I really enjoyed Cabin Fever, which is partially what made Hostel such a letdown. Hostel is a movie that revels in pure sadism. It's not the first movie to do that sort of thing, but it does so in a way that is gratuitous and rather pointless, as though the writers and producers had lost interest in the plot and were trying to one-up each other to see who could come up with the grossest torture and nastiest injuries. Atmosphere is not a problem in the movie, but the gore-for-the-sake-of-gore element that drives the movie renders it unfulfilling as a viewing experience. The ending is also somewhat silly. Overall, a ghastly movie full of rather grotesque tortures that really don't aim towards any greater contextual purpose except to show off the crew's vivid imaginations. The film is not for those lacking strong constitutions.

I saw this movie hoping it might be like the first Saw (i.e. have some orginality and true scariness - unlike the sequels), but was highly disappointed.
There is nothing scary, just disgusting torture and violence (that you know is completely fake), so the movie just looks gross, nothing more.

Really though, what can you expect from the director of that Cabin movie??

I thought this would be like the new name in terror films from the way people were talking, but overall, this was just kind of weak.

The movie had some good gore scenes if that is what you are into and some naked beautiful women which I always enjoy, but as a movie...ehhh...not very exciting.

The story is really linear and boring, not thought-provoking at all, and although I usually love the films that Tarantino endorses, after watching this all that I could think of is, "What the heck was that piece of crap?"

The movie is not completely without merits, as I mention women and gore, but really it was not entertaining. If I wanted to watch a good terror type of film that is also entertaining and meaningful, I would NEVER watch this.

We bought this, watched it once, and then gave it to a friend. Really, if you are a fan of the genre, then check it out, but I would not suggest wasting your money on this. By buying it, you are giving people hope for this level of film making, and really, that is just not right at all.

very bad movie, very disappointing ......I almost fall asleep to it.....just another soft porn with no taste or good story....I am disappointment in Quentin Tarrentino's taste......I loved Kill Bill was very good if you like to see a lot of blood.....but this doesn't has a story that is interesting enough to be made into a film...plus nothing interesting at all happens until the last 25 min. of the movie....so boring, so slow....this is the last Quentin Tarrentino film I will pay money for to see...he obviously has lost his talent.

I've watched my share of horror movies that include substantial amounts of blood and gore, had disturbing and squeamish content that leaves you squirming in your seat in discomfort, and when it comes to the horror genre I'll watch it all. If you like lots of blood and gore and uncomfortable content in your horror movie, this movie would be perfect for you.

Some annoyances I found with Hostel:

While I'm not a big fan of lots of blood and gore, that wasn't what annoyed me about this movie. The characters, 3 young males out having a fun time in Europe, partying and meeting women, were. I couldn't help but roll my eyes in exasperated amusement when their eyes seemed to light up at the mention of easy women for the taking in some Easter European country. This is what gets them into the trouble they find themselves in later on, when all the hacking and cutting begins. I just shook my head and thought, "Men" when they eagerly trekked off to this out-of-the-way country to get some booty. Of course, it seemed like poetic justice that they got their just rewards later on after being lured by 3 beautiful women (bait, if you will).LOL.

Oh, another annoyance I had was the first 30 minutes was a showcase of naked women, and being a woman myself, I didn't find it all that appealing to watch women parading around with no shirts on baring their breasts to all. I don't know about everyone else, but watching 3 young men visit a whorehouse to get laid is not that interesting. I kept waiting for the good stuff to begin!

Anyways, two of the men end up becoming unwilling entertainment to rich men who pay top dollar to torture wayward tourists in all sorts of sadistic and cruel ways. One of the characters gets side-tracked before he can be taken, and slowly realizes that they all were duped and are the "meat" in this little twisted game.

I've seen Hostel 2 as well, and I actually thought that movie had more graphic torture scenes. Hostel isn't all that bad (perhaps for the uninitiated to horror, the "newbie", it would be very shocking and revolting). Yes, I will admit there is a lot of parts that would unsettle and horrify most people, but after watching this movie a 2nd time around its shocking content of torture, blood, and gore seemed diminished somehow. When I first saw this movie, it sickened and disgusted me and I thought, "This is horror??", but after watching it a 2nd time it grew on me and it didn't seem as terrible, so go figure.heh.

This movie is not for everyone. If you can't stomach watching a movie that's story-line revolves around torture with generous amounts of blood and gore, then you won't like this movie. If you want to be disturbed, shocked, disgusted, and horrified give this a try.

"Does Eli Roth know pain?"

Well, after viewing "Hostel," I can assure you that Roth knows pain, he knows all about it. Somewhere in his vast collection of horror movies in his bedroom-- probably right around the nudie woman pictures, Guns and Ammo Magazines, and a framed picture of his smiling and assured, self-portrait on the mantel above his bed-- there would be a DVD of his second film, "Hostel." Let me tell you-- this film is pain: in all its agonizing and slow, torturous glory, as if hell-bent on stupefying its audience. Yet, I still kinda like it... but it has made me dumber.

Two obnoxious Americans--perfecting the persona of the frat boy cliché-- must fight to survive torture at the hands of those damn ugly foreigners. That's pretty much all that needs to be said about plot-- the film, which is solely rooted in comedy, torture, and ti*s, is obviously not to heavy on the subtext-- yet, one still may see the film as depicting the current state of foreign views on pro-war America, as in the film, Americans fetch a high price when bought to torture and kill, and I don't think it's because they like us. Still, it would be interesting to see how the film went over in some European countries, as well.

You see, the film is silly, plain and simple: a sort of summery of all that is wrong in modern horror movies. Yet, it may go with the modern flow, and although it's rowing up s*it creek, and it may actually have a paddle, it's still s*it creek, nonetheless. Yet, again, it's still going somewhere. All these gray areas are present when speaking of "Hostel's" likeability.

Since, the characters don't develop much out of the roles of lambs to the slaughter-- but are slightly admirable if you like Roth's brand of "Porky's" like humor. Yet some may belive that the film fits into that modern term "torture porn," but other than the fact that term is often idiotic-- how come violence in horror only gets a backlash, when other genre's/ directors (Michael Bay, anyone) are just as gratuitous-- the film is only to be taken semi-seriously, even when the horror kicks in. Still agonizing, yes. Yet, such as a scene in which a character decks himself out in armor to evade capture, it's obvious that it can't be all serious, can't it? I hope not!

