Talk:Hostel (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hostel (film) article.
Article policies
Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start
This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
???
This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.
This article, category, or template is part of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to horror film and fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iceland, a WikiProject related to the nation of Iceland. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project’s quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Combine "Reaction" and "Controvery and Criticism"

The two sections "Reaction" and "Controversy and Criticism" are closely related and actually kind of redundant. I propose combining them, they're not that long anyway. -Jaardon 23:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Iceland

I don't see any reason for this film to be part of WikiProject Iceland, just because a character in the movie is from there. By that logic, every single movie should be a part of the respective WikiProjects of any country that gets mentioned in the movie. If anything, this movie should be a part of WikiProject Slovakia, if there is such a WikiProject. -Jaardon 23:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

There is a price list shown on the back of a business card in the movie, which is where these prices came from. Japanese are not listed. It's possible that the customer had a special requirement of some sort which would explain the extra cost. But he referred to Paxton as a "big spender" when Paxton said that his victim was an American, so I'm inclined to believe that the filmmakers or the character were just confused. 68.7.103.197 22:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
As noted, the prices quoted in the article come directly from the buisness card. But it should be obvious these are the base prices for a body without any special requests. If a client was going to be picky, specify an age range, specify a gender, hair color, etc. The price would go up. Obviously meeting this clients special request cost him $50,000.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.0.67.128 (talk • contribs)
Perhaps it is the price paid to the suppliers of the victims versus what is charged to customers. But if Asians command the highest price, wouldn't they be listed first at $50,000?

It is important to note that the card was taken from the coat pocket of a European customer. Could it be that the denomination was meant to be in Euros and not US dollars? Also, it would not be far fetched to consider that the price for an American client would be more than that of a European. It is not uncommon for American consumers to be charged higher prices than their European counterparts, especially in Europe.161.51.11.2 13:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC) - I don't agree, most prices in Europe are published and are standard - American (US+Canada) consumers generally offer generous tips compared to locals, but they are not charged higher prices.

The prices were scribbled on the back of a business card -- it was not an official "price list" by any means. They were simply the figures that the owner of the card happened to write down. Now, there's no reason to believe that every Asian costs $50k. It may well be that Asians, along with other ethnic groups not listed, are simply rare to have at all, so they can't offer those victims at fixed prices -- the price might be auctioned or otherwise negotiated. Given the location and tourist demographics, it's very likely that Russians, other Europeans, and Americans are simply the most commonly victimized, so the gang quoted a price for them. Ham Pastrami 04:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Urban Legend

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

Having read the synopsis it does seem that the whole plot is basically driven by one scene of extreme violence after another. Even apart from this, that the whole film revolves round people wanting to pay to torture people, and indeed particular types of people, seems to make not only this, but to what extent the director should portray this, an issue. All in all, there should be a section on violecnce since it is so central to the film. --Ajcee7 17:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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..

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.164.231.195 (talk • contribs)

The rich aren't trodding over the poor, they are paying for people to be tortured against their will; though the assumption is that back-packers are poor (this is not always the case), wealth is not a factor illustrated in the film.

[edit] 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)

The article said that the movie cost 4 million to make and it grossed 49 million. The success of a movie should never be measured by how much money it made. 161.51.11.2 13:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

John Olsen of the ACLU said in the April 12 edition of the Herald Tribune: "That Eli Roth is largely regarded by all except the most juvenile and underdeveloped minds as at best a third-rate writer and director is neither in dispute nor anywhere as offensive as his blatantly racist portrayal of European countries and their wonderful cultures. Eli Roth is an ignorant little man, largely projecting his own pathetic unknowledgeable understandings of others people and geography, confusing one region for the other, and portraying women in degrading sexist images. He not only does this, as if this is not punishably offensive in itself, but then goes on to say he is doing it to 'educate' people about the dangers of violence, pornography, and cultural insensitivity! Eli Roth is a hypocritical talentless hack charlaton who suffers from a sad poverty of imagination and like all who are uncreative embrace the use of violent and sexual imagery to fill the vacancy of a story and idiotically attempt to distract viewers from the sheer worthlessness and scatological nature of his so called 'films.' But viewers are far more enlightened and intelligent than Mr. Roth realizes or is capable of appreciating. If there is anyone in need to educate themselves of other cultures and geography, then, it is none other than Eli Roth himself, and I would suggest he read and study and make up for the obvious glaring holes in his laughable 'education' and film making abilities."

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.

