Task: Sentiment Analysis
Input (English): Too much . After watching this film I decided to be scientific and use the process of elimination to determine how someone might have been able to appreciate it since I hadn't.  Aesthetics is, after all, a subjective experience, so a little objective rigor brought to bear on enjoyable experiences others might have had watching this movie should theoretically enable me to expand my own repertoire of aesthetic responses.     The first way one could not have found enjoyment watching this film is by being seduced by the exotic locales.  Yes, there was a pan that lasted for about a minute of a pretty Czech village, but otherwise the Newtonian law of cinematics has once again been confirmed, and here's the proof:  In the Bollywood movie, Humtum, a scene that was meant to occur in Paris was filmed on the Museumplein in Amsterdam; so the equal and opposite gaffe was bound to be committed somewhere.  In Hostel, scenes meant to occur in Amsterdam have been filmed (jarringly) in Prague.  And just like they did with the Americans in Borat, I can imagine (in the cynical frame of mind this movie put me in) the filmmakers telling European colleagues and extras, "Don't worry, it doesn't matter - we'll never show this in your country." Well, it eventually mattered to the fratboy who wanted to bring slavery back, and it should have mattered to the filmmakers. QED.    After also eliminating direction, script, and acting as potential means for appreciating this movie I started to worry.  Yes, much thought had obviously gone into making this thing; but the Dusk-To-Dawn pleasure/pain structure and obscure references didn't mesh well with the low-budget sinister spin on European Vacation.  Worse, the unfortunate juxtaposition of beautiful naked flesh and extreme torture in this film exerts a pernicious influence on the psyche of the viewer - surely that couldn't have been intended.  And then, like being shot by a diamond bullet right through my forehead, it became clear that I'd completely missed the point.  This is a message film, and I'd been stupid not to pick up on the movie's lofty ambitions.      The next challenge was to decipher the message, and I tell you this is the part that took the most time.  At first I suspected a sort of buried agenda to keep Americans from traveling outside their country.  The lesson seemed so clear that sublimely beautiful European temptresses want our dollars, but they will 1) mock us at every opportunity for not being cool in an effeminate, European way, 2) shield their true intentions by brazenly conspiring against us to our face in their unfamiliar native tongues, 3) have an almost psychic rapport with thuggish male fellow-countrymen who intend to punish us for having both the motive (wanting to have sex with beautiful girls) and opportunity (lots of aforesaid dollars and girls with loose morals) to steal their women, 4) ultimately sell us over to be tortured because they'll do anything for money (those loose morals again), and 5) succeed in their nefarious plan because the rule of law ends at the US border.    But this interpretation sounded paranoid when I played it back, and I suspected the ultra-violence of the movie had once again influenced my state of mind.  What if this do-not-leave-the-US message was really the unintentional result of some other process at work in the filmmakers' master plan?  So I started listening to the commentary track for more insight, but it was really irritating and I couldn't listen to the whole thing.  They've apparently re-coined the expression, `bully', which must be a sort of Teddy Roosevelt macho thing.    Their country's recent actions around the world have made many Americans feel self-conscious and unloved abroad.  It's unrealistic to think all the issues caused by this will be resolved so soon after the trauma.  Americans have a very pronounced sense of national identity, and we should expect some confused, troubled people doing things that might not make immediate sense while they work things out for themselves.    Also; paying women for sex has a long history, and I wouldn't think to question its place in society.  However, like all those things we're taught from childhood are wrong, paying for sex sets off a complex chain reaction of deep, conflicting emotions.  It's not always pretty to see these emotions being worked through, and unintentionally choosing film as the medium to do this was probably a mistake.    Having exhausted all other reasonable avenues, I've come to the scientific conclusion that the only way to appreciate this movie is to share the sensibilities, sensitivities, and neuroses of the filmmakers; and I find these to be distasteful.  This film helps to mark a key boundary of aesthetic territory, and like the man said: "you never know what's enough until you know what's too much."
Output (English): NEG