Search

» » Hostel (2005)

Short summary

Three backpackers head to a Slovak city that promises to meet their hedonistic expectations, with no idea of the hell that awaits them.
3 backpackers are in Amsterdam where they get locked out of their youth hostel. They are invited into a man's house where he tells them of a hostel somewhere in eastern Europe where the women are all incredibly hot and have a taste for American men. When they get there, everything is too good to be true - the hostel is "to die for"

Trailers "Hostel (2005)"

The character of Natalya was deliberately shown to get "uglier" throughout the film, just like her personality.

The interior of the slaughterhouse was filmed at a functioning mental hospital in Prague built in 1910, in a wing that had been closed for over 50 years. Building 10, where many of the scenes were filmed, was where the craziest patients were taken. The basement was so creepy that Eli Roth had a string quartet playing classical music to make it feel cozier while shooting.

They stay in room 237. This is reference to Hiilgus (1980).

Eli Roth asked the President of Iceland for an official pardon for making Icelanders look like drunken sex maniacs with the character of Oli. The president laughed and gave Roth the pardon, saying it represented a side of Icelanders not shown in films. Roth also issued a formal apology to the Icelandic Minister of Culture, for all the damage Hostel (2005) may cause to Iceland's reputation.

Eli Roth hired real street kids to play the Bubblegum Gang.

Over 150 gallons of blood were used in the making of the film, nearly three times the amount used on Eli Roth's first film Cabin Fever (2002).

The actor playing the taxi driver in the scene where the travelers first enter Bratislava was so drunk on the morning of the shoot, that the crew replaced him with a sober stunt double.

Eli Roth initially wanted to do a documentary on the subject of the "murder vacation". However, as he was doing research, he found it almost impossible to get into contact with people involved in such business, and that he could put himself in danger for asking around. He decided to use the subject for a fiction, instead.

Eli Roth wrote the role of Oli for Eythor Gudjonsson after he met him doing press for Cabin Fever (2002) in Iceland. Roth was so taken with Eythor's charisma and charm, he promised he'd put him in a film one day. Eythor was surprised when he saw that Roth had followed through with his promise, and happily accepted the role.

Jan Vlasák (The Dutch Businessman) didn't speak a word of English; he learned his lines phonetically.

(at around 1h 5 mins) The porn film the guard at the factory watches on the DVD player is Sex Fever (2003), the X-rated parody of Roth's first film Cabin Fever (2002).

This film knocked Narnia lood: lõvi, nõid ja riidekapp (2005) off the top spot both at the box office, and when it was released on DVD. The production budget of "The Chronicles of Narnia" is nearly 50 times the $4 million dollar production budget of Hostel (2005), which earned $20 million dollars in its opening weekend alone.

(at around 1h 15 mins) "The American Businessman" (Rick Hoffman) almost gave himself a concussion and bruised his head with the butt of his gun while filming the scene where he decides how to murder his victim.

(at around 18 mins) When Paxton, Josh and Oli first arrive at the Slovakian hostel, the hostel personnel are watching a film on TV. This film is Quentin Tarantino's Pulp Fiction (1994) (Tarantino was a producer for "Hostel").

In the Unrated DVD version of the film, the word "fuck" is spoken 128 times.

Oli speaks a little Icelandic in the film: When knocking on the hotel door, Oli yells "Döfulsins" which literally means "devil", but in the context it's kind of the Icelandic "fuck", also Oli says the word "snípur" which means "clit". Then when Josh calls Oli and he gets his voice mail, which says "Hæ, þetta er Óli, legðu inn skilaboð og ég hringi í þig." which translates "Hi, this is Oli, leave a message and I'll call you back". In the subtitles on the DVD the word "snípur" is misspelled as "sneepur" to avoid people confusing it with the english word "sniper".

(at around 26 mins) When Josh and Paxton return to the Hostel with the girls after the disco, the song in the background is "How Do" by the Sneaker Pimps, a remake of the song Willow sings to seduce Sergeant Howie in The Wicker Man (1973), which is also a film about townspeople conspiring against an outsider.

Eli Roth wanted to have the world premiere of the finished film at the 2005 Iceland Film Festival. During the festival, Roth and Quentin Tarantino were made honorary Vikings at Viking Village, in a ceremony arranged by Eythor Gudjonsson. Roth's Icelandic name is Eli Sheldonsson, and Tarantino's Icelandic name is Quentin Conniesson.

Eli Roth put nearly every single crew member in the film, including production accountant Mark Bakunas, who appears on a poster in the background of three different scenes for his fictional rock band, 'Bakunas and the Essential Elements.' The other members of the band on the poster are producers Mike Fleiss and Chris Briggs, Co-Producer Daniel Frisch, Production and Costume Designer Franco-Giacomo Carbone, and Roth.

Le Monde named this as one of its ten best films of 2006. Only two other American films made the list: Terrence Malick's Uus maailm (2005) and Martin Scorsese's Kahe tule vahel (2006).

The scenes in Amsterdam are not shot in Amsterdam. The house, streets, and cars are Eastern European. A shot in the film shows a castle on a hill and a long bridge over a river, but there is none of this in Amsterdam.

The Czech and Slovak pop songs in the film were huge hits in Czechoslovakia between the years 1982 and 1989.

Cesky Krumlov, where the film was largely made, actually has a museum of torture.

Although the Slovakian actress Barbara Nedeljakova gained a large following among male horror fans for her topless scenes, she admitted in interviews that she didn't enjoy taking off her clothes for the film.

Milda Jedi Havlas: the film's production assistant can be seen as the male desk clerk at the Slovakian hostel. He played the part to replace an actor who dropped out shortly before his scenes were to be filmed.

Takashi Miike: (at around 54 mins) businessman at the warehouse.

Eli Roth: (at around 3 mins) the American customer in a Boston Red Sox jersey in the Amsterdam coffee shop laughing at his friend struggling to take a hit off of a bong.

Eli Roth: [youthful and culture clash] The kids in Cabin Fever (2002) and both "Hostel" films all leave their home environments to go somewhere they can behave irresponsibly with no repercussions. This behavior ultimately leads to their demise. Another trademark of Roth's is culture clash. In "Cabin Fever" it's suburban vs. rural, in the "Hostel" films it's West and East.

(at around 44 mins) After Josh (Derek Richardson) has his Achilles' tendon sliced, much of his screaming is real. While writhing in pain, the actor accidentally pulled the chair up and brought it down on his foot, nearly splitting his toe in half.

(at around 1h 1 min) When Paxton is in the slaughterhouse with the German, he delivers a speech in German. He is saying, "If you kill me, it'll destroy your life. Every time you close your eyes, you'll see me. I'll be in your nightmares every night, your whole life. I will ruin it."

