PDA

View Full Version : Hostel


Wallcrawler
04-21-2006, 12:10 PM
I dont know if any of you have seen this horror film advertised or anything, but this is one movie I recommend you pass on.

This is probably one of the biggest wastes of time you will ever see. Everything I read about it hyped it to be horrific and people shouldnt watch it if they had a weak heart and all that other bs.

Really, aside from about 6 frames, there's nothing to see. When the action starts, the camera cuts away and leaves everything to your imagination. Of the 3 main characters, you never see two of them die.

Thats pretty sad for a horror movie. I dont know about you, but I pay for a horror movie to see people getting offed in all sorts of nasty fashion. Not to see the killer, see his weapon, and then have the camera cut away and then see the body about 20 minutes later when another character happens to see it.

From the damage to the bodies, I can probably guess what happened, but if I wanted to sit and imagine what happened, I wouldnt have rented the movie. Id just sit around thinkin shit up.

Cheaper, yes. But its just not as entertaining you see.


I recommend you pass on this one. Theres a few good frames in there as I mentioned, but when you compile the entire movie, its one big waste of time.

BigMeatballDave
04-21-2006, 12:15 PM
I already rented it. I'll be watching it tomorrow...

Fish
04-21-2006, 12:16 PM
I thought it looked pretty lame..... why is it so hard to make a decent horror flick these days?

CanadianChief
04-21-2006, 12:25 PM
I agree with you Wallcrawler. I watched Hostel on Wednesday and heard that it was supposed to be this massive gore fest that had people running out of the theatres but it turned out pretty lame. I enjoyed Final Destination 3 a lot more. At least you got to see all the gory kill scenes!!!

Dunit35
04-21-2006, 12:30 PM
What about Wolf Creek? The one directed by Tarantino. That one should be good.

ChiefClint
04-21-2006, 12:37 PM
Wolf Creek was stupid, no where near the hype. I enjoyed Hostel a lot for some reason.

chagrin
04-21-2006, 12:39 PM
I thought it looked pretty lame..... why is it so hard to make a decent horror flick these days?

28 days later was pretty cool I thought

CanadianChief
04-21-2006, 12:39 PM
I enjoyed Hostel a lot for some reason.

It might have been all the T & A

CanadianChief
04-21-2006, 12:41 PM
Anyone seen Return of the Living Dead 4??? It went straight to DVD but I'm a big zombie fan and will probably rent it anyways.

Rain Man
04-21-2006, 12:41 PM
I like to think that there's more to these movies than meets the eye. Does the surgical saw symbolize his inability to get close to people? Does the staple gun symbolize his frustration with modern impersonal industry?

Jmart
04-21-2006, 12:42 PM
Wolf Creek was so so. Did not meet the hype I was expecting the next Chainsaw Massacre.

ChiefsCountry
04-21-2006, 12:44 PM
Hostel was very disappointing. The T&A at the beginning was very nice. The rest of the movie was just a blood and guts. Wasnt really that scary of a movie. A waste of time unless you like T&A and blood and guts.

Fish
04-21-2006, 12:45 PM
28 days later was pretty cool I thought

Probably the last horror movie I enjoyed..... I saw it on a weekday matinee with 4 buddies and we were the only ones in the theater....

Did you happen to watch Shawn of the Dead??

Jmart
04-21-2006, 12:48 PM
I just got Hostel but I am going to wait until I am flying to Prague this Summer to watch it!

Fried Meat Ball!
04-21-2006, 12:53 PM
I dont know if any of you have seen this horror film advertised or anything, but this is one movie I recommend you pass on.

This is probably one of the biggest wastes of time you will ever see. Everything I read about it hyped it to be horrific and people shouldnt watch it if they had a weak heart and all that other bs.

Really, aside from about 6 frames, there's nothing to see. When the action starts, the camera cuts away and leaves everything to your imagination. Of the 3 main characters, you never see two of them die.

Thats pretty sad for a horror movie. I dont know about you, but I pay for a horror movie to see people getting offed in all sorts of nasty fashion. Not to see the killer, see his weapon, and then have the camera cut away and then see the body about 20 minutes later when another character happens to see it.

