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.

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.