Moreover, it's a wonder how Roth can make such biting--no matter how much of it may be accidental--social commentaries that tap into modern fears, so timely, but still can be such utter laugh fests. His first film was "Cabin Fever," a film about a virus, that was released shortly after SARS broke out--and although Roth may seem little too cocksure in his films, and his films may never be nothing more than decent drunken midnight movies, there's still something oddly likeable here, even if it is mind numbing, obnoxious, and crass. That my reader, is what may have Roth's name stick out with the camp-satire of the Frank Henenlotter's (Basket Case, Brain Damage) in the horror film industry-- and that's not being shipwrecked in s*it creek, either.

** (Out of 5)

this was a great performence a real bloody and gorey tortureing movie hostal part2 was dissapointing but this first one was great.

As you can see by my title, I ran across quite a lot of complaints about this movie before I watched it. "It had a bad plot," people said. "It was porn for the first 40 minutes, and its transition into gore was really sudden." "The acting was bad," "the directing was terrible", "the story sucked", etc., etc.

When I watched it I was very pleasantly surprised to find that all these complaints were wrong. Sure, some of them were based on truths, but I think people distorted them simply because they didn't like the premise. Yes, the first 20-30 (NOT 40) minutes of the film had quite a lot of nudity in it, but it was by no means porn! And though I'm not a great fan of mindless sex, at least it wasn't pointless. The sex is what lured the main characters into the hostel in the first place. And the transition into the gore was not sudden, but quite easily handled--in fact, I'm surprised at the wonderful job that Eli Roth did at transforming the mood from light and flippant into dark and unfathomably disturbing.

The acting was by no means bad. Jay Hernandez, I believe, did a spectacular job as Paxton. It is fascinating to watch Paxton's character change from a carefree college student obsessed with sex and girls to a troubled man that delights in vengeance against his torturers. The other actors did their job well (though Derek Richardson as Josh, while mostly skillful, needed to work on his whimpering).

Now for the story. As you all should know, it's about three college-age men that backpack across Europe looking for sex, and they're recommended to a hostel, which turns out to be a place that people get tortured (seriously, the plot is better than I made it sound). Eli Roth didn't add many fancy or unexpected twists into his screenplay; you won't see the kind of surprise endings that the Saw franchise is famous for. But everything Eli Roth does have in here he made sense of. He uses very little unnecessary material, and he does a great job at subtle foreshadowing so that, in the end, everything makes sense. Please pay attention to the scene where Paxton tells Josh about a childhood memory of watching a girl die, because it foreshadows what would have otherwise been a really dumb (er, I mean Gryffindorish) moment in the script.

I also loved the fact that Eli Roth and the sound editors didn't splurge on the screams. In fact, when the screams get particularly loud, the editors actually turned them down and instead increased the other noises (such as the chainsaws or, most memorably, the snapping of sharp scissors). You can't know just how pleased I was that they didn't blast me from my seat with 100,000 decibels of pure sound.

I also loved the score, which moved away from the overly-creepy style of horror films and more towards the dramatic form. It suited the film better, because this film was really not scary. However, it was truly disturbing and horrific (hence the term "horror film"). It is dumbfounding to witness this appalling display of human brutality and its marked effect on the characters (namely Paxton--he has an absolutely haunting terror in his eyes during the last half-hour of the movie). This brutality is made all the more effective by Roth's refusal to use the safer, less inciting "cut-to-black" techniques found in cheap horror films. No, he shows us everything. In great, bloody detail. And it is gross.

The trailer said the movie was based off true events. I'm guessing it probably meant the premise as opposed to the actual characters, but either way it's entirely believable. Humans are cruel creatures, and they go to insane lengths to continue in their destructive depravity. It was Roth's effectiveness in conveying this theme that made me give this movie a 5-star instead of a 4.

This movie is a must-see for horror fans, or for MATURE viewers. If you cannot see past the gore, you should probably not watch this movie. If you can, however, you need to watch this at least once (more, if you can stomach it), despite the side effects of a churned stomach and a severe jolting of the emotions and senses.

I applaud this film for actually taking the time to establish the characters, which rarely happens in this type of genre. Usually, we get a brief glimpse of their lives before they are ultimately killed off one by one. However, I really wish it didnt waste 3/4 of the film with a boring plot.
If you love the torture/horror genre, then this will be a dissapointment for you. The true action doesn't beging until about 20 minutes from the end of the movie and by then you are already bored out of your mind. The torture scenes are quite brief actually and while effective, they are nothing truly gut wrenchingly grotesque or even flinching, especially if you are used to watching films like this. Any of the Saw films easily beat Hostel in the blood and gore department and they do it in a wicked and tortureous way. Hostel is not even remotely scary or chilling. There are no jumpy moments. There are no spooky or clever moments. For those who are not used to or dislike this genre, then perhaps this film may affect you. Otherwise, its a forgettable and overrated film.

overall, i feel like it has a pretty standard formula. the first half of the film is spent getting to know the characters. many party scenes scattered about with lots of gratuitous nudity. about 45 minutes in, the real "meat" of the film kicks in. i dont want to spoil too much in the overall story. there are very sinister things at work here, and you get bits and pieces of that throughout the movie.

basically its the story of three backpackers, and a trip they'll wish they would have never taken, if they can survive till the credits..

to most, this is no more than an exploitation film, but theres a lot more to it than that. its a film about exploitation. you see the main characters not only exploiting women throughout the first half of the film, but an entire nation, if not an entire continent. you see them exploiting the womens' bodies, laws of amsterdam, and the simple fact that they're americans. as time goes on, they become the exploited. they are now the exploited. imagination is the only limit on what can be done to them. for a price. [ironic.. although nothing can justify what happens to them]

the social commentary can probably be noticed by anyone other than a five year old. in our internet ruled, ebay enriched society, nearly anything we want can be obtained for a price. the movie also plays on many americans feelings of foreigners and vice versa.

theres a lot here past all the gore and nudity most people wont be able to realize, and thats fine. first, the camera work. in the opening scenes theres a lot of ambient camera runs with bright colors. as time goes on the color fads and the camera work has a much more frantic feel, perfectly complimenting the events onscreen.