From the damage to the bodies, I can probably guess what happened, but if I wanted to sit and imagine what happened, I wouldnt have rented the movie. Id just sit around thinkin shit up.

Cheaper, yes. But its just not as entertaining you see.


I recommend you pass on this one. Theres a few good frames in there as I mentioned, but when you compile the entire movie, its one big waste of time.


This will be my rant for the month, apparently. Wallcrawler, please don't take this personally. I'll preface this by saying this is only my opinion...

This attitude is what is wrong with modern film audiences. Everyone wants to see bigger, badder, grosser the horror and suspense genre today sucks for this very reason.

Alfred Hitchcock, the Master of Suspense, once said that suspense is not the action it's the anticipation of the action. Unfortunately, most audiences want to see the action, while Hitchcock (and few filmmakers since) believed the mind can imagine things so much worse than you can ever put on celluloid.

However, as Wallcrawler states, audiences want to turn their brain off and have everything handed to them on a platter, without having to think about the film. As such, this attitude spills onto all other genres, forcing filmmakers to generate reel upon reel of Fast and Furious garbage, intended only appease the masses "Come one, come all! Check your brain at the door! Eight dollars, please!"

I blame the masses for the tripe Hollywood gives us year after year.

epitome1170
04-21-2006, 01:11 PM
This will be my rant for the month, apparently. Wallcrawler, please don't take this personally. I'll preface this by saying this is only my opinion...

This attitude is what is wrong with modern film audiences. Everyone wants to see bigger, badder, grosser the horror and suspense genre today sucks for this very reason.

Alfred Hitchcock, the Master of Suspense, once said that suspense is not the action it's the anticipation of the action. Unfortunately, most audiences want to see the action, while Hitchcock (and few filmmakers since) believed the mind can imagine things so much worse than you can ever put on celluloid.

However, as Wallcrawler states, audiences want to turn their brain off and have everything handed to them on a platter, without having to think about the film. As such, this attitude spills onto all other genres, forcing filmmakers to generate reel upon reel of Fast and Furious garbage, intended only appease the masses "Come one, come all! Check your brain at the door! Eight dollars, please!"

I blame the masses for the tripe Hollywood gives us year after year.

Holy crap! That was one of the best posts I have read on here! :clap:

Dr. Facebook Fever
04-21-2006, 01:14 PM
I dont know if any of you have seen this horror film advertised or anything, but this is one movie I recommend you pass on.


I watched it last night. At least the naked chicks are hot. It was nowhere near the "scariest movie ever" sticker that was on it at the video store though.

Dr. Facebook Fever
04-21-2006, 01:15 PM
On another note, I highly recommend the SAW movies to anyone into the genre that hasn't seen them. Especially SAW II. They're pretty close to genius I think.

Fried Meat Ball!
04-21-2006, 01:31 PM
On another note, I highly recommend the SAW movies to anyone into the genre that hasn't seen them. Especially SAW II. They're pretty close to genius I think.
Saw, Saw II, Hostel ... Hollywood snuff films.

chagrin
04-21-2006, 01:33 PM
Probably the last horror movie I enjoyed..... I saw it on a weekday matinee with 4 buddies and we were the only ones in the theater....

Did you happen to watch Shawn of the Dead??

No, is it good?

DJJasonp
04-21-2006, 01:39 PM
Couldnt agree more with the thread starter....

Horrible movie....the only good parts were the first hour of the film when they decided to make Euro-Trip 2....and show lots of naked (VERY HOT) girls.

After that....what a waste.

Fish
04-21-2006, 01:42 PM
No, is it good?

Outstanding.... perfect blend of humor/horror. If you liked 28 days, you'll get a kick out of Shawn of the Dead.....

Lzen
04-21-2006, 01:56 PM
I guess I'll pass on Hostel.

BTW, I liked 28 Days Later.
Shawn of The Dead had a few funny scenes, but I thought it was pretty lame for the most part. Glad I didn't have to rent it.

Kclee
04-21-2006, 02:02 PM
Holy crap! That was one of the best posts I have read on here! :clap:

This guy must have me on ignore.