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

I'm considering editing the section to be a "Reaction" page, because the article is heavily POV indeed. It uses "is" statements and lacks citations in proper places. Additionally, the section tries to act as if it was trashed by the critics; it wasn't. It recieved mixed reviews and even some positive ones. I'll get to work on fixing both that and the Plot section as soon as possible. --Nqnpipnr

Aight I've edited the POV crap as much as I could but theres still some crap left to clean up..I'm on it and will be doing it ASAP. (Raad 22:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC))

[edit] 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) Reading through this nobody denies that these places eist i beleive they do. Drom

[edit] 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)

[edit] Neutrality

This is absurd, bordering on racist.

Also, begging and looting street children, if any, are or were in reality in the most cases Gypsies in countries like Russia, Ukraine, Romania, but not in any of the current EU countries, including Slovakia.

The criticism section needs a major overhaul, and whilst the film certain did suck, it could do with making slightly less into an "attack" section. Some sources wouldn't be remiss either. - FrancisTyers 02:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Having been to Romania and Bulgaria I can tell you that is how gypsies really act. They are a big problem in Eastern Europe. Someone should probably just give them a small amount of land in Russia for them to settle in. Do everyone a favor. Volksgeist 02:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Wow, generalising a whole ethnic group by a few limited encounters, way to go. Having said that, the only place I was ever spat on was in Romania, and that was by an old gypsy woman 'cos I told this kid she was with to stop bugging me and to get a job — I suppose to a tourist they are a nuisance, but I think the bigger problem is of systematised discrimination. Consider that the "big problem" may have other causes than just the fact that they were born as Roma. Besides, this isn't the place for discussion on this topic. Its for discussion on how to make the page better. - FrancisTyers · 13:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah you guys are really genius etnographers. In Slovakia around 80 percent of all Roma adults are unemployed. Why? Because they dont want to be employed genius. When a factory or a industrial park is builded, most of the offers go directly to roma heavily populated regions because of the unemployment problem. However, the Roma are too lazy and stupid to work more than just 5 hours a day. Most of the Roma live in poverty. Why? Because the main income into their family treasury is social cash recievment or petty theft. Then the US (with their native american population crammed into small zoo-like reservations) starts criticizing us for being racist and having a prejudice against them. look at your own minorities! Black, Hispanic, Native, Asian, do they actually get the same chance in life as you do? Is that immigrant worker in your local Wal-Mart happy with his life? Is he glad he works in Wal-Mart? Would You be glad to work in Wal-Mart? - xyz1258 · 22:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

There is also some POV in the Trivia section, regarding Roth telling Tarantino to "cash in." WTF is up with that? --Nqnpipnr

xyz, Nice going, you just proved those two wrong with the whole 'Not for opinions' dialogue. I think they can learn a lot from you now.(80.7.118.35 22:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Idea for the Criticism Section

I was disgusted at how bad of a movie Hostel is. Besides being culturally incorrect, the film is filled with very bad plot holes, cliches, unrealistic (and almost cartoon-like in some cases) depictions of gore, and just horrible direction. I mean, can't anyone criticise the movie for how bad it is (and why nobody should take it or Eli Roth seriously). As for Quentin Tarantino, it's obvious he had very little to do with the film since he wouldn't put out something so bad.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.188.250.41 (talk • contribs)

Obviously you've never seen Reservoir Dogs.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.250.94.140 (talk • contribs)

Personal taste has nothing to do with the article, they are created to be unbiased at wikipedia, what you worte was.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.233.156 (talk • contribs)

The Critism section appears highly POV and should be cleaned up. This might be because it was written by an editor who has been heavily involoved in Slovakia articles and might have taken personal offense at the film. -Husnock 17:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
The "criticism" section has some very definite flaws. "Slovakia is really in Central, rather than Eastern Europe" - arguably true, but how is this relevant? Does the movie even make the claim that Slovakia is in Eastern Europe? "[A]lthough the country has some underdeveloped regions, it hardly differs from any other Central or West European country" - again arguably true, but the claim is very generic. The same could easily be said about both the United States and Venezuela, for example. Further, I can think of a handful of rural places in Sweden (which by no serious measure is considered a poorer country than Slovakia) which are at least as run-down as the ones depicted in the film, and I'm sure you can find places in for example Arkansas or Idaho just like the places depicted in the film. —Gabbe 15:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, removed it.--80.7.118.35 22:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The "War"

Some folks have expressed a need for clarification on what the "war" is that is mentione din Slovakia. When I saw the film, I at once thought World War II, since thats really the only major war Slovakia has actually been in as a declared party wihtin the past 60 years (I might be missing some Communist conflicts, however, and I am a World War II historian). I also think the filmmakers probably thought that Slovakia was just "one of those Eastern European countries" or grouped it all together with Yugoslavia which has had plenty of recent wars. -Husnock 18:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