It took a few hours to fully apply Jennifer Lim's "burned face/dangling eye make-up". The make-up was so realistic that when she looked at herself in a mirror for the first time after it was applied, she began to cry. She said that she would understand why her character would commit suicide after seeing the effects of the torture done up on her.

At the very first screening of this film at the 2005 Toronto Film Festival, two ambulances were called due to people having such extreme reactions to the film. A man left the theater during Josh's torture, fainted, and tumbled down the escalator, a woman asked for paramedics, believing she was having a heart attack during Paxton's torture scene. Both patrons were okay, and local media thought it was a publicity stunt by director Eli Roth. However, Roth claims to know nothing of the incidents, as he was in the theater watching the film, and only found out after when he was told by the festival staff of the chaos that transpired.

The trailers bill the film as "inspired by true events". Director Eli Roth says that he found a Thai website that advertised itself as a "murder vacation," offering users the chance to torture and kill someone for the price of $10,000. According to the story, videos of a random person walking into a room and shooting someone in the head were posted on the Internet. Roth later showed the site to Quentin Tarantino and the two developed the idea for the film. Tarantino and Roth said later on an Icelandic talk show that they have no idea if the website was real or not.

Eli Roth said that the scenes set in the Amsterdam brothel and the slaughterhouse when Paxton sees various people being tortured paralleled each other, with the former being an extreme view of sex and the latter an extreme view of violence.

Although many people are murdered at the slaughterhouse, none of these killings are fully viewed on-screen; the film cuts away right before the Dutch Businessman murders Josh, we see Oli has been decapitated, Paxton sees numerous dead bodies, etc. On the other hand, the film shows every killing committed by Paxton from the time when he shoots the German Surgeon to death (includes the bodyguard, the butcher, the American Businessman, running over the three people who were paid to turn him over to Elite Hunting, and the Dutch Businessman).

The original ending in the script ended with Paxton kidnapping the Dutch Businessman's daughter, then as they leave on a train he covers her mouth to prevent her from screaming (it's unclear whether or not he is helping her or if he is going to hurt her). This ambiguous ending was changed for the film because test screenings thought the ending was too dark and not satisfying enough. Eli Roth then re-shot the ending that made it into the final cut (Paxton killing the Dutch Businessman). The alternate ending is on the DVD.

(at around 1h 24 mins) The crate that Paxton hides behind at the train station had to be painted over, because the production design team put the words "Made in Slovakia" on it. Eli Roth thought it would seem strange for a Slovakian crate to have English words on it.

User reviews


  • comment
    • Author: Zacki
    I saw Hostel tonight with a crowd that was very receptive to the experience. Mine was more hostile. The film opens like a teen sex comedy. We are meant to identify with three young guys, who's idea of fun is getting high and having sex with prostitutes. This first section is littered with naked women, in what might just be the least sexy presentation of naked women anywhere. One can sense director Eli Roth and his cronies giving each other high fives off-camera, much like the silhouetted threesome early on in the film, as they pay surgically enhanced women to take their clothes off.

    The three men find themselves in Slovakia, and in what is referred to as an art show or an exhibit. Rich men have paid Russian gangsters to torture and ultimately murder a human being, our heroes? subjects? One by one, the men are tortured and killed in escalating graphic manners. The final man escapes, is involved in a car chase, and ultimately becomes what he was trying to escape.

    This is, at its black heart, a very dumb movie. Probably, the most clever thing in the film, is the very weak parallel drawn between the legalized red light district in Amsterdam, and the illicit torture rooms in Slovakia. Everything else is just baloney. We don't really care about the three men, so the tortures that they endure aren't really effective at eliciting any sympathy, it's more that we're glad it's not happening to us. The motivations for the men that torture is never made clear, it's more a general sociopathic disconnect that's vaguely hinted at. It's also worthwhile noting that the one character that seems to be gay is singled out as the worst of the torturers, further contributing to the filmic stereotype of homosexual as homicidal.

    One should also note the historical context of the film. This is an American movie, about torturing people, made at a time when America, right or wrong, is receiving flak for torturing prisoners in Iraq and elsewhere, and makes no mention of the current world situation.

    It's also worth noting that the audience I watched this picture with cheered and applauded at each new horror. It all seemed so Circus Maximus.
  • comment
    • Author: Malodora
    I didn't like Hostel. The premise is frightening. The idea of being drugged, kidnapped, tortured, and killed by people who are paying to do it, is a great concept for a film. It's just too bad that the movie couldn't decide what it wanted to be.

    It starts off like "Eurotrip" or any number of cheesy teen sex comedies. Lots of fake boobs and characters acting idiotic, in a fake atmosphere. Scenes in dance clubs that don't look realistic. You know, the types of places where people are dancing to loud music, but somehow can talk to each other in a normal tone of voice and everything is brightly lit so you can see all the movie extras pretending to dance in the background. Just like all the clubs, I've ever been to, right? Anyway, this goes on and on until the bloodshed starts, giving us absolutely no reason to feel anything for the main characters.

    Then it turns into the horror film it should be. The scenes of torture are effective and psychologically scary if you imagine yourself in the situation, but in the context of the rest of this movie it just becomes ineffective.

    Then the end of the movie turns into an unrealistic revenge fantasy that's played out, for the most part, for laughs. Kids payed in bubble gum help the good guy get away by smashing the bad guys heads in with rocks as they chew away and blow bubbles. The two girls and guy who set them up are easily killed when they luckily appear in front of the getaway car. The man that killed his friends just happens to be on the train on the way home so he can kill him and somehow not get blood on himself, then continue on his way. So is the movie supposed to be realistic, scary, or funny? It's falls short of any of these things. Eli Roth needs to pick one and do it.

    The music is terrible. Not in the fact that the music itself isn't good, but for the fact that, A: it doesn't fit the movie, and B: There's way to much of it. There's a scene where the Characters are merely walking across a courtyard, and the music sounds like it should be a fight scene in Harry Potter. Completely out of place and distracting, further telling you this is just a movie no need to feel anything for the characters or get scared.

    You can do a good compare and contrast between this movie and "Wolf Creek" which came out a couple weeks ago. Everything that is wrong with "Hostel", was done right in "Wolf Creek". Both movies are about young travelers getting into horrifying situations, however in "Wolf Creek" the characters actually act like normal human beings therefore you feel disgusted when they get tortured and killed. It's genuinely frightening and realistic, and by all means not "fun" to watch. It makes you feel horrible inside. It's REALISTIC HORROR. To make a stupid analogy. If "Hostel" and "Wolf Creek" were movies about Viet Nam, "Wolf Creek" would be "Platoon", and "Hostel" would be "Rambo: First Blood Part Two". (Note how neither would be "Full Metal Jacket" cause it's to good to be used in this analogy).