Tribal Warfare
04-21-2006, 02:04 PM
Hostel is an overrated soft porn flick

mikey23545
04-21-2006, 02:39 PM
<b>Thats pretty sad for a horror movie. I dont know about you, but I pay for a horror movie to see people getting offed in all sorts of nasty fashion. Not to see the killer, see his weapon, and then have the camera cut away and then see the body about 20 minutes later when another character happens to see it.</b>

<b>At least you got to see all the gory kill scenes!!!</b>

<b>On another note, I highly recommend the SAW movies to anyone into the genre that hasn't seen them. Especially SAW II. They're pretty close to genius I think.</b>

Reading threads like this make me wonder if the militant Islamists are right about us after all....

Fried Meat Ball!
04-21-2006, 08:18 PM
<b>Thats pretty sad for a horror movie. I dont know about you, but I pay for a horror movie to see people getting offed in all sorts of nasty fashion. Not to see the killer, see his weapon, and then have the camera cut away and then see the body about 20 minutes later when another character happens to see it.</b>

<b>At least you got to see all the gory kill scenes!!!</b>

<b>On another note, I highly recommend the SAW movies to anyone into the genre that hasn't seen them. Especially SAW II. They're pretty close to genius I think.</b>

Reading threads like this make me wonder if the militant Islamists are right about us after all....
Reading posts like that make me wonder why I want to make films.

KCChiefsMan
04-21-2006, 10:22 PM
I didn't think Hostel was that bad, nothing great, but it entertained me. Without all the nice boobies I probably wouldn't have liked it at all though

CosmicPal
04-21-2006, 11:27 PM
This will be my rant for the month, apparently. Wallcrawler, please don't take this personally. I'll preface this by saying this is only my opinion...

This attitude is what is wrong with modern film audiences. Everyone wants to see bigger, badder, grosser the horror and suspense genre today sucks for this very reason.

Alfred Hitchcock, the Master of Suspense, once said that suspense is not the action it's the anticipation of the action. Unfortunately, most audiences want to see the action, while Hitchcock (and few filmmakers since) believed the mind can imagine things so much worse than you can ever put on celluloid.

However, as Wallcrawler states, audiences want to turn their brain off and have everything handed to them on a platter, without having to think about the film. As such, this attitude spills onto all other genres, forcing filmmakers to generate reel upon reel of Fast and Furious garbage, intended only appease the masses "Come one, come all! Check your brain at the door! Eight dollars, please!"

I blame the masses for the tripe Hollywood gives us year after year.

:clap:

Nicely done.

A couple of years ago, they released The Exorcist into the theaters again. I remember reading this article about a film critic who went to see it in the theater as it was one of his favorite films and he was elated to see it again on the big screen.

His joy quickly deflated when a few teens around him laughed at the movie- poked fun at Linda Blair and simply ruined a magnificent film.

He was ashamed of today's youths and in his article, he blamed the movie industry for doing what you described above.

Nightwish
04-22-2006, 12:34 AM
What about Wolf Creek? The one directed by Tarantino. That one should be good.
If there is anything that would turn me off to Wolf Creek, it would be the fact that it is directed by Tarantino. I don't think I've ever seen a movie he made that was worth two shits.

58-4ever
04-22-2006, 12:37 AM
Horror movies just arn't that appealing to me. The plot usually suffers, and the twists are usually way too predictable.

Nightwish
04-22-2006, 12:39 AM
On another note, I highly recommend the SAW movies to anyone into the genre that hasn't seen them. Especially SAW II. They're pretty close to genius I think.
I would call both Saw movies average, at best. They didn't suck, but they were a far cry from "genius." They had an interesting premise, but the execution was pretty lame, overall. There wasn't a scary moment in either one of them.

Wallcrawler
04-22-2006, 01:18 AM
This will be my rant for the month, apparently. Wallcrawler, please don't take this personally. I'll preface this by saying this is only my opinion...

This attitude is what is wrong with modern film audiences. Everyone wants to see bigger, badder, grosser the horror and suspense genre today sucks for this very reason.

Alfred Hitchcock, the Master of Suspense, once said that suspense is not the action it's the anticipation of the action. Unfortunately, most audiences want to see the action, while Hitchcock (and few filmmakers since) believed the mind can imagine things so much worse than you can ever put on celluloid.

