HOSTEL: a diamond in the (very) rough

Rating: 6/10 (28 September 2008)

I must admit, what truly attracted me to Eli Roth's second film, Hostel, was the rarely-granted Quentin Tarantino presentation. As any die-hard Tarantino fan will say, whatever The Man presents, the viewer must watch. His stamp of approval means more - much, much more - than any Ebert review. I am also a hardcore genre fan: my ears become flushed with anticipation at the sound of anything even remotely associated with the exhilarating genre that is horror. It is therefore understandable that I was quite excited about finally watching Hostel in all of its bloody, violent, bits-of-brain-and-skull-splattered-on-the-wall glory. After all, I had mostly heard that it was a step forward in the world of horror films, continuing a tradition of unprecedented on-screen violence set off by Japanese filmmakers long before American directors dared to risk receiving that naughty (and now highly coveted) NC17 rating. So, without further ado, here are my post-viewing good and (unfortunately) bad news. For the good news: the setting of the film (mostly parts of Slovakia) is quite original, particularly for audiences of previous American horror. It does not have that generic and infuriating Hollywood feel either - it looks, sounds, and feels like a real place. Now, if this isn't the most crucial aspect of a successful horror film (think Audition, think original Texas Chainsaw Massacre), I don't know what is. Roth scores more points in his cast selection. Jay Hernandez truly takes the Most Realistically Scared award in this film - he was so friggin' terrified when he got to the Elite Hunting headquarters that I wanted to forgive his immmature and sexist behavior during the first 40 minutes of Hostel. Roth then scores some more points with his courageous and excessively gory scenes (which I will not give away for those who haven't watched the movie yet). They were certainly enough to satisfy even the darkest cravings of decades-old horror fans. Finally, Roth scores bonus points by playing a dubbed version of Pulp Fiction at the actual hostel in the movie, and the Miike Takashi cameo was as gratifying as any cameo can ever be. Now, for the bad news: for the first 45 minutes of the film, I felt as though I had mistakenly stumbled upon an unusually long porno with a poorly constructed storyline. The naked chicks by the dozen, the unnecessary sex, the talking about sex, the incessant search for sex, and the overall ignorant sexism of the 3 main characters were unbearably annoying - and, did I mention, unnecessary? I wanted to somehow remind Roth that I am addicted to horror, not sex, and that wasting 40 minutes of perfectly good screen time on boobs and asses instead of chainsaws and kitchen knives just won't cut it. I think any true horror fan will agree with me on this - unless, of course, Roth was trying to make a connection between excessive sex and excessive violence, which become sort of tangled in Hostel. At any rate, I would've been much happier if Roth had spent those first 40 minutes setting a more frightening mood and teasing me about the cinematic gorefest that was to come. I will say this, however: once the gore begins, there is no turning back - and the villains are remarkably and terrifyingly realistic. Hostel is, perhaps, a diamond in the very rough - with some refreshingly strong peaks and quite a few flaws that need to be polished. I still admire Roth for his daring nature and his obvious passion for horror - these two things, at least, came through loud and clear in the puzzling and controversial film that is Hostel.