When I saw the movie, I thought immediately about the latter case (Slovakia confused with former Yugoslavia or an entirely fictious conflict). I would suggest the removal of the WWII reference as it is (in my opinion) irrelevant in this context. Tankred 20:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
It's pretty obvious that they're not talking about World War II -- that's just silly. World War II affected nearly all of Europe, so any reference to things being different in Slovakia "since the war" would be nonsensical if World War II were the war in question -- the same would be true of France or the UK or Italy or Austria or anywhere, pretty much. When I heard the line, I assumed it was the filmmakers just being stupid, whether or not they meant Slovenia, but by the end of the movie, when the whole conspiracy had played out, I had a different idea: I thought maybe the "since the war" line was used to feel out exactly how culturally ignorant these stupid Americans were. After all, they were looking for rubes, dumb provincial Americans who would be easily led according to their plans. Other events in the movie back this up, I think (the portrayal of our heroes as only being interested in smoking pot and getting girls, etc.). I don't think this should be listed as necessarily an error. --Masterofzen 04:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2005 or 2006?

Hostel 2 and IMDB both claim that this is a 2005 film, not 2006. Is that correct?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.215.248.182 (talk • contribs) .


(reply)I don't think so. IMDB tends to put the year of production started on films more then release. By the way, sorry if I replied to this wrong; I'm kinda new to the whole Wiki editing thing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.49.63.94 (talk • contribs) .


I am from Yugoslavia (Serbia) and slovakia isent even close,they cant be that stupid,and there were no wars since 1992.

They can't be that stupid? You give Americans far too much credit. Most Americans can't place 90% of the countries in Europe, or the world, much less know the difference between Yugoslavia and Slovakia. To be fair though, I challenge you, as someone from Yugoslavia, to place two states in the United States outside of the obvious ones (Alaska, Hawaii, California, New York). Can you? When I went to London I found most people had no clue what part of the continent I was from (Kentucky), much less any of the states. One guy (from London) who's even been to Colorado placed Texas somewhere around Michigan. -Jaardon 23:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] German version of this film

Perhaps these are additional information for the subject 'Trivia'.

You mentioned that in the film the 'dutch' people in Amsterdam speak German, in the German version the 'dutch' people speak Viennese (it's a dialect of German used by Austrian; in German 'Wienerisch').

In the German version of Hostel 'The German Surgeon' speak Spanish and Paxtons monologue is also in (not-subtitled) Spanish.

[edit] Police

I don't think the cops were in on it, why does it say so on the article ?


They were in on it...they stopped traffic when Paxton was trying to escape as they were looking for him....they knew this whole business was taking place - mass numbers of tourists and locals were getting killed and going missing so how could they not know about this place? Plus, note the attitude of the policeman when (i think it was Paxton, or his American counterpart) when they went to report someone missing... Tachante

Also, Paxton sees the police in the carpark of the factory, mingling with the clients. BrianFG 10:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
The first commentary track for Hostel (there are many) stated that at least one cop was in on it, but Tarantino or Briggs clarifies that it it is unknown. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.243.137.25 (talk) 05:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] 9 Languages

I was just watching the commentary on the DVD and they say there were 9 languages in the film. But Wikipedia lists only 8. Wasn't there Russian in the film? Dose anyone speak russian and can confirm that. I think they were singing a russian song in the sauna. Czech and Slovak, aren't they very similar, how do we know wich one was used? I also wrote down two words from the subtitle: Senoratas, sayonara, are these italian? --Steinninn 06:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I added an example for all the non english languages. Please don't add other languages without bringing an example. At lease leave a message in my usertalk and tell me where it is in the movie and I can provide the audio file. To answere my own question, Senoratas is Spanish and Sayonara is Japanese. Thanks --Steinninn 21:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Two of the characters are Russian, but I don't think either of them speak any Russian. BrianFG 11:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Actualy, since my last post I've gained more information on the language part. Thanks for posting though. The mafia guys say one or two words in Russian. For example Yest problem, wich I am made to believe is Russian. There were more, I can't remeber it. --Steinninn 15:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Based on True Events and website?