However, as Wallcrawler states, audiences want to turn their brain off and have everything handed to them on a platter, without having to think about the film. As such, this attitude spills onto all other genres, forcing filmmakers to generate reel upon reel of Fast and Furious garbage, intended only appease the masses "Come one, come all! Check your brain at the door! Eight dollars, please!"

I blame the masses for the tripe Hollywood gives us year after year.


Alfred Hitchcock was a great storyteller. Unfortunately, he couldnt live forever and was one of a kind.

Eli Roth is in no way, shape, or form the storyteller that Hitchcock was. No horror writer/producer/director nowadays comes close.

My main point is if youre going to advertise gruesome horror, and have "Scariest movie ever" stuck on the movie, you better deliver.

If youre gonna chain a guy to a chair, and show the killer advance on him with a power drill, you might as well go ahead and show the audience the action of him drilling a hole in this guy. Dont repeatedly cut away from the action.

Noone watching this type of movie is going to want to have the kill censored. Those of us who like blood n guts, and gorefests, and nice scenes of long drawn out torture feel ripped off when one the main characters are dying without us being able to see it.

SPOILERS.


Heres an example.


Josh is shackled to a chair. He screams, asks what is going on, begs for his life. The killer selects a power drill from the table and revs it a few times. He advances on Josh and just before he starts to drill....CUT.

Next scene is the powerdrill being laid down with meat on it, and Josh sitting in a daze. He asks to be let go, and the killer opens the door, bends down and cuts Josh's legs. We see Josh scream, but we dont know what the killer is doing.

The killer tells Josh he is free to go. Josh sees the door open and tries to go for it. Camera cuts to Josh's achilles tendons that have been slashed coming apart and Josh falls down. Josh crawls toward the door, and before he gets there, the Killer's foot stomps down in front of him. Josh screams "No", and the scene ends.

We see Josh dead about 25 minutes later into the film when Paxton is led to the "art show" and stumbles upon the room he is in, his body still being dissected by the killer.


This takes a lot longer to read than how long it takes on screen. Josh was a main character and his scene is like 2 minutes long. Hell, Olie doesnt even get that. We NEVER see what happens to him, just his head in a vise posing for the telephone photo that was sent to Josh and Paxton.

Yeah, I can imagine what happened, obviously Olie got his head chopped off and put in a vise.


I WATCH the movie in order to SEE what happens. If I wanted to imagine it, Id have just found the book based on the movie and read it. Books are for using your imagination, Movies are for being shown what is happening.

I just felt extremely ripped off by Hostel, as it did not deliver the goods as advertised.

You dont see one guy die, the other guy gets a 2 minute chopped up torture scene and then you dont see him die either.

A horror flick, one touted to be "gruesome" and a "gorefest", leads me to believe that Im going to be SEEING some good action, not having to imagine what is happening.

This was not filed under "suspense" or "Thriller", it was filed under "Horror". And in a horror film, I expect to see people being killed, not having to imagine how they die.

Fried Meat Ball!
04-22-2006, 06:05 AM
If there is anything that would turn me off to Wolf Creek, it would be the fact that it is directed by Tarantino. I don't think I've ever seen a movie he made that was worth two shits.
Tarantino had nothing to do with Wolf Creek. I think you may be confusing it with Hostel -- a LOT of people thought Tarantino did Hostel, but all he did was finance it (he's executive producer) and put his name on it. Eli Roth directed Hostel.

Deberg_1990
04-22-2006, 06:10 AM
Tarantino had nothing to do with Wolf Creek. I think you may be confusing it with Hostel -- a LOT of people thought Tarantino did Hostel, but all he did was finance it (he's executive producer) and put his name on it. Eli Roth directed Hostel.

Tarantino has never made a horror film, but hes a huge fan of B Horror films. In fact hes making his first horror film right now. Him and Robert Robriguez are making an anthology type of horror film. It should be released laster on this year. That should be interesting.

Dr. Facebook Fever
04-22-2006, 07:54 AM
they were a far cry from "genius."
I'm simple.