Eli Roth hired an orchestra to perform a lot of the music for the film. there is a simple tri-note riff with a deliciously sinister vibe you hear it throughout the film on different instruments from time to time. a very epic score overall. i especially like the work in the later sequences-intense.

the voilence is extremely graphic, featuring some the most realistic and disturbing torture sequences you'll probably ever see.

for the faint of heart- do not watch this. you've been warned.

opening night-2 ambulances at the site. one woman left early and ended up passing out and falling on the ground. another woman thought she was having a heart attack and called 911. she wasnt really, but still. thats one crazy opening. this isnt for everyone.

this is a horror film in the truest form of the word. its disturbing and horrific. it will stay with you for days-if not weeks-after seeing it. anyone with a strong stomach and even a remote interest in horror should deffinitely check this out.

there's loads of great special features in this 2 disk director's cut. multiple commentaries, deleted scenes, alternate ending, 4 featurettes, interview with Takasha Miike, and more.

I am not one to take moral stances, much less on movies. But in this case I am sorely tempted. Tarantino should have his head examined for supporting something as grotesque as this. That said, it does have some powerful imagery, once the barbarism begins (the first hour was just crap), and obviously it evoked a strong emotional response in me. But how hard is it to get an emotional response from scenes of graphic torture? (I felt the same about Tarantino's ear-slicing scene in Dogs, which was just exploitation cinema done up in new, postmodern rags). The film was disturbing, sure, but at a visceral rather than psychological level. Footage of animal experimentation would also be disturbing. Big deal.

What I admire about movies like Blue Velvet and Casualties of War (also M), and even Texas Chainsaw Massacre, is the way they get to the psychological roots of sadism, (by) creating empathy not just for the victims (easy enough, obviously), but for the perpetrators also. Tarantino seems devoid of empathy as a filmmaker. It's hard to imagine a greater defect (I think Kubrick suffered from it too, however, so I guess there are ways around it!). He delights in depicting scenes of pain and dismemberment with all the sadistic relish of a Goebbels.

They say a society gets the heroes it deserves. Tarantino's success strikes me as (like everything) symptomatic of just how "depraved" (removed from basic human qualities like compassion, introspection, kindness) audiences have become, that they would take pleasure in what amount to sadistic orgies of violence with no leavening "moral" (i.e. artistic) intent behind them.

In the end, there can be no credible argument made for censorship of any kind. But if there was, Hostel would be exhibit A.

What a sick concept but compelling nonetheless. The movie's plot (backpackers looking for adventure) is a pretext for absolutely disgusting torture scenes. But you can't turn away as the film takes you on a journey into a nightmarish world of depravity.

I have heard that this movie was bad, but I could not convince myself that this could be true given the fact that the name of Tarantino was associated with it. Well, now I believe it! I have a hard time thinking of a way in which someone could create a worse movie and it is certainly not easy. The plot is...wait, what plot? Not to mention that the acting is decidedly poor. I can almost imagine the conversation among the creators:

Creator #1: Don't you think we should do something about these actors? They are kind of bad.
Creator #2: Don't worry; we can add a lot of bloody scenes.
Creator #1: Are you sure that will be enough?
Creator #2: Yes. Just to be safe we should make it repulsive, we need to compensate for the lack of plot. I know! We should use a chainsaw. I heard that worked before.
Creator #1: Maybe you are right. Don't you think that the lack of plot is a big problem though?
Creator#2: Bah, we have several cute girls that don't mind being nude. People won't even notice if the plot is good or not.

I hope that by this point you get the idea. Stay as far away from this poor excuse of a movie as you can.

I had put off watching this movie because it just didn't sound that great to me. Then I watched Bravo's more scary movie momments, and I thought I would get around to it some day. I wish it had been sooner, cause it's great!! Very intense! Now I have to watch Cabin Fever. I think that the plot's original, acting is great, and there was just enough gore without going overboard.

Heavily influenced by Takashi Miike, directer of 'Audition', (who also makes a cameo in 'Hostel'), this film is not for the squeamish. In fact, if you don't like horror movies, then you have no business watching this. The violence in 'Hostel' is horrific and is meant to be disturbing. This horror is not meant to be fun.

A movie with realistic gore. The movie is crticized for sadistic gore, but its unfair to judge the movie as a censor or non approver of the genre. To rate a movie you must first enjoy the genre. You see sick horror is not everyone's cup of tea and for the people who do enjoy it, it is not a reflection of a freak sadistic nature of theirs. Its just that such movies peek our human curiosities. Its just a dare thing. Can we stand through this sick blood fest. It's also to explore the sick depravity of human nature. The stuff that happens in HOSTEL is something that serial killers do. We have heard the sordid tales. I know its gross, such sort of this violence is out there somewhere in the world happening all the time even as you read this review. Such movies just tap into our curious voyeuristic tendencies to see to what extents evil intents can hurt and kill others. In that we are just trying to do a reality check and want to get offended and turn away from the sick gore but then again we turn back and complete the movie and only to test our limits. All the gore elements are present and the gore is very realistically portrayed. The plot of internet based business elite hunting where people with money can get the satisfaction of tortuing and killing other people for 50 grand also raises questions for me -- "Is is actually happening in some part of the world". The movie does not have the fatalistic approach of "Saw", there can be some light at the end for atleast one of our characters. Also apart from the gore, you also got suspense till atleast half way through the movie where you are trying to make sense of why all this is happening and why this sick nonsense ...whats the purpose. That is part of the fun.

regards, Vikram

From the beginning of this film, it had an eerieness to it. The onset of the three boys on vacation, you knew some thing was going to go drasticly wrong at any time! This movie was shocking, and exciting to watch the susspence unfold...

I originaly saw Hostel in the theatre, and will admit that I am one of those who couldn't make it through to the end. The level of gore and grossness that Eli Roth brought into this film was shocking, explicit and the most outrageous I had ever seen on screen. Though there have been many films in the past that have done even worse, Hostel has a more realistic feel to it - and I felt I was actually in the film upon initial watch. Scary thing. After awhile, I decided to give it another try. I am glad I did. I missed out on a very satisfying ending, and more, realizing there is a film here beneath all the gore and blood.

