Talk:Hostel (2005 film)

Americans Most expensive???

I just watched the movie tonight, and something in this article doesn't match up with what I saw. The customer that is chatting up Paxton, he said that he paid $50G for his girl. The article says that the most expensive is Americans at $25G. Should the article not be edited for this? From what the article says, is it not Russians - $5,000, Europeans - $10,000, Americans - $25,000, and then wouldn't Asians be $50,000??? Please correct me if I'm wrong... NetStormer 05:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Urban Legend

Does anyone know what UL the article refers to?--142.177.120.226 04:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

The "themes" section is heavily done in POV manner. 205.238.205.220 02:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I think someone should clean up the Cast section- I've not enough battery life or patience to do so now though. Deltro 02:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's quite legal to have the cast c/p'ed like that onto the page. I'm not going to change it because I'm not sure, but if anyone is, go for it. Jjjsixsix 19:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• • cast info is most definitely fair use 69.142.21.24 07:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The film trailer claims EMTs were called at one of the advance screenings due to reactions from the audience. Is this true? -unsigned

I can't comment specifically on this movie, but the stories of EMTs reviving people at horror films is a fairly common publicity trick. Compare William Castle and Macabre or the news stories of people fainting during the reading of Guts. -Fuzzy 21:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Violence

I think there should be something about truly violent and gross this film is. Its not just torture, its much more intense than that. Elleohelle

This movie does sound like it's worse than torture. Brian

The film was not exceptionally violent. Compared to movies like saw, there was nothing spectacular about it.

This is a hardly a violent film. What? A drill in the leg, cut tendons, a hanging eyeball (that looks terribly fake), and two lost fingers...that's the only gore, disregarding the usual shootings etc. you see in every movie these days. Oh and the chainsaw thro the leg, but there was a much better chainsaw scene in Dawn of the Dead, and that movie sunk without a trace.

If the film has been criticized (or lauded) for being exceptionally violent, then notable such criticism could be included. I actually find this more likely than the film being criticized for being an unrealistic portrayal of Slovakia. Demi ^T/_C 21:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Demi, it is surely unlikely that people who have never been to Slovakia and haven't ever heard about Slovakia will criticize that. The producers emphasize the location of the story in the movie as well as in the advertisements. They could set the story into an unspecified country and declare that it is pure fantasy. They didn't do that. The violence in the movie is related to the criticism I mentioned: the movie describes Slovakia as a dangerous country. It's not only the torture, also violence of the Slovak police in the movie is opposite to the reality.

Ruthenian 17:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

... The violence in a film is not judged on its realism or whether other movies are worse. You can't just invent criteria to fit making a movie non-violent. -RannXXV 09:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Quentin Tarantino

if he didn't direct it, what excatly did he do? just give it money? or did he contribute with some ideas? could this be explained?--Jaysscholar 03:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

He put his name on it so more people would buy tickets. It's called clever marketing. JackO'Lantern 08:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

He produced the film. --AWF

He reportedly helped write and edit the film.

Also, I think saying the guy escaping by piling dead bodies on himself, and saying it was a tribute to a bit part character's story in a Tarantino affiliated movie is a bit of a stretch..

Link to Snuff?

Why is there a link to snuff films on this page? The plot description doesn't mention anything relating to snuff in the movie, and the film itself certainly isn't snuff. mtz206 18:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The fact that it depicts violent and torturous murder makes it very closely related to snuff films, except snuff films are supposed to be real while this movie is just fiction. - Kharpert

By your logic, any film that includes torture or murder is related to snuff, which simply can't be the case. The "except" clause in your statement makes this inherently not related to snuff. If this movie was about snuff films (see 8mm (film), then this link would be appropriate. Otherwise, the link should be removed. mtz206 15:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen the movie, but the link to snuff seems appropriate. Not because the movie itself features violence, but because one of the themes seems to be people getting their rocks off from torturing and killing other people- which is the idea behind snuff films. SchnappM 09:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

"people getting their rocks off from torturing and killing" is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a film to be considered snuff. unless part of the plot in Hostel is that these murders are filmed for entertainment purposes, there is little direct relationship to snuff mtz206 13:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, there's very little reason to include "Snuff film" as a "See Also". If it's been notably compared to snuff films, then the comparison should be in the article (perhaps under "Criticism") and "snuff film" wikilinked. Same if snuff films are somehow part of the movie's subject matter. Just letting it float there seems like some kind of snide way of criticizing the movie for its violence without actually demonstrating such criticism. Demi ^T/_C 21:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Deleting link per above. --mtz206 14:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Other themes

I thought that the theme (rather intentional or not) of the rich trodding over the poor was much more interesting than people paying for their lust.