MVChiefFan
04-22-2006, 11:04 AM
I was let down by Wolf Creek. The killer was more comical than scary. I just watched Hostel last night and I actually enjoyed it. It was nothing like I thought it was going to be. I tend to grow tired of movies trying to top other movies in the gross factor. I thought Hostel showed just enough. I thought it ended pretty good too. And besides I LOVE BOOBIES!!!!

Sure-Oz
04-22-2006, 11:08 AM
28 day's later was pretty good until they got to the army place and the guys there decided they wanted some ass, thats when it kinda got stupid, most of that movie was really cool though and pretty realistic in a way if something like that were to happen.

Nightwish
04-22-2006, 10:12 PM
I'm simple.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not slagging the idea behind them. The idea is pretty darn clever, in my opinion. I just don't think they delivered it well.

Nightwish
04-22-2006, 10:13 PM
Tarantino had nothing to do with Wolf Creek. I think you may be confusing it with Hostel -- a LOT of people thought Tarantino did Hostel, but all he did was finance it (he's executive producer) and put his name on it. Eli Roth directed Hostel.
Heh, I realized my error (which was based on someone else's post mentioning that Wolf Creek was directed by QT). I didn't know he only financed Hostel, but I did see his name on it when I was at the store earlier today doing some shopping. Based on everyone's comments on here, I passed it up.

AirForceChief
05-08-2006, 10:41 AM
Wow, that really was a bad movie. The only saving grace is that I didn't buy or rent it, a visting friend of mine bought it. After the viewing, he's decided it's not worth packing in his suit case for the drive home, so it's staying behind.

This was the "unrated" version of this overhyped celluloid piece of garbage. Just really bad...

BigMeatballDave
05-08-2006, 10:51 AM
Hostel was OK. Wolf Creek was plain stoopid. And I cannot come up with a bad enough adjective to describe what a lousy POS 28 Days was...

NewChief
05-08-2006, 11:09 AM
Hostel was OK. Wolf Creek was plain stoopid. And I cannot come up with a bad enough adjective to describe what a lousy POS 28 Days was...

I really liked 28 Days. I haven't seen the other two.

htismaqe
05-08-2006, 11:16 AM
Alfred Hitchcock was a great storyteller. Unfortunately, he couldnt live forever and was one of a kind.

Eli Roth is in no way, shape, or form the storyteller that Hitchcock was. No horror writer/producer/director nowadays comes close.

My main point is if youre going to advertise gruesome horror, and have "Scariest movie ever" stuck on the movie, you better deliver.

If youre gonna chain a guy to a chair, and show the killer advance on him with a power drill, you might as well go ahead and show the audience the action of him drilling a hole in this guy. Dont repeatedly cut away from the action.

Noone watching this type of movie is going to want to have the kill censored. Those of us who like blood n guts, and gorefests, and nice scenes of long drawn out torture feel ripped off when one the main characters are dying without us being able to see it.

SPOILERS.


Heres an example.


Josh is shackled to a chair. He screams, asks what is going on, begs for his life. The killer selects a power drill from the table and revs it a few times. He advances on Josh and just before he starts to drill....CUT.

Next scene is the powerdrill being laid down with meat on it, and Josh sitting in a daze. He asks to be let go, and the killer opens the door, bends down and cuts Josh's legs. We see Josh scream, but we dont know what the killer is doing.

The killer tells Josh he is free to go. Josh sees the door open and tries to go for it. Camera cuts to Josh's achilles tendons that have been slashed coming apart and Josh falls down. Josh crawls toward the door, and before he gets there, the Killer's foot stomps down in front of him. Josh screams "No", and the scene ends.

We see Josh dead about 25 minutes later into the film when Paxton is led to the "art show" and stumbles upon the room he is in, his body still being dissected by the killer.


This takes a lot longer to read than how long it takes on screen. Josh was a main character and his scene is like 2 minutes long. Hell, Olie doesnt even get that. We NEVER see what happens to him, just his head in a vise posing for the telephone photo that was sent to Josh and Paxton.

Yeah, I can imagine what happened, obviously Olie got his head chopped off and put in a vise.