The other thing that got on my nerve the first time I saw Hostel was the ongoing sex and nudity throughout the first 30 minutes of the film. But, I realized the characters are college boys, and that's just what they do best. Now whatever the message Roth was sending out with this film or what some people get out of it, I saw a simple message clear as day - trust no one - especially in a foreign country. And if something is too good to be true, it usually is. That's what happens with these young men. And the fact that they are American makes it even worse - there are people that pay handsomely to see Americans suffer, and that's where the real guts (so to speak) of this movie lies. Torture scenes are brutal and inventive, and will leave a mark (on the viewer too!). After a few viewings, it seems mild now but still has a very scary element to it each time I watch. I would have to say its Roth's use of the camera and lighting, and the dark setting where this takes place that makes it so creepy every time I watch.

This unrated director's cut contains two verison of the film - thank God. The original, as seen in theatres, is fortunately there too. The reason I say fortunately is because the alternate ending on the cut version was very dissapointing - and not satisfying at all like the original. Fortunately, here you get both. This dvd is still worth the buy to see the difference between the two endings.

I felt dirty and I took a shower - thats how I felt coming home from the theatre that night. But its ok, its just a movie. It still has its morals - good defeats evil in the end. Give it a second try if you haven't yet, all that gore really blocks us from seeing a deeper picture at first. If you have not seen this yet, watch with caution.

Acting - 4
Characters - 3.5
Gore - 4.5
Story - 3.5
Overall - 4

It will be short and sweet. Pretty good movie, the second DVD has great stuff. A must for any horror movie fans !

I have finally watched this notorious film! I must say it was nowhere near as gory as I was led to believe. There is an abundance of nudity in this film and mixed with this sort of gross out torture it really isn't my cup of tea. This movie is a thriller once it gets going and I found myself rooting for the "good guy" as he paid back some of these twisted F**KS! With all the really bad horror movies that come out, I can see why some would like this movie a lot. It is much better than most of the garbage they call horror these days. I am glad I watched it, I enjoyed it more than I thought I would but, I don't think I need to see it again. Life is too short to get wrapped up in this sort of sick disgusting SH** on a regular basis.

Happy Holidays Everyone! It's a great big wonderful world we live in!............Sheesh!;-b

This film (Hostel: Parts I and II) is not a horror film, it is a very thinly veiled political allegory on the essential symbiosis between capitalism and fascism. If it has a flaw, it is that it so pedantically maintains the allegory that some character's motivations strain credibility. Part I leaves the audience with stirrings of revolutionary sympathy. However, it also left the film maker open to claims of mysogyny. Part II is clearly an attempt to correct this impression, as well as neatly drawing the audience into complicity by having it root for the central character's eventual acceptance of ruling-class obligation.

The films might be more honest as documentaries based upon Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Distaster Capitalism". The thin facade of fictionalism allows apologists and the dim to retain plausible deniability about its true nature, but this is the necessary price of getting it past the corporate censors and of gaining a wide audience.

Hostel is definitely one of those movies that no matter what kind of parent you are, this movie is in no way appropriate for kids at all. My big complaint against this movie is the fact it focuses more on pornography than the purpose it's suppose to serve... to scare you. While it's always gratifying to see naked chicks, this movie takes it too far to the point of where you just get tired of looking at them(I've seen enough movies with this already). The gore and level of violence is definitely disturbing and it will really gross you out. It never scared me because I've seen enough horror movies to know what will probably happen, so that partially ruined the experience as well. The characters are basically a group of foul-mouthed people or they are mentally disturbed which didn't really pull me into the storyline either. And the nudity involving the dudes? What was up with that? Seriously folks, it's really nasty.

Its been a very long time since I watched a film that made me cringe like this. I even had to hit the rewind button to see some of these scenes again. I think Hostel is every gore fans wet dream. This movie has some of the most disturbing torture and death scenes I have seen in a long time.

I found Hostel to be very good from start to finish. The main characters are 3 college guys hanging in Europe partying. Sex and drugs is they thing here. I can really relate to them. The things they were doing is exactly the same things I've done and still do with my friends. The first half of the movie is all fun and games. So, its safe for me to say I thoroughly enjoyed that part. There is quit a bit of soft core porn in the first half. Lots of nudity and extremely hot foreign chicks. I also felt the acting was above average when compared to alot of horror movies when the acting is near atrocious.

The half way point some of the guys start to disappear one by one. Then the very last guy ends up in the clutches of several maniacs who specialize in causing bodily harm. I'm serious this is the most disturbing movie I have seen in a very long time. I think its on par with Saw 3. But surpassing it slightly.

The main character goes through a bit of he11. He has to use his wits combined with a lot of blind luck to escape his captors. I didn't find it very suspensful but creepy and fun. The dark atmosphere coupled with all those dark torture chambers really added to the overall setting. I really did like the way the story developed all the way up to the predictable ending. This is without a doubt a real horror movie to me.

I can't stress how disturbing this movie can be. It gives me goose bumps just thinking there's people out that could be doing this right now. When I watch something that disturbs me to the point where I think about it. That means I just watched something good. I don't really care too much for sequels but I will checkout the next one. The extras feature a bunch of previews and commentaries featuring Quentin Tarantino, Eli Roth and others. I don't think this movie is for everybody. If your not too much for gore and I'll say again some disturbing torture footage you might not want to see this at all.

I bought "Hostel" hoping for the scariest thing I had ever seen, but I was disappointed. It took more than half the film to get to the scary and bloody stuff, and it was dreadfully painful to watch the story progress. The acting was so mediocre and the script was very sub-par.

Okay. Let's put aside the awful center of this movie and get to when the main character gets to the torture chamber. Talk about bloody! I had never seen as much blood in my life! But the best torture scene is when Jan Vlasak cuts off Derek Richardson's Achilles tendant. That made me scream with terror.

