Not Coming to a Theater Near You

Hostel / USA / 2005

In terms of the decision to display the act of killing another human being, I couldn’t have watched two more different films than Spielberg’s Munich and Eli Roth’s Hostel. I don’t think I was tense during a single moment during Roth’s film. I simply just had to wait for the next scene of gore to commence after having watched the long male fantasy that begins the film. Roth appears to have some thoughts of Eastern European economics after the fall of communism, youthful-American arrogance, and global resentment of the USA, but his film just isn’t all that terrifying apart from a conversation between Jay Hernandez and Peter Hoffman.

I can sum up my distaste for Roth’s methods by describing one scene. As Paxton and Kana attempt to get away from their abductors, they run into the same group of children that continue to commit crime throughout the film. They get away by giving the children gum. The gangsters who are following them are not so lucky and suffer a most gruesome fate. Yet, Roth’s techniques obviously want the audience to cheer at the actions of the children, no matter how revolting. Unfortunately, I simply had to wonder if an identical audience reaction would be possibly if the children took the same action upon our protagonists, since it seems obvious that the children have no moral code. Perhaps Roth’s point is that the true horror of this situation is that these children are not governed by morality in these countries. If so, this point would be better conveyed if Roth showed the consequences of the childrens’ actions within the same frame. Instead, the harm that they cause is relegated to its own frames, apart from the children’s blows, thus allowing the audience some relief since the actions and consequences are separated through editing.

Roth could some day make a meaningful horror movie, since his scenarios are always so interesting. Unfortunately, this film isn’t the horror masterpiece that it has been hyped up to be.

by Chiranjit Goswami | Source: Lions Gate Films 35mm Print
07 Jan 2006 2:30 AM | Comments (4)

Comments / 4 total / Submit Comment

1. Soupcrusher / 7 January 2006 / 6:59 PM

   Hostel lived up to my expectations. Yeah, there were the generic horror cliche type of moments, but overall it was what I’d expected from him. I don’t know why it needs to be “meaningful.”

   It’s a horror romp! Did you see Cabin Fever? It’s not like it takes itself seriously. If you remember subtleties from that movie, like the sex scene when the girl flips the guy over on his stomach and proceeds to ride him from behind!? That’s just random and funny!

   As far as the gang of kids goes, I thought they were almost comic relief. This extremely dangerous gang (of children) goes around threatening people for candy. It seems completely harmless, until out of nowhere they start beating those guys heads in with rocks. It catches you off guard in a disturbingly funny way. Kind of like in Cabin Fever when the girl proceeds to shave her legs. It’s an agonizing scene, almost unnecessarily so, and I think that’s the humor in it.

   I watch lots of horror movies, and most of them are really bad. But some of those bad ones have this oddly great quality to them. So I expect different things from different horror movies. After seeing Cabin Fever, I thought it was apparent that Roth was playing on these qualities, and that’s why it turned out to be such a great movie for what it was. Eli Roth knows how to make a good horror movie because he’s a fan that’s done his homework. I mean, he got Takashi Miike to make a cameo apperance!

   Hostel isn’t a meaningful masterpiece of a film. It’s got lots of sex, lots of violence and it’s fun to watch. Why expect more than that? I have no idea.

2. YellowFellow / 7 January 2006 / 8:05 PM

   Why does a Takashi Miike cameo equal Eli Roth knowing how to make a good horror movie? That’s like saying “Robin Hood: Men in Tights” is a good Shakespeare-actor’s-movie because it has a cameo from Patrick Stewart. You can get all the cameos you want to please fan boys, but it ain’t going to save your picture.

   It’s seems apparent that Roth was setting out to make a horror movie with some kind of message or meaning regarding the ignorance and arrogance of American tourists/backpackers.

   Roth says (in an interview from this past September’s Toronto Film Fest), “The whole reason I picked Slovakia as the place they go was because no Americans have any idea that it’s really a country. They still think it’s Czechoslovakia. They think it’s all one big war zone — they don’t really know. Even one of the sound guys who was cutting the movie with us turned to me and said, ‘Did you make that place up?’ Other people who’ve seen the film are like, ‘Wow, I’m never going to Czechoslovakia.’ They completely proved my point. I think Americans are very self-centred. There’s a whole attitude of superiority, and that extends to the idea of buying and selling other people. It’s like when they’re looking at girls in the window in Amsterdam and saying things like, ‘Aww, that bitch is so hot.’ Then they end up as the pieces of meat.”

   His words. Not mine. Please don’t shoot the messenger.

   I think we expect more from Roth because there’s so much hype built up behind his movies and his career. He seems to be touted as America’s next great horror-movie filmmaker; to take the torch from guys like Hooper, Romero, Savini, and Craven – directors who made fun horror films with meaning, ultimately a result from the events that were surrounding them during the 60’s and 70’s. If Roth was making fluff horror films with lots of sex and lots of violence, I doubt he’d be getting all the current accolades. Whether he deserves them or not is another issue.

3. Mr eel / 9 January 2006 / 2:00 AM / URL

   Personally I found Cabin Fever to be a disapointment. Not as clever as it thinks it is. The premise itself is interesting, but it could have been a lot smarter and tougher.

   As each friend dies, any sort of nobility or kindness in the remaining also diminishes. It would have been a more interesting film if it pursued that.

   Instead, a few people die slowly, a few get killed. Blah blah, some other stuff happened. Look I didn’t really dig it enough to remember.

   So‚Ķ coming back to Hostel. It’d better be a damnsight more than Cabin Fever to be any good.

4. Kiramus / 12 January 2006 / 11:38 PM

   Yes!!! I was right. I went and saw it last night and I saw Takashi Miike and he said like two words. I think he was like, “You’ll spend all of your money in there…” or something. But anyway I was over a friend’s house and I was like, “Oh crap that was Takashi Miike!!! I was both happy that I was right and a bit ashamed that I was able to point that out because I’m pretty sure there are about 900 people in the US who know who he is.

   Anyway, the movie made me laugh. It was just an excuse to put a lot of gruesome violence into a movie. I was bored through the first hour because it was missing something…Oh yeah that’s right, a plot. There was no plot at all. It was funny though. That German dude that sawed himself. That made me laugh. Too bad about Kana but I was like, WTF? Why even live when your face was all messed up and you had to have your eye cut off. I’m pretty sure she’d die like 20 minutes later of infection.

   It kinda reminded me of eurotrip especially the train scene. I laughed throughout most of the movie and I had one person confront me about being insensitive. It was a funny movie and I’m not goign to sympathize with an actor pretending to be in pain with make up on his body, that would be retarded. So those people get a chop on my part. They were lame.

   I give it a 7 out of 10 because they killed the annoying icelandic dude. I know icelandic people and that dude was an ass.

   BTW don’t point out spelling errors because I’m sure I made them and I don’t care.