I WATCH the movie in order to SEE what happens. If I wanted to imagine it, Id have just found the book based on the movie and read it. Books are for using your imagination, Movies are for being shown what is happening.

I just felt extremely ripped off by Hostel, as it did not deliver the goods as advertised.

You dont see one guy die, the other guy gets a 2 minute chopped up torture scene and then you dont see him die either.

A horror flick, one touted to be "gruesome" and a "gorefest", leads me to believe that Im going to be SEEING some good action, not having to imagine what is happening.

This was not filed under "suspense" or "Thriller", it was filed under "Horror". And in a horror film, I expect to see people being killed, not having to imagine how they die.

How many people do you actually SEE die in "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre"?



Exactly his point.

chagrin
05-08-2006, 11:23 AM
I really liked 28 Days...

So did I, the more it sunk in after I watched it, the more I liked it - a few parts were silly (IMO) byut also IMO, the movie was creepy, suspensful, bloody and overall pretty cool.

Lzen
11-16-2007, 08:33 PM
I was let down by Wolf Creek. The killer was more comical than scary. I just watched Hostel last night and I actually enjoyed it. It was nothing like I thought it was going to be. I tend to grow tired of movies trying to top other movies in the gross factor. I thought Hostel showed just enough. I thought it ended pretty good too. And besides I LOVE BOOBIES!!!!

I think that's a pretty good take. I just finished watching Wolf Creek and I would say that I was not that impressed. Although it does make you think. I do believe I recall seeing something on this Australian serial killer on a show called Crimes That Shook The World on Discovery Times Channel a while back. I'm pretty sure there were supposed to be 2 killers.

Anyhoo, I liked Hostel. Interesting idea, IMO. The only problem with new ideas like that is that they always want to run them into the ground. I will probably see Hostel 2. Not sure if it will be as good, though.

And yeah, I know I'm late to the thread party here. I rarely see movies within the first year of release.

Bump
11-16-2007, 08:36 PM
28 days later was pretty cool I thought


28 days/weeks later were really good IMO. Good story, some gore, good writing and solid acting and it made it seem realistic to a certain point. I would definately go see a 3rd one if they did one.

Bump
11-16-2007, 08:37 PM
I kinda liked Hostel, it wasn't that great but it was entertaining at least. I could think of a few people I wouldn't mind doing that to.

JohninGpt
11-16-2007, 08:42 PM
Alfred Hitchcock was a great storyteller. Unfortunately, he couldnt live forever and was one of a kind.
I would rather watch an old AH movie than one of the new blood and gore type horror flicks. Over the last few years I've kind of developed an aversion to seeing the human body torn apart.

Bump
11-16-2007, 08:48 PM
I can only think of a handful of horror movies this decade that I enjoyed.

28 Days Later
28 Weeks Later
Shaun of the Dead (comedy, but still)
Descent
Wrong Turn
The Hills have Eyes (for some reason I liked it, don't know what it is though)
Texas Chain Saw Massacre was ok
The sequels to Silence of the Lambs were ok
Blade

that's all I can think of

Tribal Warfare
11-16-2007, 09:11 PM
I kinda liked Hostel, it wasn't that great but it was entertaining at least. I could think of a few people I wouldn't mind doing that to.


It was a glorified titty movie IMO

Otter
11-16-2007, 09:46 PM
I agree with the original post. That movie was gross for the sake of being gross.

If anyone is a hit and miss David Lynch fan such as myself it's kinda like one of his misses. Weird for the sake of being weird.

Don't waste your time unless you like to watch torture.

mikey23545
11-16-2007, 10:13 PM
Of the 3 main characters, you never see two of them die.
Thats pretty sad for a horror movie. I dont know about you, but I pay for a horror movie to see people getting offed in all sorts of nasty fashion. Not to see the killer, see his weapon, and then have the camera cut away and then see the body about 20 minutes later when another character happens to see it.
From the damage to the bodies, I can probably guess what happened, but if I wanted to sit and imagine what happened, I wouldnt have rented the movie. <b> Id just sit around thinkin shit up.</b>


WTF kind of society am I living in now?

Mecca
11-16-2007, 10:31 PM
Hostel is a combination of softcore porn and bad horror.