The tortures are what possessed me to give this movie four stars. I was cringing the entire time I was watching the torture scenes. Another of my favorites is when Jay Hernandez rescues his friend Kana (Jennifer Lim) from the torturers, and...I'll leave you to see what happens after that.

Overall, this movie was a solid okay because of the middle, but once the torture started, I fell in love with this movie. Not one of my favorites, and definitely not what I was expecting, but it was not bad.

I abhor the current trend of films that are labled "horror" films. They are sadistic, in your face filming and editing, suspenseless, excessive gore replacing scares and desensitizing a viewer's reaction to violence. These are the many reasons I avoided viewing HOSTEL. After all, it seemed to be the film that started the trend. Critics and the conservative crowd called it "torture porn". I refused to give in to the tastes of the current movie-going crowd that spent their hard earned money on these abominations. Give me Todd Browning's DRACULA, James Whale's FRANKENSTEIN, Don Siegel's INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS, Jack Clayton's THE INNOCENTS, William Castle's HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL, Roger Corman's THE PIT AND THE PENDULUM, Mario Bava's BLACK SABBATH, Robert Wise's THE HAUNTING, Roman Polanski's ROSEMARY'S BABY, Any HAMMER STUDIOS/AMICUS STUDIOS film, etc........ "Horror" films used to mean a menacing atmosphere, shadow and light, an air of tension, characters that you cared about, taking time to slowly let the "horror" reveal itself, etc...... They left you feeling unsettled, not nauseous. Granted, I love William Friedkin's THE EXORCIST, Tobe Hopper's THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE, Richard Donner's THE OMEN, Brian DePalma's CARRIE, John Carpenter's HALLOWEEN, Dario Argento's SUSPERIA, Ridley Scott's ALIEN, Wes Craven's A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET - All prime examples of how "horror" started changing in the 1970's. The blood quotient had increased and the intensity level had risen several notches, but all the "classic" elements were still there. The violent and gory parts were inherent to the stories and served the plots and characters. The recent "horror" films of the past few years, in my opinion, were worthless and an insult to the intellect of the lovers of "horror" movies.

I accidentally came across HOSTEL on cable right when it was just beginning to roll it's opening credits. I decided to give it a shot. Especially since I might have remotely misjudged it and it may have a few redeeming qualities. Right from the beginning, I didn't see any erractic jump cuts and "attack your senses" filming. It took the time to let the viewer get to know the three lead male characters and to have fun with them and laugh with them. Their sex and drug adventures were real, believable, daring and dangerous. I thought the commaraderie between the three actors was great and playful. And when they started to disappear into thin air I started getting scared. Real scared. And by the time they arrived at the warehouse of torture you are too involved to look away.

Eli Roth did an excellent job of pacing the film, building the unbearable suspense and cutting away during alot of the torture scenes and not lingering on gore effects. (Yes, the eyeball scene was the most excessive, but it's always good to have that "one scene" that everyone talks about afterwards.) But when the last student captured manages to escape and tries to flee the facility and decides to go back to rescue the girl - I could barely catch my breath and my nerves were wrecked! And the final "revenge" scene was the perfect plotline to satisfy all of our "primal survival" needs. Eli Roth took all the "classic" elements from the 50's and 60's horror films and combined them with the intensity of 70's horror films and mixed in contemporary, modern characters and dialogue. The result: A modern-day hommage to the Italian horror movies from the 60's where a group of travelers would happen upon a castle where the scientists/doctor who lived there would trap them and torment/torture them. (Usually so he can "borrow" their eyes, skin, limbs, etc.... to graft to his horribly mangled daughter. Who may or may not be alive.)

In other words, I horribly misjudged HOSTEL. And deprived myself of experiencing it in the theatre. I have since gone out and bought the Director's Cut dvd and I have to say that I liked the unrated version more and definitely the original ending, not the alternate ending supplied on the dvd. Luckily, the unrated version that I had seen is also available on the Director's Cut edition with the original ending. Picture and sound are top-notch. Special Features are great and informative.

HOSTEL is a contemporary masterpiece of horror/suspense filming and I loved every minute of it. It totally satisfied my need for scares!

Two American pals named Paxton and Josh(Jay Herandez and Derek Richardson) are traveling around Europe for some fun and sex. They meet an Icelandic man (Eythor Gudjonsson) during their trip in Amesterdam as they head to a Slovokian city where they stay at a local hostel and get laid with beautiful girls. However, their ideal vacation soon turns into a nightmare of vicious terror as they are taken to a special secret place where criminals torture and kill people for profit, can they escape this living hell?

Exciting and violent horror crime thriller from writer-director Eli Roth ("Cabin Fever") and producer Quentin Tarantino, the film is quite flawed such as the acting (you can overlook that) and some of the dialog. But there is some sleazy atmosphere and gory torture scenes to make up for those such as an icky eyeball torture sequence done to a Japanese tourist. The film does pay tribute to the torture films such "Ichi The Killer", "Men Behind The Sun", "Guiena Pig", "Audition", "Mark of the Devil", "The New York Ripper" and of course "Bloodsucking Freaks". Even if the film is tame compared to those movies, it's still a nice and atmospheric shock-feast with sex and violence abound especially hot babes even a cameo by director Takashi Miike.

This 2-dis DVD set has the unrated director's cut and the extras include four audio commentaries, alternate ending, Hostel Dissected three part featurette, Kill the car multi-angel interactive featurette, music and sound featurette, Set Design featurette, An Icelandic meal with Eythor Gudjonsson featurette, KNB effects featurette, interview with Takashi Miike, Hostel dismembered International TV special and The Treatment radio interview with Eli Roth.

Hostel is one of those movies that have sparked some huge debates. Some praise it as an instant classic and others deem nothing more than vile trash. Often referred to as torture porn, which is the silliest thing I have ever heard. Hostel is influenced by 70s exploitation movies. Right now Eli Roth is one of the most popular filmmakers. So when anybody gets as popular as Eli Roth has you know the backlash is coming.

Roth has been hailed the next great horror filmmaker and even by some the savior of the genre. Eli Roth is only one person; he cannot save or hurt the horror genre on his own. There are many talented filmmakers who go unnoticed or struggle for work. Eli is one of the talented filmmakers who is having a career that is taking off and is possibly the most popular horror filmmaker out there right now. And due to that it's made him a sitting duck to be ripped a part.