    I gave "Hostel" a 3 out of 10 for a frightening concept, and the puke was a nice touch. . . If you're about to get tortured and killed chances are you're gonna puke. . . Realism, Eli. More realism please.
  • comment
    • Author: Jwalextell
    This movie is just plain awful. The violence, sex, and language is gratuitous. The characters are flat, the story banal, the acting stiff, the music contrived, and to top this all off, it's one of the most shallow movie I've ever seen.

    Creative writing professor Jack Harrel, in his essay "What Violence in Literature Must Teach Us," defines violence as gratuitous when it is "free, unearned, or unjustified."According to Harrell, for violence to be warranted in a piece (whether or not it's in the horror genre), we must care for the characters, the violence must occur for a reason, and the violence must come at some cost.

    Hostel meets none of these guidelines. First of all, the main characters are unworthy of any of our sympathy. Backpacking through Europe, the three, all male main characters' main interest throughout the film is getting laid and smoking pot. That's their entire motivation. Isn't the feeling of horror generated from the viewer worrying about a character getting hurt or killed? How is this suspenseful feeling supposed to happen when the characters are constantly saying crude things like "you're so gay" and "pu**y" and taking pictures on their phone of their sexual exploits in a bar bathroom stall, and screaming when a male character puts his hand on their leg? The only thing this does for me is offend.

    Why does the violence occur? Apparently for a fee one can have the thrill of killing someone in whatever means they wish. Unfortunately this has absolutely nothing to do with the "story" (I use this term *very* loosely here). All of a sudden the main characters start disappearing from the "story" and start entering some kind of green lit "killing room" where they get tortured to death by some demonic person who has a short cameo earlier in the film. This is not a reason. When we find out later how this killing is sort of like an attraction for rich adrenalin junkies, the only thing one can possibly feel is apathy. Apathy for the story. All *this* just for *that*!!!

    What cost does the violence come at in Hostel? None. The people who get killed are worthless to us and the people who are doing the killing are worthless to us. We care not when some of the people who are doing the killing get killed because we are not sure if they are the ones in charge. There is absolutely no moral bone to chew on here.

    Lastly I'd like to talk about one thing in particular that really upset me about this film. Towards the end of Hostel a woman kills herself after looking at the reflection of her newly disfigured face. This is probably the most gratuitous and shallow point of the movie. It's also supposed to be its most dramatic point. First of all this character is only known to us as an Asain women who's friend also goes missing and doesn't want to party. That's it. When the main character rescues her from the hands of the killer due to her screaming, which reminds him of when he let a little boy drown a few years ago, we are surprised to find her in the "green killing room". Her eyeball is dangling out of her socket at this point. Our "hero" decides to finish the job and cut the "tenticles" that keep it attached. As to the importance of this I can not figure. But when she takes a look at her reflection and then throws herself in front of a train in very dramatic fashion I become upset. Think of how many people in the world are "disfigured." Apparently life is not worth living unless your beautiful. That is the only message this movie could possibly have.

    How horrible.
  • comment
    • Author: Mikale
    It's not scary. It's not funny. It's not stylish. It's not suspenseful, exciting, thrilling or chilling in any way. It's not intelligent enough to even be viewed as some warped social commentary. It's not ambitious enough to do anything other than present gratuitous T&A and gore in the dullest manner imaginable. Hell, it's not even entertaining. What it really is is an exercise in being completely and utterly pointless aside from presenting violent scenarios and nude women in third world countries with unlikely silicone enhanced bodies. The "plot" involves a trio of students (two Americans and a foreigner) vacationing in Eastern Europe who eventually stumble upon a pay-to-slay type business that specializes in making your sickest dreams come true (i.e. customers paying a high price to get to slaughter a real live person). And I am using the world "eventually" because it takes around an hour for this movie to get to the real horror content. First we have to sit through an excruciating hour dedicated to the juvenile frat boy antics of characters who stay wasted on booze and drugs and pay hookers for sex. A whole hour of this crap.

    Our "heroes" are stupid, irritating, immature, one-dimensional and thoroughly unlikable. By the time their lives are in danger, you could care less what happens to them. I know I didn't. I was actually rooting for the generic, anonymous bad guys to tell you the truth. To make matters worse, this film has a tacked on ending that tries to let the sole survivor enact his vengeance. These scenes are absolutely ludicrous and riddled with coincidence. Certain characters just happen to be at a certain place at the right time. Hey, there's three of them now crossing the street right in front of me just as I'm trying to escape the town! Well what do you know? How bout I run 'em all over! There's another one who happens to be on the same train as me as I'm leaving the country! Well I'll follow him into the bathroom... etc. etc. etc. The end.

    This movie is absolute garbage from start to finish. It's nothing new or interesting. There is some gore, but it's pretty much what's expected and nothing too shocking for anyone who has already sat through films like Texas Chainsaw Massacre or Dawn of the Dead. Director Eli Roth may be 35 years old, but his brain functions at the level of someone 20 years his junior based on his juvenile screenplay and uninspired direction. Roth himself later claimed he made this film "to show Americans' ignorance of the world around them" and in the process only ended up showing his own ignorance when it comes to film- making. Absolutely the pits!
  • comment
    • Author: Moronydit
    I just got back from an L.A. screening of Hostel. I haven't seen an effective horror film like this in a long time. My stomach was still knotted up after we left the screening. The last time I felt like that was when I saw ALIENS for the first time about 19 years ago. Since then, no other horror film has ever made me feel like that. I certainly didn't expect it from this one. As much as I loved Cabin Fever, I'm not blind to the shortcomings of its script. As such,I was expecting more of the same from Hostel - dark humor, gore, and a sense of dread. I'm happy to see that director Eli Roth has taken a big step forward in becoming a better storyteller and filmmaker.

    Admittedly my heart sank when the film began. The scenes introducing the main characters were blandly shot and edited. All I could think was, 'Oh no. Roth succumbed to some unseen studio pressure to make a normal-looking horror flick'. The style was typical of the what you'd see in crap like I know what you did last summer. But in very subtle ways, the blandness gets washed away and as our heroes enter the threshold of Hell, the style of the film changes as well. This, I learned during the Q&A afterwards with Roth, was intentional.

    If you've read some of the other reviews posted here from people who saw it at the Toronto Film Festival, you get the general idea of the story. Contrary to what you might've heard, this is not a 90 minute film on torture. The torture scenes are brief and to the point. Roth doesn't wallow in pointless gore. And this is where I think it shows how he's improved as a filmmaker. He's more interested in scenes and ideas that move the story forward. Yes, there is plenty of gore, but it's relevant to the story and doesn't exist just for it's own sake.

