So what's so horrific about it?

Rating: 3/10 (1 May 2006)

A day after watching Hostel I still cannot help but ask myself, where was the horror? Because besides a small five minute scene, which was not all too terrifying, I cannot for the life of me, understand why anyone would define this as a horror movie. It's not, it's just silly throw-away trash.
The plot, as most of us who have read anything about it know, is that three guys, two Americans and an Icelandic guy they meet up with, are in Europe looking to sleep with lots of women. Does not seem to matter, as long as they have a pair of breasts and a nice ass, they are there. So upon finding out that there are all sorts of women doing anything in Bratislava, the three of them go, only to find the women of their dreams, and the stuff from their nightmares.
To define the movie into certain parts, it goes from thirty minutes of sex, breasts, alcohol and drugs, to ten minutes of a thriller, to the rest of the movie trying to be horrific (along with film noir and comedy elements thrown in for good measure), but failing mindlessly. People are brought in, and leave way too soon, either by dying or just by not coming back. None of the relationships or motivations are explained at all. The actors look like walking, swearing zombies. No character, even the sympathetic Jay Hernedez, is the least bit likable. Everyone is a jerk. And to top it all off, there is virtually no good dialogue in the film at all. And for some ungodly reason, there are way too many homosexual overtones at every turn this movie attempts to take, that you begin to feel that the characters should be wearing cowboy hats and making Brokeback Mountain with torture and murderous mayhem instead.
When the whole idea of what is going on, and why all of these people are being tortured and killed actually begins to make some sort of sense, you are just left stunned trying to understand how ludicrous the idea is. And after you realize who the lead bad guy is, you still do not get a real sense as to why any of this is actually happening. It only becomes even more ridiculous than it was before hand. It all just seems like heinous and horribly random acts of violence put forth in order to try and achieve some sort of scareful momentum. But the movie fails to deliver it.
But Eli Roth's problem is like every other modern horror director. He shows lots of blood, but does not push the envelope. There is nothing new here, and any methods that may seem "new" are either not brought to their full potential, or just do not seem to make sense at all. There is quite a bit of blood spilled throughout the film, but its nowhere near as sick or vomit-inducing as this movie was hyped up to be. Instead, it comes off as a hyper-violent disappointment that some campy fans may be into, but traditional horror fans will see right through. He may claim to be trying, but this is really far from. Even Saw, which the movie is border line ripping off, seemed a lot more frightening than this film. And it had three times less blood, and just as bad acting.
I have yet to see all of Cabin Fever, but even with the small parts of that movie and the entirety of this movie, I really get a feel that Roth thinks he is being clever, and does not realize that the audience is not as gullible as he thinks. If he's going to make a horror movie, he should make it. If he wants to make a comedy, he should make it. If he wants to make a porno, than he should make it. A film noir? A revenge tale? Merging all of these into one incohesive narrative is definitely not the way to go. It may work for Tarantino, but is does not work for Roth.
Take a lesson Eli.
Write good dialogue, make characters likable, and add some horror.
And for god sake, let the movie make sense.
You do not horrify the audience with your images, you horrify them with your horrendous way of putting the movie together and claiming it to be a horror film.
3/10.