I respect everybody's opinion and I'm sure some people just don't like the work of Eli Roth and that's fine. The most loved of filmmakers will have people who dislike their work and the most hated of filmmakers will have people that like their work. But I do feel Eli Roth sometimes gets a little too much heat from fans and critics.

When it comes to a movie like Hostel it's not gonna be for every horror fan, but what I loved about Hostel is Roth, is going back to the old school style of filmmaking and is one of the guys bringing back the long forgotten Grindhouse type flicks. People seem to forget there were movies like Hostel over the years, these types of movies started in the 60s, but the 70s is where these flicks will be remembered. The difference is, they weren't mainstream. They were popular at the Drive-Ins, but Hostel gained mass appeal. And it's been so long in some ways movies like Hostel are new since these movies haven't been done in so long and a lot of the core auidnce probably never saw the flicks that inspired Hostel.

Over the last couple of years we have been stuck with lame PG-13 horror flicks and PC horror flicks. Eli Roth is a filmmaker that does his thing and doesn't let PC police sway him from getting his vision out. Right now in America the Liberal way of thinking is taking over. Sex and nudity is now a bad thing. Without sex none of us would even be here. Hostel has a lot of nudity and some sex scenes. Well since the 70s a lot of horror films have. Eli isn't the first person to use that in a horror film. Everything in this country has gotten so damn PC and sexually repressed.

The lead characters is Hostel are young, single and on vacation am I supposed to believe that there is nobody out there like these characters? I don't get the big deal with the sex and nudity all of that is a common part of life and again plenty of horror filmmakers and filmmakers of any genre for that matter have used this in their movie, but now suddenly it's a bad thing.

What I find rather funny is how many people bash the people who enjoyed Hostel as being sick and disturbed. I find that funny because many of these people also watch horror movies. What's the difference between what happens in Hostel and your run of the mill slasher movie? It's wrong to watch someone get tortured and killed, but ok to watch a slasher flick where people are hacked up? What's the difference? Murder is murder isn't it? Granted a movie like Hostel might be more extreme, but again murder is murder.

The screenplay by Eli Roth is very solid; his characters aren't faceless and as thin as the paper they were written on. The characters come across as real people. I've known people who are a lot like the lead characters in Hostel. For me, one of the most important things in a horror flick is how I relate to the characters or if I can see myself being friends with them if this were real life. Eli Roth again created real characters. I'm not really like any of the characters in Hostel, but they weren't bad people. They were having their last moments of freedom before the real word kicks in when they head back home.

The first on screen torture scene in Hostel doesn't come until the 40-minutue mark. Prior to that there are 2 deaths. One being off screen and the other as it begins there is a cut and we don't actually see anything, which makes the one we finally see a lot stronger. Unlike the slasher film, Eli Roth actually spends the first half of the movie developing the characters. In other horror movies the makers drop building up the characters and get right into the action and faceless characters.

A lot of the people who bash Hostel are so off base; Roth could have taken the easy way out and jumped right into the action and made a movie with nothing, but gore and violence through out. But again the guy takes the time and develops the characters. And when the action starts we have come to know the characters and feel for them. Hostel isn't violence just for the sake of it. Never once does Eli Roth glorify the torture and murder scenes. I have seen plenty of movies where the filmmakers do that.

As a director Eli Roth is showing a lot of promise. I don't wanna start a Cabin Fever/Hostel debate, but he really grew as a filmmaker in-between films. That's not to say Cabin Fever was bad. It was an enjoyable flick, but you can see how Roth grew as a filmmaker. The first half of Hostel was well done with the set up and the 2nd half has some great suspenseful and tension filled moments. The scene when Paxton is about to be tortured was classic.

The whole 2nd half of Hostel was excellent; the comedy is toned down, which is a good thing. When it comes time to build suspense I hate when filmmakers have to throw in comedic moments. Often it's a tension breaker, but Roth pulls no punches and goes straight for the tension. While there is a scene or two with comedy the way it's done really adds to the movie. When you break it down there is a lot more to Hostel than people realize. The characters are well developed and there is some solid suspense in the 2nd half.

People say Hostel isn't scary so it sucks. Unlike other type of horror films, movies like Hostel don't rely in the traditional way of scaring people. Picture yourself in another country, your friends disappear you are a stranger here, you can't' trust anyone. Or if anything picture yourself in another state. The scares aren't the typical boogeyman hiding in the shadows scare. The chance of something like Hostel actually happening is a good chance compared to the never ending run of slasher movies, which are pure fantasy.

The acting was also quite solid; normally these types of movies feature weak acting, but Hostel had a solid cast and Jay Hernandez does a fantastic job at carrying the movie. His performance was real, he wasn't an actor he was the character of Paxton. The rest of the cast is solid, but Jay was the stand-out. Rick Hoffman though nearly steals the show in his brief scene.

In closing, Hostel is a solid movie that is getting way too much heat. It's only a movie people. Eli Roth showed some great promise here and Hostel is one of the finest horror movies of the decade. I'll admit upon my first viewing I didn't quite like Hostel, but going back and watching it I realized how much more there was to Hostel than I first thought.

The first time you watch "Hostel" you leave remembering two things: an insane amount of sex and nudity, and some truly brutal torture sequences. The media ignoranty dubbed it a new genre, "torture porn". This film is actually rather tame when compared to some of Italy's 70's horror, grindhouse flicks like "Cannibal Holocaust", and some of Asia's current horror masters. Nontheless, horror fans drooled, sqeamish movie-goers and media watchdogs were offended, then everybody moved on. The truth is this: "Hostel" is the "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" of our generation. After taking this so-called "director's cut" re-release as an opportunity to revisit a recent horror film I remembered fondly -if mostly for the two reasons stated above- I came to realize why so many people (not the least of which is Quentin Tarantino) believe in Eli Roth as a horror savior.