    One of the aspects of this film that made it so powerful was how Roth created a sense of helpless and inevitability. He provides the dark setup, throws in a sympathetic character, and begins twisting the screws and ratcheting up the suspense. This isn't a movie where you turn off your brain to enjoy it. On the contrary. The more you think about it, the more horrifying it becomes. You begin putting yourself into the character's situation and wondering what you'd do. When you realize that there is no hope for the character, no way to escape, no 'buddy' who's gonna turn up at the last minute to save the hero, and not a shred of humanity or compassion to the antagonists, real fear begins to set in.

    Another great element in the script is how the 'survivor' makes moral choices that define their character. Instead of being merely reactive like the characters in Cabin Fever, the survivor makes several decisions which change the course of the story. It's a sign of well thought-out script and a filmmaker who cares about the fate of his characters.

    For horror fans, this is an absolute must-see. It's so refreshing to see a horror movie that actually makes you feel uncomfortable and one in which you have no idea what's going to happen next. As for the gore, I was surprised by what they got away with. Although there were no credits at the end of the film, the cut I saw was rated R by the MPAA and according to Roth, he didn't cut anything out.
  • comment
    • Author: Rgia
    The plot, in short: Three backpackers, two Americans and one Icelander, does Europe by train with two major goals: To get high and nail as many women as possible... In Amsterdam they accidentally learn of a hostel in Bratislava, Slovakia where sex-mad women thirst for men in general, and American men i particular. They of course decide to go there and at first it seems the rumors were true. But they soon learn that the hostel is nothing more than a front for a bizarre club, where people can pay a huge fee to get to perform unspeakable acts...

    My 2 cents: The director and writer Eli Roths biggest accomplishment before Hostel is Cabin Fever (2002) - weather or not that is something good is a matter of personal judgment. That he got two Evil Dead'ers (Scott Spiegel and FX-genius Gregory Nicotero) interested in his script is not at all surprising. But how he got Quentin Tarantino to executive produce (and thereby act as "posterboy" for his flick) is, to me, a total and utter mystery.

    Hostel has potential, I'm not going to take that away from it. The thought that a place exists where rich people pay money to torture and kill other people is interesting. And a story about a kidnapped person who finds himself locked in that very place, waiting for his assassin, should make for a great film! The film is wonderfully lit, specifically in the torture chamber-scenes. And the set-dressing in those scenes are marvelous. It really feels like Roth found these places - and just shot them as the were. But the lighting, set-dressing and potentially-rich story, unfortunately, ends the positive things I have to say about Hostel.

    It is frustrating to see a story that could have been so exciting and horrific get so utterly fumbled up! The movie is an hour and a half long, and takes a whopping 50 minutes to get to the place that is supposed to be the scene of terror and creepiness. The nearly hour-long "intro" is spent observing the backpackers while they party, get high and watch naked ladies in Amsterdams Red Light-district. When the story finally starts to focus on whatever is wrong with the Slovakian hostel it points everything out to such an extensive degree that it feels like Roth wants to put a stupid-hat on every member in the audience. I sat, in vain, and waited for him to take the lid off, go "ta-daa!" and show me something intelligent that I had missed. But it never happens and when the lid, towards the end, slowly slides off on its own accord it turns out that the ones you suspected were bad guys were in fact...bad guys. The ones you suspected were dead...were dead. And the entire movie ends the way you suspected it would all along.

    Jay Hernandez (Paxton) and Derek Richardson (Josh) doesn't do to shabby in the two leads. But Roth has stayed true to Hollywood formula and chosen picturesque before personality, and the bigger part has unfortunately been given to Hernandez - instead of Richardson who I thought were more likable, and more interesting to watch.

    Spanish director Koldo Serra made El tren de la bruja in 2003. A short-film about a man who agrees to partake in an experiment and suddenly finds himself strapped to a chair in a dark room. He hears metal objects being handled and someone pacing back and forth in the room. When the light is turned on it dawns on him that he will probably be tortured to death. Serras short-film is fifteen minutes long. It was filmed in two days and is scary as hell! Hostel is both longer and has, as it first seems, more story to build on. But it still wants to base the horror in exactly the same sort of scenes as Serras short - and fails miserably! Hostel is, probably, made specifically for an American teen-audience, where drugs and naked women represent half of the movies pull. Blood and bodyparts make up the other half. If you watch this and expect anything more sophisticated than some blood and naked breasts you'll be disappointed.
  • comment
    • Author: avanger
    Well, it wasn't so much a 'horror' movie as it was a 'horrible' movie.

    I expect that this director will go on to make great snuff films and little else. I guess if I was a 15yr old boy who enjoys endless mindless killing interspersed with plenty of tit shots, I might enjoy this POS.

    No one else will enjoy this mess. Except maybe former Nazis.

    These days all you need to get a movie deal is apparently the promise that you'll employ the producers wanna-be girlfriend and have at least 5 violent gory deaths. Plot, storyline, or talent not included (or necessary apparently)

    The only good thing about this movie is that I didn't have to pay for my ticket to see it. :P And ladies if your boyfriend/husband takes you to see this movie, dump him. He's clearly got something wrong with him.
  • comment
    • Author: Nekora
    What was the author thinking (or perhaps drinking)? Does he know anything about Europe, Eastern Europe, Slovakia, Bratislava. I think he's a total imbecile. Half a million people lives here. It's not some kind of medieval village, where bloody killers live and crime is overwhelming. Or maybe Americans still think that Eastern Europe is some kind of wild land, the land of poverty, devastation and murder, and it's dangerous to be even near those places. Well then they are f**king idiots if they think so. Such films create a negative image of Eastern Europe, of the Slavs and I think it's a shame that such movies exist.
  • comment
    • Author: Levaq
    Hostel was one of those films described as "torture porn" and, with my low tolerance for gore, I decided to give it a miss at the cinemas and dismiss it if anyone brought it up. However as it came on TV a month or so ago I decided that maybe I was being unfair by not giving it a try. It did sit on my HDD for a month though as somehow I never was in the mood until I forced myself to watch it. It does what you expect it to do and there should be no surprise that it is very gory throughout. What surprised me was how gripped I was by it as I squirmed in my seat and had the emotional "flight" response while sitting there. In that sense the film works because for all but the most hardened viewer it will have you feeling ill and get your heart beating. However while it did achieve this, it did it by simply going direct for being as sadistic and graphic as it possibly could.