What proof do we have of the radio interview at the top? I do not see any sources. Where are the other points on the topic that is was based on actual events? No mentioning of it at all? Lame --68.97.75.170 22:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Tak som si konečne pozrel ten skvely film.Je to totálny prepadák až na pár dobrých scén a záberov film nestál za nič.Možno som mal trocha strach,ale skôr z toho že čo sa dokáže v tej blbej a zasranej americkej gebuli zrodiť.Absolútne nereálne scény...neviem ako ich mohlo napadnúť že takéto niečo sa može na Slovensku vôbec udiať.A ešte k tomu to na Slovensku ani natačané nebolo.A potom tie vymleté mozgy v USA si naozaj budú myslieť že naozaj sme takí zaostalí,chudobní a nebezpeční...môžem osrať celú Amreiku hanba vám vy sviňe..všetci ste rovnakí. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.197.97.208 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 10 May 2007

[edit] ONE BIG FICTION AND FAKE

Today Afternoon I have seen this movie.Producent of this movie was probably sloppy,because He describe Slovakia as backward country where is lot of violence and similar nonsense.All film was big fiction based on story come from Indonesia not from Slovakia.I feel big disappointment from Americans.Correctly from today I HATE USA,yes I am from Slovakia.I like this Country,where is nice nature,where is lot of possibilities for development.Also safety in our country is on good level.Unemplyment in our country is 10% .In region where I am live only 5%.

All film was make in Czech republic in film studio Barandov.I have seen any scene from Slovak background.Songs which I heard in movie was popular in 70-ty years in 20century,when was my father young.Also Rail station in the end of movie was not in Slovakia but It was maked in Czecch republic,but producer make it big mess.I did not heard any Slovak word,only Russian language and littl e bit of Czech.Herewith producder shown that he must be Amateur.This movie is one big SHIT. Miroslav—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.197.97.208 (talk) 21:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

--No one cares, Wikipedia is NOT for your movie reviews, its for information on the film, stop posting your crap on it. (80.7.118.35 22:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC))

Don't care what I'm writting.It's my business.It's my opinion and I had to say it,because when someone make film like this I have to defend my country.Ty jebo jeblý!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.197.97.208 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

You're trying to defend your country, and this is the best you can do?!? Coming to Wikipedia sites and dropping a few lines that no one cares about. Try doing something important. Somewhere where people listen to you. And that place is not Wikipedia discussion sites! You're IP number will be banned if you continue this outrage. --Steinninn 19:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

lol I think it hilarious the sheer number of people who are angry about this film's portrayal of Slovakia, or Borat's portrayal of Kazakhstan. Maybe because these are one of the first major films to depict those respective countries. Just for a moment, take a look at the number of films that come out every week. Do you think every one of these films depicts their locations accurately? In fact, very very few films do. Americans are often portrayed with terrible stereotypes, but I don't see the ACLU in outrage over these films. Did you see X-men? Fantastic Four? Spiderman? I suppose you think America really has superheroes flying around battling evil supervillains. All those films take place in real locations in America. It's also common practice for filmmakers to film movies in locations that supposed to be other locations (due to costs, ability to secure filming locations, convenience, etc.). I was recently an extra in a movie set in a high class New York hotel, except it was filmed in London. Bourne Ultimatum and United 93 are two "American" films that were filmed in England as well. In fact, a documentary about a post-9/11 plane crash into a New York neighborhood was also filmed in London. I don't see anybody criticizing these films for their "inaccuracies." The British love to make films stereotyping Americans. In fact, so do American directors! IN FACT, Hostel is one of them!! So please, before you get all high and mighty with your denouncement, maybe consider yourself lucky that someone decided to make a film set in your country, and that at least sparked interest in people actually wanting to learn more about your country, and how it really is. -Jaardon 23:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Train Station

In the film, there's a train station called something like 'Podicany'. Does anyone know if this was a real train station? If so, where is it? I know that most of the film was shot in Prague, Czech Republic but I'm just curious to know if this station was just staged or it actually exists. -Tachante

(If you mean the train station in the end of the film) Yes, there is such a train station. In the windows of the train you can read the name 'Praha'. It's the czech name for 'Prague', so this train station exists, but the commercial and advertising on this train station is a little bit mixed. At the top of the staircase is a german commercial 'Jetzt auch 'am' DVD' and at the bottom of the staircase is a czech commercial for Coca Cola. I don't think that the Open/Closed-Sign (at the toilet) in Prague is only in german (Geöffnet/Geschlossen), englisch (Open/Closed) and french (ouvrez/fermez?),too. There should be also the czech words for 'open' and 'close'.