"Hostel" is a film layered with subtle humor that builds suspense beautifully and gives the audience exactly what they want to see while making them feel as though they've seen worse things than they actually have; all TCM hallmarks. The characters, obnoxiously American protagonists and European antagonists alike, are all both likeable, depraved, and almost feel like people you may know or have met somewhere before. You laugh with them, you scream with them, and you wonder what your own friends and family are truly capable of. Also reminiscent of TCM is the slaughterhouse feel one gets from the entire process of this torture industry where angry Europeans can take out their frustration with Americans and other tourists for a fee, thus comparing the suffering of the victims to that of animals harvested for slaughter. Be it simply for irony's sake, vegetarian propaganda, or both; it is nicely done. Had I reviewed this flick after one veiwing, I'd have given it 4 stars, tops, but having spent a little more time with "Hostel", I've found that there really is much more than meets the eye here. It really is a damn near flawless horror film with lots of little jokes I missed the first time around (keychain anybody?) and a final act that is so delightfully insane you can't help but smile as Roth intentionally pushes the limits of implausibility to comical levels while giving the audience bloody satisfaction. I love it.

While these DVD's are packed with extras that the studio apparently wouldn't allow Roth to include in the intitial release, as a director's cut this release fails miserably. The film itself is entirely unchanged except for an alternate ending. And that ending is awful, nonsensical, confounding, out of character, and pretty much inferior to the original cut in every possible way. So why the 5 stars? Because Roth was wise enough to include both versions so that you can choose to watch the original unrated version with the good ending intact. No harm, no foul. There are no less than four commentaries, tons of lengthy featurettes, around 20 minutes of deleted scenes, and an interview with the most hardcore director in the business, Japan's twisted and talented Takashi Miike (who has a cameo in the film) among other extras. Many of these special features were on the first DVD so this release is really only for those who have put off buying this movie. And if you haven't yet, now is the time.

Jay Hernandez (Paxton), Derek Richardson (Josh), and Eythor Gudjonsson (Oli) star as three young college students backpacking across Europe. But their trip is about to take a turn for the worse.

Paxton and Josh are from the United States. While on their trip in Europe, they met and befriended Oli, who has now become part of the group. Their mission: to do as many drugs and have sex with as many women as possible. They have also met another person, who tells them about a town in Slovakia, where the women will do practically anything with a man who has an American accent. Eager to find out, the three board a train and head for Slovakia. While on the train, the three meet an extremely odd gentleman, who we will see more of later in the film.

Once they reach their deatination, Paxton, Josh, and Oli check into a Hostel. Sure enough, the man was right; the guys end up sharing a room with two gorgeous women, and the sex and drugs begin to flow.

However, strange things begin to happen. Oli suddenly checks out of the hostel without telling Josh or Paxton. Then, a few days later, Josh does the same thing, only he finds himself in a torture chamber along with the man from the train. This deranged man is doing unspeakable things to Josh, including slicing his hamstrings. Meanwhile, Paxton is beginning to become suspicious of the two girls. The girls tell him that his two friends have been taken to a local art museum. Angered, Paxton tells the girls he wants to go there as well. So, the girls oblige, and Paxton is forced into the same cruel situation as Josh and Oli were. But, unlike his friends, Paxton manages to survive, despite having several fingers cut off.

Paxton is able to discover that the "art museum" is really some kind of sick place where people can pay money to kill another person. It costs the most money for someone to have the chance to kill an American; hence, the attraction between the girls and Paxton and Josh. Will Paxton be able to survive to tell his story, or will he be caught in the end?

I've seen a lot of horror movies, but this has to be one of the most bloody and gory I've ever seen. I've seen all of the "Saw" series of films, and I think that this movie is even more bloody than those. The first part of the movie has very little killing, but the second half more than makes up for it. There are several gross scenes, including the slicing of the hamstrings, the cutting of eyeballs, and the use of a drill and chainsaw. This is definitely not a movie for the squeamish.

I thought this was an ok movie, but not a great one. The large amount of blood and gore were just too much to handle. True fans of bloody movies will probably enjoy this movie more, but be warned; the amount of blood and gore in this movie is tremendous. Watch at your own risk.

From its inception, American horror has always had its roots firmly planted in foreign soil. Silent German expressionistic chillers led the way for Universal Pictures' cinematic monsters of the 1930s, (Frankenstein, Dracula, the Werewolf of London, the Phantom of the Opera, the Hunchback, the gypsy werewolf that bites Larry Talbot, the Mummy) all of which were foreign born and reinforced the xenophobic and isolationist beliefs of Americans at the time. The 1940s ushered in a wave of true-life European nightmares as American moviegoers viewed grainy newsreel footage of nazi concentration camps. We collectively wondered, "How could a civilized society perpetrate such crimes against humanity?" In the holocaust documentary film SHOAH we get the answer when a Polish villager of Treblinka was asked about the atrocities committed in the camps, he crudely conveys the notion that the victims are not worthy of contemplation because they are not us. They are Jews. Strangers.

Eli Roth's HOSTEL successfully exploits this formula and creates a horrorscape of a post-Soviet satellite country that's more terrifying than any cardboard Transylvanian graveyard. Roth exposes the true nature of fear: to be a helpless stranger in a strange and dangerous land at the mercy of people who will only view you as "the other." This is the true power of this film, a force that will wreck havoc on your subconscious --- not a man tied to a chair.

The title of this review, "House of Wax With Paris Hilton Was More Believable", says it all, no? It's hard to understand why Tarantino would so prominently attach his name to Hostel.

Hostel is no Pulp Fiction. Hostel doesn't even come close to the Tarantino-produced 1996 Vampire classic, From Dusk Till Dawn.

Hostel is a movie about a whole town that doesn't seem to notice that a giant abandoned factory has been converted into a torture chamber where the wealthy pay to mutilate people for fun. Who knew that there was such a demand for this kind of entertainment by the upper echelons of society!?

The story is the simple tale of what happens when a few B-actors acting like B-actors get abducted to be victims for the sadistic masses that patronize the torture factory.

There is gore-o-plenty. If you're into scenes of torture you won't be disappointed here.

All in all, it's a ridiculously conceived plot line with gratuitous gore. The thrills are few...suspense is about a 0. You could watch this movie without sound all the way through and still have the same experience as if the sound is on. The movie is mostly a visual yuck-fest.

Want a good alternative that has a story and *a lot* less gore than you probably think? Go with Wolf Creek.