    In a way there is a "build-up" to the main gory bits but this is less of a decision so much as a necessary evil of having any sort of story. The first thirty minute or so are essentially the guys getting honey-trapped into this Eastern-European world of heartless torture and then from there we have gore for varying reasons (and here the makers give us nudity to prevent the male target audience getting bored). You never really care about the characters or the story because the tension is not about "what is happening next" as it is about the act you are watching. It is a cynical horror movie in this way as it has a very simple atmosphere and a very simple target or gore. While you are watching it the sheer cruel horror of it might stop you thinking but ultimately it is a soulless affair that reminds me of the viral "2 girls 1 cup" video. You see both are the type of thing you want to watch but also don't want to see, both also are entirely about seeing horrible things from the remote safety of your home and of course both generally get a "hands over eyes, open-mouth but yet unable to look away" response from viewers. This is all Hostel is going for and this is why I have real reservations recommending it because as a "film" it is pretty poor.

    Those that love gore will love it though because in this area it excels. The effects are horrifically realistic and are delivered in clear, cruel shots. The actors do a great job of convincing in their pain, horror and fear and this is part of the gore voyeur aspect of the film. As characters though they are poor and can do nothing with the script other than be young and geeky/sexy/beefy/stoned* (delete as appropriate). Hoffman's portrayal of power is the only exception because, while a bit whacked out, he perfectly captures the sheer indifference to live that real evil has. Roth's direction doesn't show much in the way of subtlety but he knows what his audience want and how to give it to them. The lack of anything beyond this in his delivery or script can be easily seen in the way that the film doesn't even try to do something with the fact that we are getting entertainment from watching people torture/kill others for their entertainment. Normally in this sort of thing there would at least be some reference to this conflict but here Roth is part of his audience and sees nothing wrong at all with what he is doing – which is a problem for me, not that he needs to be "ashamed" but just that a film should not just be a load of filmed gore with no heart or reason to care.

    Hostel is a gory horror movie that is entirely about being repulsed and thrilled by the graphic and sadistic acts portrayed with excellent special effects. Those looking for this will be pleased with it but the majority will be turned off. For some it will simply be too gory to watch and they will get no pleasure from witnessing hell on earth – I totally understand where they are coming from. However the majority of viewers will not be those that struggle with gore but just object to the cynical way that it is put on the screen without any real attempt at using it as part of the film or story – no, here the gore is the all and there is nothing else to watch it for. This factor alone makes me stronger in my decision to ignore this genre for what it is because being good at what you do doesn't mean that it is right for you to do it in the first place.
  • comment
    • Author: iSlate
    I'm not sure if this is a spoiler, so I figured I should do that to be safe.

    First of all, I didn't see this movie voluntarily. That being said, it was even stupider than I expected. Probably the worst thing I have ever seen or could even contemplate seeing. The characters were lame(I couldn't bring myself to feel any sympathy for them), the story line sucked(mostly because the story was "see porn! meet creepy people! see more porn! watch people get their limbs hacked off by psychopaths for fun! escape! REVENGE REVENGE REVENGE!!"), the gore was over-the-top and completely sickening. I alternated between wanting to throw up and just wanting to cry, not because it was sad, or you felt extremely sorry for these poor people who were being mutilated to the tune of $25,000, but because I couldn't imagine any sane, semi-rational human being enjoying this movie.

    I want my $7.50 back. And the hour and a half i spent with my hands over my ears waiting for it to be over.
  • comment
    • Author: Niwield
    Recently I picked up Hostel at my local movie store and decided to give it a try. I finished watching it and had very mixed feelings. First off, this film is not nearly as gory and disgusting as advertised. It is although, very graphic, and NOT for the squeamish, I just expected more out of it. The pop-up scares aren't effective and the first half of the movie is all soft-core porn. So what makes this movie a decent horror movie? The physiological scares. That is what got to me. The overwhelming feeling of being tied and up and tortured to death. Having no escape. For that was very effective and stomach curdling. The sex and nudity was all not needed, but for people looking for that kind of stuff, it's all here. The acting was pretty good. No bad performances. Hostel is a kind of movie where you'll either love it or hate it. But overall, an OK horror film. Not my favorite, but not terrible.
  • comment
    • Author: Steep
    This movie really could have been so much more. The idea would have been much better off with someone who actually wanted to make a decent movie, instead of a porno gorefest. The first half of the movie consists almost entirely of sex, talk of sex, drugs, and talk of drugs. Instead of, hey, maybe develop the characters a little so the audience might care about them and make their plights a little more tense, the filmmakers decided to have a lot of party scenes and annoying main characters acting like idiots until, uh oh, we didn't plan on being tortured, oops! The sad thing is, there are hints of something more intelligent beneath the surface, but the surface is piled so high with garbage that it's lost. For example, while at a sex club (wow, original!) one of the characters mentions something along the lines of "paying to do anything you want to a person," of course he means sexually, but we know the basic plot of the movie involves the same concept with death and torture instead of sex. One of the characters is supposed to seem like a nice guy, but still never really develops enough for us to care. The main character has absolutely no depth other than a childhood story and his shallow interaction with his friend. The last half or so of the movie actually starts to gain momentum, and the first half not been an entire waste of film, I could have walked away with more than a feeling that I'd just watched 15 minutes of an okay movie, and an hour and fifteen minutes of porn and senseless gore. Sadly enough, the idea of this movie was put into the wrong hands. A little less than halfway through, my friend turned to me and said, "Maybe I picked up the wrong movie..." to which I replied, "Yeah, I think you got Eurotrip by accident." I am baffled as to why they decided to write the first half like they did. I guess I was hoping for something deeper. Don't watch this expecting anything special, be ready for lots of nudity and lots of incredibly disturbing gore mixed randomly, the two not even seeming to fit like they would in a slasher flick.
  • comment
    • Author: Bolanim
    The premise of Ira Roth's "Hostel" is the European vacation of two All-American college boys, whom we meet in Amsterdam, where they get high but not happy. Paxton (Jay Hernandez), is a law school grad with no qualms about paying for whatever the market offers, which in Amsterdam covers a lot. He tries to cheer up his friend Josh (Derek Richardson), an aspiring author, by telling him that "life experience" is grist for the writer's mill. Josh wants badly to hook up with exotic women, but his sensibilities won't permit him to patronize the world's oldest profession, unlike his coarser compadre. His frustration fuels the "ugly American" ethos of entitlement that he brings to the party, and hamstrings his chick cruising moves.