Success?

The section talking about a likely sequel call the movie a big success. Is it? There isn't any data on what it cost or what it made, and it's already fallen to #5, below Narnia which has been out a heck of a lot longer. I think if it's going to be called a success, it needs to be sourced at least a little bit with a cost/proft comparison. -RannXXV 04:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Sources?

I found no source for this: "I made this movie because I want people to think about... where society is going in terms of exploitation and pornography," director Eli Roth explained in an interview. "It's no accident that these guys are American, that they are very sexist in their attitude towards women, and that the things that they feel about the girls in Eastern Europe is very much based in American fantasies and stereotypes. Everything comes back to bite them in the ass though; they definitely pay for it." Elsan 22:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Similarly, there are no sources for the "Criticism" section--it needs some. Demi ^T/_C 21:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Demi, could you please specify what kind of sources? There are many sources. The criticism was published in Slovak and Czech newspapers, TV stations, internet journals, blogs, forums and so on... All sources I have seen are in Slovak or Czech language. I can also provide likns to the crime statistics mentioned in the "Criticism" section. Ruthenian 18:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm unsure exactly what the point of these statistics are, in the article's context. While it might be a valid criticism to say it portrays the place as more dangerous than it is, the way it's phrased now makes it more of a "It's better than the US!" argument, which is neither encyclopedic nor relevant to this article. -RannXXV 19:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, what is the source for the prices of victims, the card seen in the film gives prices of 5,000 for Russians, 10,000 for Europeans, and 25,000 for Americans. The American client's comments also seem to attest to Americans being the most expensive.

Critical Reaction

Since the article currently holds information on debateable controversy, I thought that a section pertaining to the above would be appropriate. For example, while the film received mixed reaction, it managed to win a majority of positive reviews on rottentomatoes.com. Trivia may also be included, regarding cameos, urban legend details, and the like. --AWF

Themes

Personally, I feel that the themes section is hard to justify. Unless someone comes up with citations of people interpretting the themes, does this really belong in an encyclopedia? As it is, I tried to present a more balanced viewpoint and I cleaned up the section some. -Fuzzy 21:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I completely concur. While I thought the essay was an interesting and worthy discussion (I enjoyed reading it), it doesn't really come accross as neutral and objective. Consider reviewing WP:5P. Film, like any art, can be open to a wide range interpretation. If subjective points of view are to be presented, it may be helpful to at most present the points of view that have a more substantial consensus developed Sort 12:43, 9 March 2006

Meh, and people are, as usual, just deleting the sections they don't agree with and inserting in place their opinions. Moreover, they're doing so in a chatty fashion right down to parenthesized notes question the prior editor's competence. Most of the edits are from IP addresses, so I don't really know that there's much that can be done short of waiting for the dust to clear, then clean things back up using the article history. -Fuzzy 04:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Criticism Section

POV much? Needs to be rewritten in an encyclopaedic style and with a bit more balance I think. Weebs 16:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. If these criticisms are from a third party source then they should be cited in the article. Otherwise it sounds to me like the editor inserter a lot of his or her personal opinions. Maybe a NPOV statement should be inserted for that section. Piercetp 06:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Sex and violence section

Just read the sex and violence subsection, completely violates the Wikipedia NPOV policy. Someone needs to change it.... --Dunlevyd 01:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

http://www.blatanikov.com

I don't have a clue why that's there. All i see it as, is advertising the bid on e-bay rather than being informative. Also, the bid expired. Though i haven't watched the film, I dont think this should be there and for the time being i will remove it and if people feel it should be there put it back up. Please post here explaining its relevance before putting back up. Thank You.

Forgot to post my details and this was the original post. "The domain http://www.blatanikov.com (the name of the contact for the Elite Hunters) is being sold on E-bay: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7609793394" Shoot The Moon 17:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, one thing's for sure... either no one wanted it, or no one knew about it... $1.00US starting bid... that's cheap for a domain name... They'll probably put it up again... NetStormer 05:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)