Another example of a great premise unfulfilled due to poor writing

Rating: 6/10 (20 January 2006)

Wearing the chevron of Quentin Tarantino, Eli Roth has created one of the first gore-filled horror films to hit mainstream theatres in recent memory. HOSTEL, the latest film from the writer/director of CABIN FEVER (2002), has an advertising campaign that makes it come across as a filmed abattoir on steroids.
For those who have asked, I've summarized HOSTEL as follows: 1) Take the most gore-filled, pain-filled, dismemberment-filled scene you can remember that makes you flinch just by thinking about it. (I, for instance, use that 5 minute scene from the end of the disappointing AUDITION (1995).) Now, repeat that for about 40 minutes.
2) Now take an hour of American PIE (1999) and drop it in the front. In hindsight, I probably should have told everyone to take EUROTRIP (2004) instead.
HOSTEL was an intensely gory film, which was poorly written, very very poorly acted, and ultimately only moderately executed.
In fairness, the premise was actually superb. I don't want to give too much away, but the premise was reasonably believable, and while not an entirely novel concept, it was given a fresh spin.
However, the story was structured in the worst possible way. The first hour was nothing more than pointless nudity (and I don't even mean entertaining, I just mean utterly boring) and cheap humor. Sitting through the first half was tedious and had us wondering, "are we in the right film? THIS is the great horror film that's been hyped?" The film then takes a drastic right turn and delves headfirst into gore. Explicit gore. And lots of it. For about 40 minutes.
I can only assume that when writing the film, Roth tried to go for maximum contrast: really funny and lighthearted, and then, WHAM, what the Hell is happening?! The failure lies in both the pacing of the first half (insufferably long, light on suspense, total lack of atmostphere), and the horribly written characters. In many horror films, the "protagonists" are annoying, and you're just waiting for the Big Bad to kill them. Here, they're so annoying, that you just get bored waiting for it to happen.
The gore, however, is delightfully extreme, if you're into that sort of thing. Lots of puncturing, slicing, laceration, dismemberment. Good times, for those who enjoy. But that make it a good horror film? No. No, it doesn't.
A good gore scene will make the average person wince. 20 gore scenes in succession just kind of dulls the senses. If not used tastefully (see SAW 2 (2005)), gore for gore's sake just becomes another load of special effects.
On the bright side, the gore miraculously managed to escape an NC-17 for reasons that I'll never understand. With the more liberal R rating, and a limited release, HOSTEL will likely be considered a commercial success. This is good, for two reasons: 1) Maybe HOSTEL 2 will be to HOSTEL what SAW 2 was to SAW: a dramatic improvement in writing and ambiance that greatly enhances the rewatching of the original.
2) A commercial success for HOSTEL could conceivably drive the industry away from these atrocious PG-13 teeny slasher flicks, and back towards some more serious, disturbing, dark material. Look: I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER and quite frankly I likely never will.
Do I recommend HOSTEL? Not really. If gore really does it for you, have at it. Otherwise, just watch American PIE and the first 20 minutes of SAVING PRIVATE RYAN (1998).