    Enter Alex, who gives the Americans, and an Icelandic traveling companion, one of those tips that must be urban legend by now: a hostel full of loose ladies that's not on any map, in a country squirming with lonely beautiful women, in love with the American accent. Our pleasure seekers don't care if Alex is a pimp, and they certainly don't suspect whom he's pimping out. They leave for Bratislava, in a Slovakia which, according to Alex, is bereft of men because of "the war." Just exactly which war, is something our boys might well have asked, before crossing a continent in search of hot babes. As it is, Roth disembarks them at Poricany, a town in the middle of the Czech Republic, near Prague not Bratislava, where our college educated youth fall victim to their own blinkered view of the world. Seeking frivolity in cold-blooded foreign streets, they end up being exploited to an unimaginable extreme and on a level that is unbelievable even in today's real world of sex tourism, pirates and child predators.

    The mentality that wrongful deeds committed in another land somehow don't count, can flow from the mindset, common among some Americans, that other countries do not deserve equal status with our own. The "what happens in Bratislava, stays in Bratislava" view of the world is at the heart of the horror here, and to its credit, the film shows this to be a Weltanschauung shared by rogues from a number of nations.

    Today, with our leaders supporting the spread of freedom and democracy throughout the world, the hedonistic abuse represented by sex tourism is downright un-American. Paxton doesn't care about anything except making memories to sustain him through the upcoming busy months of cramming for the bar exam. Perhaps the global perception that such selfish attitudes are especially emblematic of Americans is why, in "Hostel," the disturbed torturers pay more to vivisect bearers of our passport than any other group on the albeit limited menu.

    When the boys finally enter the hostel midway through the film, a small TV in the lobby is showing an overdubbed version of "Hostel" producer Tarantino's "Pulp Fiction." The claustrophobic tension in that film added excruciating horror to the anticipated violence. In "Hostel," much of the violence is so non sequitur that you never quite believe in these silly butchers or their patient cadre of chauffeurs. The upshot is much less horror, more disgust and, one can only hope, no arousal.

    When a victim does cry out "Why?" he might be speaking for the audience: Why make this movie? And when the pay-as-you-torture psychos pause to bare their souls to bound and bleeding victims, these scenes visit real torture upon moviegoers in the painful forms of pathetic acting and pitiful dialog.

    Here, sadists have ceded their place to wealthy psychopaths, especially German-speaking men, who pay to "get their medieval freak on," that is, if one can get medieval, by definition, with a chainsaw or acetylene torch. During an uninspired escape attempt sequence, Paxton is cornered by an American businessman (Rick Hoffman), whose years of global sex tourism have left him unsatisfied and obviously insane. He is now ready to graduate to torture and murder for his sexual gratification.

    Perhaps there is an audience of Americans willing to exchange their ignorance of Europe for the misshapen image that risks becoming the pop culture residue of this movie: a Sybaris for bored backpackers, where women resemble lingerie models, preschoolers gang bang mercilessly, and where the occasional ex-Nazi still hobbles about his same unspeakable errands, more circumspect in his depravity than forty-odd years ago.

    To judge by "Hostel," there is certainly a surfeit of silicone in Slovakia. We are shown plenty of gratuitous female nudity, but only between rounds of bloodletting: Tarantino carefully segregates titillation from torture.

    Dressed in the anonymous business suit and tie preferred by the weekend torturers, Paxton attempts to practice a bit of "Old Testament Law," before returning to civilization secure in the knowledge that he can "out-Herod Herod." Throughout this film "Josh" never quite appreciates the jokes; while "Pax" never finds the peace that comes from exorcising one's own demons---he just cuts his vacation short, so to speak.

    In the final credits, thanks are given to, among others, Chloe and Major League Baseball! These entities deserve harsh censure if they paid for product placement. One star, hacked to bits.
  • comment
    • Author: mym Ђудęm ęгσ НuK
    My English is not very good (and i'm sorry for that), but this ''movie''is one of the stupidest I ever seen! Low budget movie with stupid, simple and awful story about 3 guys going to Bratislava (capital of Slovakia) to have some fun with slovak horny girls and they get killed by unearthly brutal people of small country Slovakia. This movie shows Slovakia like some kind of backward, poor and dirty country. If you know Slovakia, you know that this movie was filming in Czech Republic(there is a lot of signs with czech language on it, also the language they speak is czech), which is lovely country with beautiful history. You can see kids robbing these guys on the street by daylight!?What is that? This is not Kosovo, Afganistan or Iraq. They are not in the war or something. You should check some websites about this. Everybody who knows something about Eastern Europe, and saw this movie, know that this is degradation of this two countries and the producer Eli Roth is moron!!! It is a shame, that they earn money on this lame, full of lies rude stupidity!
  • comment
    • Author: Dianalmeena
    This movie was not only laughable, but morally degrading and at some parts repulsive to watch. The only reason that I went to see this movie is because I respect Quentin Tarantino's work in other movies, and just because his name was on this one, I caved. Some of the scenes were so STUPID that I found myself laughing at the screen. One scene containing bloody floor and a chainsaw to a leg was purely comical. Another scene where a one-eyed Asian girl jumps in front of a train after viewing her deformed face had me crying. The large amounts of nudity were also not needed and only added to the lack of morality in this film. I would not see this movie ever again and I would encourage others to do the same.
  • comment
    • Author: Yllk
    Finally, I gave in and went to see Hostel, because it kept being referred to in daily conversation of the young and reckless. Now I know why I usually do not go to see light pieces like this one. It is because however intriguing the first sequels might be, after a few minutes the usual problems surface and keep bugging you even until after the end. Loose plots, fact-defying situations and conversations, and wrongfully chosen backdrops all boost the impression that low-budget also resulted in not taking the time to carry out the necessary researches on the subject, the location etc.

    In Amsterdam a wily youth advises three backpackers from the US and Iceland to go to Slovakia if they want to hook up with nice chicks. The reason, he says, why so many easy girls can be found there is that there are no guys in that country because of the war. What?? Come on, the last time there has been a war on Slovakian territory was back in WWII. Eli Roth must have mistaken Slovakia for Slovenia. But there has not been a recent war in Slovenia either, only its neighbors, Serbia and Croatia were engaged fighting one another in the early to mid '90s.

    When the backpackers arrive to Slovakia what they find is a run-down country out of the stone age. Not exactly what it is like in reality. I am not saying Slovakia is the European Dubai, but people not having more than three crooked teeth in their mouthes and driving around in cars you would not see anywhere else but in an industrial museum paying tribute to the ex-Soviet era's technological achievements is a bit of an exaggeration. Slovakians also drive Ford, Opel, BMW and Mercedes cars like everybody else in Europe. And they do have state-supported dentistry as well.

    No care has been taken to try to find out what the location of the film is indeed like in reality. The sad truth is that the place you would find child gangs attacking backpackers in broad daylight is not Slovakia, but England and the disgraceful outer districts of Paris.

