The buzz, as far as I had heard it, was that Hostel was an unbelievably sick film that focused around its torture, and that there are not many people who could handle a movie structured in such a way. There are those of us with imaginations too big that they could feel (in their minds) the torture as it happened to them. Then, after it came out (I didn't see it immediately) I had many friends tell me that it failed to live up to it's hype, and that it didn't matter too much whether I saw it or not.

I took those warnings as first, a confirmation of the films structure, and second as an indication that Roth had pulled his punches, and cut away from much of the violence that it so happily advertised as it's bread and butter. Well, this is why I should have learned my lesson a long time ago to just see the film for myself.

First off, there is a story here. There is time to establish characters, and conflicts that arise that are not centered on human physical torture. Taking time to develop story and character are two of the most crucial pieces of horror that are also among the most neglected in the genre. Roth is right to spend the time there. Structure and strong direction are intact, as are many other things (acting, pacing etc…) that, if not done correctly, would make a viewer dissuade another potential viewer from seeing the film.

Second, (and this is personal preference coming into play) the story is that of a group of people stumbling into an oasis that normal people never come into contact with, just by traveling, or doing something contrary to their nature. This is a plot device that for some reason, I personally identify with. A film like The Beach, for instance, began this way, and since I identify with the device, or perhaps the desire to find a hidden oasis for myself, I feel more connected with the characters that do, and I allow myself to fall deeper into the story. If you are somewhat like me in that respect, you should understand the power that adding horror to that storyline could have on an audience.

And finally, we come to the violence, which Roth handles beautifully. He cuts away from it when he wants you to imagine what's happening, and shows it to you directly when he wants you to see it. Finding that balance is difficult, and there is only one director that I have seen that has the ability to show you all of the violence, and it be worse than what your imagination can conjure. But that's for another review. Roth's discretion works for his movie, and that's all that really matters.

I think that the reason people tried to dissuade me from seeing this movie is that they were disappointed that it wasn't structured in a torture-first, character/story-second nature. There is a sort of thrill that comes with the idea of a director actually pulling that off effectively, and I understand that. But I also understand that that type of a film just wouldn't work, and that thinking that it might is sort of a pipe dream. Hostel does work in its own way, and even if it isn't in the way you expected, it's still valid. Seeing a film like this has an effect kind of like maybe seeing a carnival freak show was like in the early 1900's. It's disturbing, and a little thrilling, and overall makes you feel like not many other things can, and that's good… As long as you allow yourself to be involved in it. Eli Roth does his best to make sure that you are.