ViewGuide

Created May 10, 2008 09:31AM PST • Edited May 10, 2008 09:31AM PST

1. Quality

2. Summary

   OK 2.5

   An horrific, nauseous and wholly unnecessary attack on the senses and nerves, Hostel nevertheless manages to achieve its main aim; to disgust, haunt and unsteady the viewer.

4. Acting

   Pretty Bad 1.5

   None of the actors were recognisable, which is fair enough, but none of them were particularly good at all. The American guys just appeared to be caricatures of the “typical American tourist” from an American point of view, but as a European myself I found them to be unlike the Americans I’ve seen here. The European actors do their jobs, but lend stereotypical portrayals of themselves to the viewer. The best acting was that of those in pain!

5. Male Stars Pretty Bad 1.5

   The two ‘stars’ for want of a better word weren’t particularly noticeable, and I didn’t feel empathy for them even whilst they were being tortured.

6. Female Stars Pretty Bad 1.5

   The women that are at the forefront are the honeytraps, the local women that entice the American guys to the Hostel. They really to me just appeared to be an American, stereotypical and judgemental depiction of European (Eastern in particular) women, which seemed unfair and really took away from what little acting they actually did.

7. Female Costars Pretty Bad 1.5

   What went for the main women goes for the co-stars; they’re really only there for eye candy, or to look attractive.

8. Male Costars Pretty Bad 1.5

   The male co-stars are more fleshed out (pardon the pun) than their female counterparts, but only because the film picks upon the patriarchal capitalists that would indeed be the type of men who would pay to do such things. They, like the other actors, appear ridiculous and totally unbelieveable.

10. Film

    OK 2.5

    Despite its flaws, the film evokes the beauty of the Czech Republic (where it was filmed and not set), and the Hostel scenes are the best of the film not only for their unsettling nature and gore, but because the place looks like you would expect such a place to. The music and dialogue, whilst weak, complement the visuals and the story to a point.

11. Direction Good 3.0

    Eli Roth can’t direct worth a damn in terms of narrative and conversations, but in horror and gore terms the man is an auteur. The disgust with which I squirmed through the torture scenes marks him as markedly above many horror film directors; he holds no punches. The horror however is all that he masters in, the tension palpable in other scenes but missing in others.

12. Play OK 2.5

    The cliched talk of sex and such, whilst the motivation of the characters, is ridiculous to listen to. I couldn’t believe half of it, and as a student, I’ve heard my fair share of conversations similar to those featured here, but none of it seemed within the bounds of realism!

13. Music Barely OK 2.0

    The music was actually very effective in the horror scenes, but otherwise is anonymous.

14. Visuals Very Good 3.5

    This is what drives the film: the effects and the gore. And it does NOT fail to disappoint. One scene in particular made me feel uncomfortable to the extent that I felt the part of the body that I had seen on screen in empathatical pain. That is the degree of realism Roth attempts to portray here!

15. Content

16. Edge

    Horrid 4.0

    This is what drives the film and is what makes it good. The sex is the motivation for the men to go to “Slovakia”, and the violence is what they find instead.

17. Sex Erotic 3.5

    The first half of the film almost leads you to believe you’re watching another type of exploitation movie. I have never seen so many topless women in my life as in the first hour of the movie! Sex is depicted on screen throughout until the Hostel period of the movie, and, as the factor that attracts the travellers to the area near the Hostel itself, proves to be something that cannot be ignored in watching the film.

18. Violence Monstrous 5.0

    This is it; this is what makes “Hostel” what it is. The controversy over the violence and gore made the film popular before its release, and strangely enough I found that there wasn’t as much as I thought there would be. However, what little there is is so disgusting that it lingers in your mind afterward, probably what Roth what was attempting to achieve anyway. Torture scenes are disgusting but those in this film are taken to a new level of depravity; fingers, Achilles tendons, eyes, heads, and pretty much any part of the body are attacked and ripped apart. If you are AT ALL queasy at the sight of blood or gore, please stay well away from this film.

19. Rudeness Profane 3.5

    The informal conversations and curses carry the swearing, and in particular the scenes with discussion between the three travellers distinguishes the film’s profanity.

21. Reality

    Surreal 2.2

    The idea of such a place existing is pure rubbish, but that fear lingers afterward. And the idea of rich people paying to do whatever “stuff” they find arousing is not something that is fictional (Formula 1 Racing’s chief Max Moseley’s recent ‘orgy’ the most striking of examples to illustrate this). The film’s events are not realistic as a whole however.

22. Circumstantial Surreal 2.5

    The idea that what happens occurs because of circumstance is incredibly far-fetched; that the men would be fooled by someone they meet hundreds of miles away is ridiculous, and the reveal of the individual later in the film only serves to remind the viewer that the set-up as such is very much hard to grasp.

23. Biological Glib 2.0

    I think that what we see on screen is probably close to the bone (again, apologies for the pun), but that raises the question: how do they find out what the body would do in such a situation?!

24. Physical Glib 2.0

    As with the biological section below, what we see here is probably incredibly realistic. It’s the fact that it may well be that only serves to make the film more horrific.