    Either American movie makers do not know anything about Europe, or they think we are stupid enough to be depicted as we are in their films. Actually, the only character resembling a European is that of Oli, so why all the hassle to excuse the Icelandic president? And if you intend to make the central train station of Bratislava look like it was in Germany you could at least remove the coke ads written in Slovakian from the background, Mr Roth. I mean, this is what one sensible man would start with, is it not?
  • comment
    • Author: Downloaded
    I like a rip-roaring horror movie as much as the next guy, but this one just didn't do it for me. It certainly felt like it hit all the necessary marks, from nudity and dismemberment to bloody revenge, but at the conclusion, it just felt like eating cotton candy - no real nutritional value, just a sense that I had satisfied some of my prurient appetite without any logical payoff.

    The movie was slow in getting started and then the sprinted to a singularly boggling ending. I walked out of the theater asking, "What was the point of all that?" And while this is described as horror, it really should be classified as thriller. There was no explanation or clever twist at the end. Just the end. I'm sure that it will attract an enthusiastic audience of young adults, but the evisceration by the critics will stem any hopes of huge box office.

    If your expectations are low enough, and your tastes in gore sufficiently robust, then you are in for a good time. Otherwise, skip this and see a classic Hitchcock film. You'll feel better about yourself.
  • comment
    • Author: Hulbine
    Something has gone horribly wrong. I'm not sure what Eli Roth and Quentin Tarentino were thinking when they put this crap together, but it's a laughable attempt at a shocking horror film. It wasn't as violent as Saw, it wasn't as tense as the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake, and it's filled with more ridiculous horror clichés than I could list in 1,000 words on IMDb. To have a preview that warns squeamish people with bad hearts to stay away from the theaters, there were a lot of people in my theater LAUGHING. Throughout the entire film. That pretty much sums things up about this one. A laughable attempt at being shocking. Just track down the original Japanese film instead. Or watch "Audition". Or "Ichi the Killer". You'll be better off. The other worst movie that I've seen in a theater? Wes Craven's THEY. And I'm not sure which of the two is worse.
  • comment
    • Author: Jonide
    I am not a big "gore" fan but I love a tense horror movie in which the director creates vivid images in your mind. This movie has both. I was a little surprised how good the story was and how good the actors (all of which were pretty much no-names)were. There is a scene by one of the lead male actors which will stay in your head well after the movie. I watched it at the TIFF at the 12:45pm show and I was at the edge of my seat. The plot was well-developed although I thought that the Director shouldn't have revealed the protagonist as early as he did in the movie and could have developed his reasons for doing what he did more fully. The ending was very good, but didn't hold up to the suspense and action immediately preceding it - the Director said he had a few other endings but felt screened audiences didn't like the other alternatives. In any event, I actually found myself turning away twice in the movie (I never do). There is some major disturbing stuff in this movie and Roth achieved his objective of making the scariest, sickest movie I have seen. What I did like was although the stuff was sick, it was actually plausible - that's the scary part. Sort of like what Friedkin did with the Excorcist - the scary part was that it made you think this crap was possible. Highly recommend this for the gore/horror fans, but I have a feeling that the studio distributor will demand cuts to the film. If it does get cut significantly, I am not sure if you will feel the same impact, but I guess time will tell. Roth mentions it will gain wide theatrical release around November.
  • comment
    • Author: Jugore
    I enjoyed the movie more than most commentators it appears, and not just cause it was bloody and had lots of boobies. The first 20 mins are just full of titties titties titties and yes, there are plenty of homophobic remarks that make us (or at least me) not so supportive our alleged heroes. but after the titties, the real fun begins. --SPOILER -- The torture scenes are graphic, but not as bad as I thought they'd be - they aren't relentless and overdone, but have just the right piquant tastes of grotesque and terror. The scene with the kid pleading for his life in German was very effective - thought maybe i should pick up some German for situations like these. as for the other commentators complaining that the characters were jerks - that's actually part of what makes this movie so good - Usually it's the nice, earnest, innocent hero/heroine goes through hell but always makes it out alive - being rewarded by fate or god or whatever for being good. but here the nice(st) fellow of the three bites it, in a bad way, leaving us to think we've got no one to root for. left with the jackass, we're forced us shift our alligence to a less likable hero - that is unless you're rooting for the torturers. Nice twist really. --SPOILER -- What really did it for me and probably why i give this movie such a high rating are the revenge scenes. In most movies, our beleaguered hero/heroine escapes, we have the one last scare and the hero/heroine kills the bad thing and then we all go home. But we all kinda feel hollow, like the bad thing's death just wasn't enough to make up for all the crap our hero/heroine had to go through. Here, in Hostel- the last 10 mins outta nowhere change from horror into a revenge film and it's quite satisfying, like a big ole bacon cheeseburger. Everyone that brought our characters to their lowly states gets it and gets it good. I wish I had a pack of wild orphaned gypsy children to do my bidding for bubble gum.
  • comment
    • Author: Gandree
    Eli Roth has done the impossible: he somehow made rampant nudity and bloody gore as boring and insipid as humanly possible. The characters are all lame and no one could possibly care about them, the supposed torture scenes aren't even that 'torturous', and the plot is incredibly dumb and insulting. The ending makes no sense at all, we never get any idea of the motivations behind the killers, and the main killer is as scary as Clay Aiken. And how can you run a business about torturing people, hire seemingly dozens of henchmen and skanks to lure tourists, and no one find out about it? Even with the one scene showing that the cops are somehow involved wasn't enough for me to believe that NO ONE WOULD MENTION AT SOME POINT THE FACT THAT THERE WERE DOZENS OF PEOPLE BEING KILLED AND TORTURED. What kind of idiot would have a business like that and have this many people involved in it? And the ending with the Japanese girl was just a lame excuse to rip-off 'Suicide Club', as it had no reason for existing other than that. After seeing this Eli Roth guy make movies, it's clear it's who you know in Hollywood and not much else.

    Awful. Just a total waste of time.
  • comment
    • Author: Ienekan
    I was one of those people that hated everything about Cabin Fever. I wasn't anticipating Eli Roth's next film, but when I heard the Internet buzz around Hostel, and found it was showing at the 2005 TIFF (Toronto International Film Festival), I decided to check it out.

    Eli Roth, who was at the screening, mentioned to the audience that this was the first public viewing in North America. He also told us what we were about to see was a work in progress print of the film. What I saw was one hell of a fierce horror flick that works on every level.

