RSS 2.0
Eli Roth’s Hostel is a hackwork job composed of the body parts of other horror movies such as Don’t Look Now, American Werewolf in London, Audition and of course, Saw. Actually, for a clearer picture, imagine Saw, then minus the innovative death scenes and fable aspect and you get something that resembles this movie.
The story starts in Amsterdam, where three friends, two from the U.S. and one from Iceland go off in search of debauchery. They go and find a local, then are told to go and head towards Slovakia because the women there are apparently more promiscuous than Amsterdam’s Red Light district. They head off to a remote town in Slovakia where they check into a hostel and meet up with a couple of seductive women and party with them. The next day, Oli (Eythor Gudjonsson), the guy from Iceland goes missing. The other two look for him with no luck. Then the following day, Josh (Derek Richardson) goes missing and it’s up to the last American (Jay Hernandez) to find him. He is then lead to a warehouse which is of course, an abattoir that specializes in human flesh.
Sex equals death. The old formula still holds.
Eli Roth doesn’t aim high, but knows where he is aiming. He is directly targeting the hard-core horror junkies, especially fans of the Asian Extreme movement. Casual horror fans and horror fans who are more suspense oriented, are not going to find much here. There is no suspense. The motive which is explained at the end of the film is an explanation but an obvious one. Hostel is simply an exercise in gratuitous violence.
The death scenes are both horrific and lazy. On the horrific scale, these scenes are on par with Audition and Saw. Unlike Audition or Saw, the creativity in these scenes are uninspired. No tight piano strings or reverse bear traps here. Instead, hand drills and bolt cutters are used. It’s as if Eli Roth told the prop guy to go into a hardware store and randomly pick out props to use in his movie.
If blood and mutilations are what you’re looking for, Eli Roth does deliver. You get mutilations after mutilations with blood splashing everywhere. Unfortunately, patience is required. The first 45 minutes of this film is like watching an American Pie sequel. Humor is substituted for horror in a feeble attempt to give characterization. These earlier scenes are awkward at best. The dialogue sounds like written dialogue and from watching the behind-the-scenes footage of Eli Roth, he writes like he talks, with a lot of gratuitous f-bombs and immature incoherency. He should take some writing lessons from the executive producer Quentin Tarantino.
Eli Roth also uses a very obvious deux ex machia in the car chase finale. Without giving too much away, it involves hooligan children and candy. Eli Roth manages to set up one element but pulls the other element out of a corpse’s ass. This is simply slothful writing that Quentin himself would have resolved with more finesse or avoided altogether.
If it wasn’t for the production values, Hostel would be worthless. The special effects are great and the overall concept, although unoriginal, is engaging. When Hostel came out last year it made a lot of money. So a sequel is in the works. A rivalry with the Saw franchise also seems to be brewing. It’s a battle for B-level horror movie greatness!
If that be the case, it’s going to be a bloody fight. As for me, my loyalties lie to the jigsaw killer.
Jose (41 posts)Illustrator from Ann Arbor, MI Favorite Directors: Martin Scorsese, Steven Spielberg, David Fincher, Quentin Tarantino, and Christopher Nolan. http://www.jtungol.com
2 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Quentin, I believe, did have a hand in some scenes, as did co exec producer Scott Spigel as they imply on the DVDcommentary. There are some pull backs and transitional shots that are tipping the hat to the Evil Dead producer, and there are some homages to Pulp Fiction (which a snippet -in Dutch- plays in the Hostel lobby) such as a character whose escape is guaranteed, decides to rescue someone being tortured in the Warehouse dungeon.
I though the “escape”- the last thirty five minutes was terrific. I had no problem with Paxton being a womanizing sleaze- then having a slight character change. The idea that he risks his life to save Keikio -and he did not know who he was saving at the time- turns the character arc a bit around. In turn, she saves his. I also liked actress Barbara Nedeljakov- who played a very good femme fatale, although I’d like to see her in other films, as most of her performance is in the buff. I also imagined what if..instead of rich suits paying to be serial killers, it would have been the local women doing the dirty deeds? Would that turn some corners.
The violence is kept at a minimum, much kept off camera or shown in brief glimpses. It was more nightmarish this way. But in the scope of things, I had to ask: how long has this been going on? Are all the guests of the Hostel subject to the kidnappings? What about the locals themselves? Other rich businessmen? Sooner or later, someone is bound to notice the string of disappearances. While it is probable the Russian mafia (?) will change location from time to time, they would have to find a place where they can cut up and incenerate body parts.
I did not listen to all the DVD commentaries: Eli Roth has something to say in all of them. I could only stand watching the film twice in a row.
I think Roth will make a great director of suspense and horror if he left the fanboy in him at home.
Comment by Darren Seeley — Sat April 22, 2006 @ 21:42Good point on the Pulp Fiction homage. The only problem with that is that Paxton from Hostel is no Butch from Pulp Fiction. I just have a hard time buying the fact that this lecherous Paxton–whose fingers have been cut off and should be weak from the blood loss–would go back and save the girl.
Violence kept to a minimum? Did you watch the theatrical version or the uncut? I saw the uncut version and the violence was caught on camera. I saw holes being drilled into legs! The ankles being sliced and blowtorch scenes were off, but the aftermath was shown. The eyeball cutting and the puss was shown! Maybe the theatrical version is better of the two.
But your point about Roth being a fanboy is well taken. There’s nothing wrong with filmmakers being fanboys. Quentin is fanboy, but was capable of putting a new spin on old stories. Time can only tell if Roth can do the same thing.
Comment by Jose — Sun April 23, 2006 @ 14:20