It's the train station where the japanese girl committed suicide and jumped in front of the train. It reads 'Podicany' reading it again... Tachante

These places exist dont fool yourself

Yes, that was definately hlavni nadrazi in prague; the newer part of the station, especially the ticket windows which are very visible in the scenes, is highly recognizable. As for the other station, the name on the sign Poříčany, also in the czech republic near the larger city of kolin and about 35 km from Praha. from this map http://www.mapy.cz/?query=Podicany&portWidth=1098&portHeight=615&zoom=11&mapType=base&centerX=134458880&centerY=136178176#centerX=134222224@centerY=136032272@typ=ophoto@zoom=16@vizType=none@vizIds=none you can see that its configuration matches the one shown in the movie. 147.32.97.51 20:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


The station at the end is obviously not in Germany. The mentioned commercial is in wrong german it should say 'auf DVD' not 'am DVD'. And all the other signs look diffrent in Germany they are as german as the signs in Hogan's Heroes. The Open-Closed-Sign is easy to change and in german stations you have to pay an entrance fee for the toilet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.96.96.116 (talk) 01:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reaction - "good showing"?

From the article: "The film scored a 59% “Rotten” rating at Rotten Tomatoes[2] and an initial B- at Yahoo! Movies,[3] a good showing for a horror film (By comparison, Saw only received a 45% “Rotten” rating,[4] but also has a B- average at Yahoo![5])."

A "good showing"? 28 Days Later got 89% "Fresh" and even 28 Weeks Later got 70% "Fresh". 59% is a lousy showing even for a horror film. I'm not even sure I'd agree it's a good showing for a slasher film (The Descent got 84% "Fresh") or grindhouse (Grindhouse got 81% "Fresh"). -- Mike Blackney 04:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plot

The plot section is way, way longer than necessary, and is clearly completely 'original research'. There are no citations at all. Please can people also stop discussing the role of 'gypsies' and ethnicity on this discussion board - it's not the place, if there even is such a place for the frankly racist opinions expressed here. --Pipedreambomb 02:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

i havent seen the movie, but that is probably the worse plot summary ever written. its a step by step account of who does what (then this guy shoots that guy, and he stands up then he does this and that) how about diong a synopsis of the movie? sum up the feelings presented and why these people are doing these things (or if you dont know then say why you dont know - is it a plot device? or ignorance?) oh and can everybody stop being so fucking racist? its a fucking movie.

[edit] Japanese promotional poster

In this article, a picture is shown and captioned as "Japanese promotional poster". But the characters shown in the poster, it is apparently not in Japanese but in Chinese language. But actually I am more bothered by the word the authors used which appears by clicking on the picture. The author calls it "JAP" version of poster. To meet the level of inttelligence and politness Wiki spociety requires, it should noted as "Japanese" version instead of JAP version. But if you do not wish not stop this kind of racist terms, knowin this poster is in Chinese not in Japanese, you should change the title to "Chink" version.

The shortened japanese (jap) was not meant as a racist act, but only taking the first three letters of the word to make it smaller. I'll try to get it changed into Chinese. --Steinninn 16:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
FYI, the abbreviation JAP is common, and has nothing to do with the ethnic slur 'Jap', as in 'the Japs'; it is a *misunderstanding* over the abbreviation for Japan, which is actually JPN. The abbreviation for Japan is not JAP *because* of the ethnic slur, though reason might lead one to believe that it should be -- JAP is more immediately recognisable as Japan than JPN is. Do not be overly sensitive; above all, freaking NO ONE under the age of forty uses 'jap' as a slur anymore, so back off. Sheesh. Mistake. Cope. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.137.120.199 (talk) 05:41, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Hostel chinese poster.jpg

Image:Hostel chinese poster.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Criticism for assigning entertainment value to torture

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't this movie also receive a lot of criticism for the fact that it depicts torture for the purpose of entertainment? Am I the only one who thinks this should be mentioned in the criticism section of the article? --Jml4000 04:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 15:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalism, a bit of balance

Would it be biased to perhaps have some rebuttal about how this portrays "capitalism" taken too far? Maybe I've read the wrong history books but it seems to me that torture and human degradation has found more fertile ground in economic/political environments that are decidedly non-capitalistic, say Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union or North Korea, all Socialist wonderlands the last time I checked. Exploitation of people? Funny how a system that allows people to move freely between jobs and best match their skills to demand is condemned. I realize it's no Nazi slave system or Soviet Gulag system, but it tries.

What should be examined is force and control. The market and capitalism is purely voluntary. It is the State, socialist by and large, that throws force around like it's nothing at all. Socialist States have killed, degraded, and humiliated more people than capitalism has or ever could.--12.28.101.34 (talk) 19:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)