Hostel

Finally got round to watching this the other day, as I had been really excited by the concept. Extermely overhyped in my opinion. Think a lot more could have been done with it. It was ok, but not as good as I thought it would me to be honest.
 
In that case the writer should not have let the killer fall into such a vunerable position so early in the film in which the lead characters have more than a good chance to kill him before he kills them. That's why it's bad writing...
 
I thought Hostel was a big let down. So cliched.

Bunch of dumb, sexed up American travellers wanting to get their end away - end up being told there's this magical place full of loose women.

I'd hoped the plot would have been smarter then that and feel its a waste of a good idea.

the honey trap idea was cheap and tacky. surely they could have just had this place as somewhere people go to kill others without the need to portray women in such a vulgar manner.
 
I think that is meant to show their humanity over his. While he could do these horrible things, they couldn't do the same to him. That leaves them more vulnerable because no matter what they did to him, he was always going to 'come back'. Having him being attacked early on and still get up, makes him seem more unstoppable. Bad guys in movies have nine lives, at least. More if there's a sequel.

Also, the movie is based on true events.

However......
....only one of them survived so who exactly told the story of events if the survivor, the guy was locked up while the girls were killed? No bodies were found either. It's possible that small pieces of the story could have come from the video footage, but they didn't film the whole thing. The guy, Ben Mitchell (who the character was based on) was cleared of all suspicion after four months in custody.

It's also been suggested by some, that although the guy tried to escape last, that he actually was the first, and that the rest of the movie with the girls, happened later but was shown first, if you see what I mean. They come to this conclusion by looking at the condition of the surroundings, the yard and the state of the vehicles.

I don't subscribe to this theory because I simply can't be bothered to dissect it forensically, but if it's correct, it means he would have left them there to be tortured and die.
 
I hate all of these new violent horror movies, I saw Wolf Creek and it made me want to puke!! Think I'll give this one a miss....
 
but to be honest if you thought that to go and save your mates meant almost certain death when you were already injured,dehydrated,delerious etc
would you go back or would you run for your life???
 
Yes good point, although I knew from early on that there wouldn't be a significant twist.

Basically you had an American up against a bunch of spooky Europeans.

As it was an American film, aimed primarily at Americans, the American protaganist was always going to get the upper hand, overcoming incredible odRAB, and triumph over the foreigners.
 
it was OK not that gory although I didnt watch the "eyeball" part - truly gross!!!

There is a sequel yes? And Tarantino's name was on the credits at the beginning so what did he do?
 
I watched this last night, and it didnt scare me as much as texas chainsaw did (cant watch chainsaw past the bit where he puts the girl on the hook) but it did make me squirm esp when he had to cut her eye off.

Not as much gore as you would have thought either, although it wasnt pleasant hearing them scream while they did things to them.


Reading through the thread, I had no idea is was based around true events - that does make it that bit more sickening, knowing it could have happened for real.
 
Don't get me wrong I agree and I realise Wolf Creek was a good film. It built up the tension well and I genuinely cared for the characters, but I just can't stomach that stuff.
 
The characters are stupid idiots in Wolf Creek. Did anyone see the part where she shoots him and he falls unconscious onto the floor with a knife in his hand and what does she do? Hit him on the back (not the head) with the rifle stock. A good chance to bash his brains in or grab the knife and stab him with it but she just leaves him there to wake-up. I absolutely hated the atrocious writing in Wolf Creek!
 
I watched this a couple of months ago and forget about it till I saw this thread!
It reminded me of a 70's film (typical Tarantino, I guess) it was just OK.
Never heard of it and didn't know what it was about before watching, just that it was a bit of a gory film
Sick, gory perverse
Has moments
I like the parallel between rooms of hoars and rooms of torture!
Couldn't recommend or condemn
 
Oh actually yeah I remember I was shouting at her to shoot him or at least to cave his head in. Idiot.

AND if I remember rightly, where she was mooching around in that kitchen looking at all his photos of families he'd set up when she should have been looking for her mates!! A necessary scene to describe how the killer works, yes, but she didn't have to take ten minutes!!!
 
Except that Tarantino had no part in actually making the movie. They just used his name to sell it.

Although he is in the movie. Most people probably wouldn't recognise him unless pointed out.
I wont spoil it for anyone but see if you can spot him.
 
Yeah another good example of the bad writing in Wolf Creek. She's just waiting around looking at stuff while there is someone out there who wants to kill her. You'd think she'd get the hell out of there asap. I wonder how he knew she would turn up in that exact car? :confused:

I don't recall any such stupidity in the script for Hostel, (correct me if I'm wrong), except perhaps when he goes back in to save the girl. It was morally the right thing to do though.
 
Back
Top