Don't believe the hype. No, really. Don't

Rating: 4/10 (29 May 2011)

With six years under it's belt, one enters their first viewing of Hostel with a considerable amount of prejudice and preconceived notions about what the film will entail. It's one of those films that, for one reason or another, has gained a degree of notoriety and thusly you feel as though you know what you're getting yourself in for. In a less than timely fashion then, I sat down to see this movie in the comfort of my own home, expecting what has been hyped as the most bloody bloodbath of all the bloodbaths. Ever. The word sickening, peers would have had me believe, is not nearly dastardly, nor emotive, enough for what horrors I was about to witness as I whistled along to the mellow tune of the opening sequence.
It was, therefore, with great disappointment that I reached forty minutes into the movie and absolutely nothing had happened. I say nothing, but credit where credit is due, what actually happened was a bit of character backgrounding, mixed in with scenes of dull and uninteresting exposition. It is understandable for a horror movie to want to build up character profiles to allow for empathy, and to want to set the scene to allow for a pseudo-realistic plot, however even with the gratuitous and vast introduction that Hostel employed, and a fair amount of emotional lenience and suspended disbelief on my part, it was halfway through the movie and I neither cared for any of the characters, nor felt particularly engaged in what seemed to be a fairly placid and purposeless plot.
It was through this general cinematic ineptitude that we reached a point where one of the introductory trio, an Icelandic "King of Swing" (don't even ask), was dead, and the other was being tortured and then killed. I make no apologies in saying that I have cared more for the toilet-bowl bacteria I regularly slaughter, than I did for these characters and their untimely demises. Considering the amount of time the Director was given to make me care about the characters, even slightly, then this can only be construed as either lazy or amateurish; perhaps both.
Due to the overwhelming amount of discussion about the degree of gore in this movie, I feel as though I should pay it some attention. The scenes of torture, however few and far between they may have been, were relatively good at showing how people react in that type of situation, thanks to very good acting from the victims. I would like to point out however, that although there were some nearly-nail-biting moments, most of the gore seemed to be there just for the sake of filling up time. It is also worth noting that the body parts being cut up, and cut off, were at times very unconvincing, which very much detracted from the seriousness of the scene.
Overall, it wasn't a terrible horror movie. The plot did quicken towards the end, providing a bit of a rush, but nothing to write home about. I think people would like this movie to be the big, bad, and ugly one, that puts a defiant lock on the doors of gore, but it's not even close. Half of the movie is what appears to be a watered-down Eurotrip, and the other half, a fast-paced yet emotionless bloodbath, resulting in one- and-a-half hours of wasted time. Unless you're looking for short, cheap thrills, this is definitely one to avoid. In fact, I'd avoid it even if you are. You'd get more excitement, and better storytelling, from a trip to your local old folks home. Less than half a movie, gives this less than half a score; a resounding four out of ten.