This film is one of the goriest horror films I've ever seen. No other film has made me feel as uncomfortable and wince like I have in Hostel. Maybe I'm inexperienced in watching modern horror films, but I've always thought that I had a thick skin and strong stomach.

The film starts off with three friends traveling Europe for some fun. They are having the time of their lives with drugs, alcohol, girls and just acting like fools. When in Holland, they meet a guy who tells them about a place in Slovakia that is brimming with attractive women who go nuts over American men. They follow this guy's advice and travel to a Hostel in Slovakia only to later make a frightening discovery. There is an underground organization that pays money to people who can get others to come to an abandoned factory where they are brutally tortured to death.

All of the torture scenes are very unsettling. Granted that the trio of main characters in the film where acting like jerks in the beginning, we still start to have compassion for them. Regardless of what they did or how they acted, no one deserves to be tortured like that. For me, the most unsettling scene was the part where the woman's eye was hanging by its optic nerve and was severed. The cut achilles tendon scene comes a close second. Even sitting here writting this review and thinking of those parts gives me an uneasy feeling.

Jay Hernandez gave a brilliant performance. I'm looking forward to watching Hostel part 2.

Just a warning - bad acting, terrible pacing, dreadful script. This is a train wreck of a movie. The incompetence shown by the entire cast, crew, and producers is the only truly horrifying thing here. And there really should be consequences to contributing such a pile of dung to existence. By the time you understand why everything is happening, there is little chance you care. Yes, there are some gory parts, but it is scary? NO! Something has to be believable to be scary.

There are controversial movies that live up to the promise of being something unique, something different, something that captivates an audience that while revolting them or surprising them it still becomes a movie that you can recommend to others. This is not one of them.

The film tells the story of two American friends, Paxton and Josh, who are backpacking their way across Europe. Picking up a Scandinavian friend, they move from hostel to hostel (popular youth hotels that are fairly inexpensive) seeing the sights and doing everything in their power to bed as many European beauties as possible.

While out on the town one night seeking women, a local tells them of a hostel in a nearby country that caters to American's seeking action. He leads them to believe that once their accents are known, women will be basically tossing themselves at the two. Off they go in search of naked European women.

Arriving at the hostel they discover they must share a room. It turns out their roommates are two voluptuous women who begin the day by changing while the boys enter the room. Hitting the town, the next morning they find their Scandinavian friend gone, leaving with no message. The next night, both are on the town with the two girls (who each has bedded) when they begin to get dizzy. While Paxton passes out locked up in the local bar's stock room, Josh wakes to find himself chained to a chair in the dingiest of basement cells.

Thus the promise tales of HOSTEL begins to unfold, where we find that it has all been a set up luring young men and women to this country where lawlessness runs rampant. So much so that for the right price, you can actually kill and torture someone. Which is what happens to Josh. Slices, dices, ankles cut to prevent running away, gouges and more are in store for anyone who is taken to this den of depravity.

So much for Josh. Paxton wakes to find his friend now missing. Searching high and low, he too is captured only to escape. But in true heroic fashion, he must attempt to save his friend as well as the young Japanese girl the two met in the hostel.

This movie yearns to churn the strongest of stomachs. The effects are realistic but not to the point of causing any realist to think they actually performed these gory acts. While these scenes are not numerous enough to satiate the most deeply disturbed gore hounds, they are enough to cause a bit of nausea in the normal filmgoer.

What is truly disturbing about this film is less what is seen on the screen as considering those sitting and watching it. While the film attempts to show how depraved a society we have become where we can find amusement and entertainment in the death and destruction of a human being, it in itself does just that, attempting to entertain us with scenes of torture and bloodshed.

Interviews with director Eli Roth (CABIN FEVER) have stated that he found the idea from a web site he heard about on the internet. And he wanted to make people feel disgusted with what they saw, make them realize how terrible people could be, how low they cold sink. He does this in spades. But at the same time, he caters not only to the morbidly curious but the blood loving sadists as well. In showing us the worst he can dream up with people interested in killing someone for entertainment, he does the same by making each viewer a part of the same group.

Subsequent interviews with Roth have heard him talk about how the fault of both HOSTEL films lies not with the director or manufacturer of the film but in audiences who just don't get it. This is always a good argument when someone's movies aren't well received (the 2nd fell flat at the box office). Have I missed the boat when Hollywood hails films like this as artistic? Give me entertainment over artistic any day.

This film may be interesting to some, and certainly if you are one who feels the need to see controversial films to discover what the hubbub is all about (unfortunately I include myself in this group), you will be satisfied. But for most it will be a reviling experience that leaves you feeling the need for a good hot shower.

A novel- if far-fethced- idea for a film based on murder tourism is ruined by such a poor execution. In its 95 minutes, Eli Roth manages to change genre three times: from soft-core skuzz, to gore, then to action, and all are particular unsatsifying. But most of all, it just wasn't scary.

First off, the main characters are simply too unlikeable for us to care about them. In the first scene- which takes up 30-35 minutes of the 95 minute run time- our protagonists immediately loose any sympathy they might have with the audience by acting in an incredibly loutish manner in search of booze and women. This first scene is simply pointless: the soft-core porn contributes nothing to the plot and is there simply to allow people who don't have the guts to buy porn to watch porn. Although Roth is trying to condemn the vulgar, loutish American- in- Europe stereotype, this opening scene is ultimately appealing to the kind of person Roth seeks to satirize and condemn.

Upon arriving in Slovakia- on a true good to be true account of shagging by the bucket-load- they continue their antics. And by this time I'm hoping that they suffer at the hands to these sadists who will save the world from these douchebags. Of course, the suspcicious departure of the Icelander and a native wearing his jacket doesn't raise too much suspicion, and our heros keep on partying. Whatever...

And now to the snuff part of the film. So overdone and so fake, it just didn't raise any scares. A horror film which isn't scary is a unique if ultimately flawed idea. But this time we are too bored to care what happens as the least likeable character escapes with a victim- typical Asian cliche, the only one about whom we have any sympathy- on their way out of the hell hole.

In all, the first 30 minutes of porn are pointless and it doesn't get any better.