that made it so powerful was how Roth created a sense of helpless and inevitability. He provides the dark setup, throws in a sympathetic character, and begins twisting the screws and ratcheting up the suspense. This isn't a movie where you turn off your brain to enjoy it. On the contrary. The more you think about it, the more horrifying it becomes. You begin putting yourself into the character's situation and wondering what you'd do. When you realize that there is no hope for the character, no way to escape, no 'buddy' who's gonna turn up at the last minute to save the hero, and not a shred of humanity or compassion to the antagonists, real fear begins to set in.

Another great element in the script is how the 'survivor' makes moral choices that define their character. Instead of being merely reactive like the characters in Cabin Fever, the survivor makes several decisions which change the course of the story. It's a sign of well thought-out script and a filmmaker who cares about the fate of his characters.

For horror fans, this is an absolute must-see. It's so refreshing to see a horror movie that actually makes you feel uncomfortable and one in which you have no idea what's going to happen next. As for the gore, I was surprised by what they got away with. Although there were no credits at the end of the film, the cut I saw was rated R by the MPAA and according to Roth, he didn't cut anything out.

This movie is a clear step above most horror movies. It helps raise the bar for all horror movies by simply having a nice mix of movie elements that work well together.

Basically, the movie is about three American college guys who venture out of Amsterdam and into a region of Slovakia looking for more extreme female interaction. Once they arrive, they begin to suspect that everything may not be as good as it seems when one by one they start disappearing.

Although this seems like a typical horror plot, the movie is well-done and believable. The European scenery, interesting characters, decent dialog and fast-moving pace of the movie completely separate it from the typical "waste of time" horror movies.

I also give the director high marks for not making this a gore-fest and overfocusing on nothing but blood and guts. The result is that he has created a real movie - and a good one.

This is a pretty decent horror flick. If you're in the mood for this kind of movie and don't want a mindless slasher-fest, this will do nicely.

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...

I just watched this movie, after sitting here alone in the dark for the past hour or so i can honestly say that i had to take my eyes of the screen a few times. Some of the scenes are directly painful to watch, you will feel it hurt in every part of your body.

but this is not like a meaningless horror movie, this movie has something else. Maybe it's in the dialogs and the story or maybe in the acting and the setting. I don't know really, maybe it's all of them.

The actors do a great job, the music score is really horror, the story is a little weak, but it keeps it going, and the director is really a genius. I just love the way he plays with camera angles. And the cast in the movie, really says it all. What do a butcher look like ?. See the movie and you will agree. "That is what a butcher looks like". This is also the truth in the other roles.

I loved the film, it is extremely horrifying but still very very entertaining. They brought horror to a new level with this one. And once again Quentin Tarrantino have involved himself in yet a genius flick.

I give it 7 out of 10. The story was a little weak.

I like a rip-roaring horror movie as much as the next guy, but this one just didn't do it for me. It certainly felt like it hit all the necessary marks, from nudity and dismemberment to bloody revenge, but at the conclusion, it just felt like eating cotton candy - no real nutritional value, just a sense that I had satisfied some of my prurient appetite without any logical payoff.

The movie was slow in getting started and then the sprinted to a singularly boggling ending. I walked out of the theater asking, "What was the point of all that?" And while this is described as horror, it really should be classified as thriller. There was no explanation or clever twist at the end. Just the end. I'm sure that it will attract an enthusiastic audience of young adults, but the evisceration by the critics will stem any hopes of huge box office.

If your expectations are low enough, and your tastes in gore sufficiently robust, then you are in for a good time. Otherwise, skip this and see a classic Hitchcock film. You'll feel better about yourself.

Just watched Hostel for the second time and thoroughly enjoyed it again though it meanders towards the end and doesn't deliver the catharsis that the degree of vengeance could. I think this is intentional though as we aren't supposed to identify with the characters in a good way, but recognise that their ignorance and chauvinism could be our own. The feeling achieved at the end is liberating in a different sense as in we are still free to heed the main message of the film, and tuck that money back in our wallet before we spend it on an immoral enterprise, such as sleeping with prostitutes who were forced into it, despite the carefree dogma of the age. Barbara Nedeljakova and Prague both look great as well. I liked the nod to the Wickerman, and the more sinister reference of the big ovens (the other thing i got was the feeling of getting more than you bargain for when you delve into a country's history and dig up some nasty stuff. This is particularly true when travelling.)

One final important point is that I think although many viewers will be able to identify to a degree with the blokes in this film, they aren't supposed to be entirely sympathetic characters.

Hostel- Quentin Tarantino/Eli Roth @ his most creepy. Alfred Hitchcock stand aside for this one.

I have yet to see a more evil & creepy movie, nor am I a fan of such, however it is frighteningly realistic & quite possible-that a shadowy "business" baits young adventurous male college partiers into unspeakable peril as they're setup by hot enticing European women (the "front"), drugged, & wind up in a most hellish & unspeakable situation; tumbling into a predictable chain of events that feed on the most evil, cruel & inhumane desires of a "bizarre club", whereas grossly sick individuals pay great sums of money to have access & ability to cause horror, pain, terror, torture & live surgical dissection to fellow human beings. The plot opens slowly in Amsterdam with the presence & allure of drugs, parties & promises of hot sexual encounters. Although dragging on, it leaves the audience in a comfortable & predictable place- & thus lets the viewers guard down. A train ride across Europe ends in a Czechoslovakian town as the first sense of fear bridles the unexpected. The unspeakable of actions wields full reign with the most heinous of mans cruelty to man in a truly believable controlled situation- protected by the auspices of business, power, money, & a private paramilitary protected "factory". The unsuspected guest (or audience) falls into a malevolent & uncompromised fear & terror- succumbing to an utterly powerless & hopeless abyss. The realism & potential 'actuality' of a hellhole of such- in today's world is truly believable. I found myself "in the screen" being in the party & riding the train- enticed by these animated European actresses preying on the desires of these guys. It is uncanny how drawing these individuals were. MOST GUYS would have taken the gait, which is the scary creepy part. Look- guys are vulnerable in this world also! As the plot developed I found myself, perspiring, as my respiratory rate became shallow & absent as I found myself gasping at times. In Inferring an "Alfred Hitchcock stand aside for this one", I respectfully ONLY compare the level of anticipation, anxiety, tension, fear, terror & (the viewers) acquired (& actual) visceral somatic (ism) to Hitchcock. This is where it ends. Appreciatively Hitchcock would never take a viewer to this level of disgust.