    All the actors do a great job in this flick. I was especially impressed with Jay Hernandez, and Derek Richardson, two relatively unknown actors. There are a lot of funny scenes, and dialog in the early parts of the film. It's not that slapstick, forced stuff that was so prevalent in Cabin Fever. There also lots of nudity in the early parts in the film as well. When things begin to turn towards horror, you truly feel the sense of terror the characters are going through. The build up to the climax is just done so well. I loved the fact the story is very believable.

    Make no mistake about it, this is a violent, sick, and gory flick. It's not for the squeamish. I haven't seen this type of extreme violence in a North America mainstream cinema. The Takashi Miike, and Asian Cinema influences are clearly seen here.

    This is a film that will shock people, and remain in there heads well after the film is over. It will be interesting to see how the film is edited, and rated. In it's current state, I don't see how it could get anything less than the dreaded NC-17 rating. I just hope that it's not butchered too much, as the audience deserves to see the film how it was intended. Eli Roth has completely redeemed himself for what I thought was a very poor film in Cabin Fever, and has made one kick-ass horror film.
  • comment
    • Author: Brightfury
    If you watch a lot of movies, you see mostly bad ones. That's the realization I have come to at least. If you give your brain a little bit of credit I would say you would be lucky to enjoy 6 out of 10 movies that come out. I know that going into the experience by now. A lot of movies are just bad and that's okay, but some of them are bad AND they insult my intelligence. This is where I get angry and frustrated at Hollywood.

    Before this movie was made I can just picture a bunch of Hollywood executives sitting around a long, oval-shaped table saying "Hey, everyone liked those 'Saw' movies so let's whip up something similar, and as quickly as possible regardless of quality!" I mean seriously the lack of plot in this movie is uncanny. The first 45 minutes or so is totally pointless and is more akin to the movie Eurotrip than anything that would be considered scary (there's about 10-15 boob shots for every interesting part in this movie, if that). Then when the movie gets to the subject matter that was advertised, we're subjected to a few "gross you out just because" parts. When the only surviving main character predictably escapes he coincidentally bumps into everyone involved in the setup so we can all feel better now that the good guys have been somewhat redeemed.

    It's one thing for a movie to simply be bad. Everyone has their opinion. But when a movie with no plot is injected with a few gross-out scenes just to make it more like a successful movie of its kind it gets to the point of the viewer being insulted. Every event has to MEAN something to the plot but when you don't have a plot that creates a problem. In this movie you have characters running around Europe trying to get laid for half the movie and then the rest of it is a shameless imitation of 'Saw' but without any resemblance of a storyline. Do NOT go see this movie, unless you are the type that sees a couple gory scenes and comes out of the movie saying "That was so cool!" If you are, god bless you, but I like my movies to have a point.
  • comment
    • Author: Gardall
    As a rule, I find horror films a little tiresome, but Hostel starts with a great premise and slowly builds up to some outrageous horror. The film tips its hat to some of the classics, and there's even a delightful cameo of Pulp Fiction playing in the background. It's not good that the premise of the movie is revealed in the IMDb listing as you don't learn the truth until near the end of the movie and it all starts to make a lot more sense. One thing about horror films which has always bugged me is that the bad guys never seem real to me, as if they are some kind of limitless satanic evil or whatever. In Hostel, by contrast, we really believe that the scenario is very plausible and for that, all the more frightening. I wouldn't be surprised at all if this kind of thing goes on in certain parts of the world. As far as maximum creep value, I saw it in a packed house at a screening in Beverly Hills last night, and many in the audience couldn't take it and ran out -- one guy was retching in the bathroom and was too scared to leave! The organizer had to talk him down and call one of his friends to take him home. The director was there for a Q&A which will be on the Creative Screen writing Magazine podcast, and he said that at one test screening they had to call a ambulances for two different people. It appears that the explicit sex, torture and violence will not be toned down for the theatrical release and it will still have an R rating instead of NC-17 which most of us thought it deserved. The trick, is that there is no sex during the violent scenes, and no violence in the sex scenes, which makes the MPAA more comfortable. By the way, this was shot near Prague, and is amazingly beautiful to look at -- I was there a month ago and the place is like something out of a fairy tale (unlike most historic European areas, there isn't a McDonalds every hundred feet). The ending is very, very satisfying yet believable and unforced. The audience was screaming, gasping, cheering, and hiding their faces at all the right moments. Eli's interview was a hoot, also, so check out the podcast once they post it on itunes. It's worth it for no other reason than to hear his anti-Union rant!
  • comment
    • Author: santa
    Yes, the movie is scary. Supposedly there is still one special effect left undone. But new? I am a movie buff (in production/writing) who has screened horror since it began. Young males who are horny find beautiful females and then are punished in a horrible way. This is as old as the oldest horror movie. Watch any Simpsons episode where a character goes to a scary movie. The director has said he made the movie to make us think about where society is going in terms of pornography. Bullshit. He made it for the money. The vast majority of characters killed in movies are male. And in most of these, the victim can somehow be blamed, allowing us in the audience to say, "Well, I would never go that far, so it couldn't happen to me." The reality is, young children are often the victims of forced prostitution, torture, and murder. In the movie, wealthy people pay to torture and kill. What of those who see the movie and are not wealthy? Would any of us be comfortable watching small children be tortured and killed? What if they reminded us of our own children or young siblings? Would that be a lot of fun? Yet we all know that evil people start out with vulnerable people and move up to young males, if they ever do move up. Their favorite victims are children, then young women, then men, because this is the easiest order to get control over. Movies like this only propagate the idea that those who suffer are guilty. Innocent people in the world suffer just as much as, and often more than, guilty people.
  • Cast overview, first billed only:
    Jay Hernandez Jay Hernandez - Paxton
    Derek Richardson Derek Richardson - Josh
    Eythor Gudjonsson Eythor Gudjonsson - Oli
    Barbara Nedeljakova Barbara Nedeljakova - Natalya
    Jan Vlasák Jan Vlasák - The Dutch Businessman
    Jana Kaderabkova Jana Kaderabkova - Svetlana
    Jennifer Lim Jennifer Lim - Kana
    Keiko Seiko Keiko Seiko - Yuki
    Lubomír Bukový Lubomír Bukový - Alex
    Jana Havlickova Jana Havlickova - Vala
    Rick Hoffman Rick Hoffman - The American Client
    Petr Janis Petr Janis - The German Surgeon
    Takashi Miike Takashi Miike - Miike Takashi
    Patrik Zigo Patrik Zigo - Bubble Gum Gang Leader (as Zigo Patrik)
    Milda Jedi Havlas Milda Jedi Havlas - Desk Clerk Jedi
    All rights reserved © 2017-2024 hd.thomson-multimedia.com