The Great Depression

Rating: 1/10 (26 March 2006)

You're probably wondering why have I named this review so. The answer is simple:I was in a state of excruciating pain and overwhelming depression after watching this movie. I had SUCH high hopes: "Finally, a horror film that would bring the genre to its star-spangled beginnings,the era of The Excorsist, Haloween,especially Texas Chainsaw Massacre(NOT the watered-down,awfully directed and an overall piece of donkey-droppings that is the re-make),Cannibal Holocaust,even Evil Dead. Quentin Tarantino? Whoa,this must be something BIG! Man-hunting and rich homicidal maniacs wasting not-so innocent teenage American lives (actually,Eli Roth took the theme after reading about a similar blood-sport occurring in Malasya or Cambodia-I'm not sure-about poor men with families who got a thousand dollars for enacting deer and running in front of wealty,bloodthirsty men who came after them with rifles and machetes.The money would be given to their families of course)The gruesomest film EVER? I have to see this!" These were just some of the thoughts roaming through my mind at random after I've seen the preview article in a newspaper.
And yet (surprise,surprise!),Hostel was the biggest celluloid disappointment this year for me. Strike that,the biggest disappointment in the last few years would be more accurate.
Reasons? The real question here is: Do you really want to bare with me and hear them all? Where are my manners,of course not. I'll try to reduce this buttload of faults the film has to just a few pointers:
1. The film is too long (or was it so dull and pointless that time just stopped only to keep me in further agony). This normally isn't a real obstacle for me,but for this topic and genre,it's way too overstretched. ESPECIALLY the first half. Absolutely nothing happens (unless,you've never seen a typical Hollywood-teenie movie with lots of cursing,bare, epilepsy-causing breasts,oiled chicks with bad broken-English and American college boys-OK,there's this really stoned Icelandic bloke-filling their lungs with every single hallucinogen they stumble upon) for at least 45 minutes,and believe me,the remaining half ain't a feat for the eyes and the mind either.
2. The first half of the movie was actually THE BEST PART (if one can call it that)!At least there was nudity and semi-funny punchlines in abundance.Although it was a brain-washing,comatose-like experience.
3.The setting. Don't get me wrong,placing the setting into a Slovakian ghost-town was a great idea,I just have serious issues with how it was reallied. The movie shows the residents of an ex-communist country in such a manner that made me physically sick (I'm from Croatia,another ex-communist country). Roth showed those people to be demented, desperate,at the brink of famine and extreme poverty,doing anything in order to survive (Pillaging, murder,prostitution,extortion,children in gangs willing to kill for a bubble-gum). That IS NOT the case there. Actually, Slovakia is a calm,conservative country much like its neighbors,the Chech Republic,Austria and Germany. Even though it's not the wealthiest,it's economy is growing at a fast pace,and unemployment is not that much of an issue there. I can't stand seeing American ignorants patronizing and bullying anyone with a smaller national budget. Eli Roth is,much to my regret,one of those American no-brains.
4.The second half of the film(in other words,the one that made me cry with despair and curse at innocent grannies on my way from the movie-theater). Let's get some things cleared up: Gruesome? Frightening? Not a SINGLE shot in the movie is gruesome or scary(except a shot of a pair of ill-made,Baywatch shiny breasts).If you want to see something really scary,look me up in the morning-not THAT'S gruesome. Tense? I've seen chess games between a 95-year-old man and a bag of chips that was more tense and unexpected. Wait,there was this one twist that surprised me:the confused nerd who doesn't want to get laid is the first one who bites the chainsaw. Bloody? Sure there's blood and cut-off limbs,but it's more bloody boring than just bloody. Some really poor direction there.
5.Quentin Tarantino. Where was he when they made this film? He certainly wasn't on the sets. He's neatly credited and all,and that's just swell,but if I was Quentin,I wouldn't credit myself in this film. I'd be ashamed,very ashamed.
All in all,what is there to say? I'm disappointed,and I think I'll never watch antoher Eli Roth movie again. Oh well,I guess everyone deserves a second chance. And it should better be well-used. If you really want to see a Roth movie,I+d rather suggest Cabin Fever. No masterpiece,but it's witty and bloody,even somewhat original(a flesh-eating virus kills off sexually frustrated teens in a desolated shack) As for Hostel,I'll leave the decision of watching it to you. The only people I'd recommend it to are bulimic models: you get a neat throw-up bag before the film.
The rest of you won't need it,unless you're 45 and have a midlife crisis that makes your testicles swell every time you see nudity-then you can use the bag to support the burden in your groin.