This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Hostel (2005 film) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
Around the time the film was made, the Euro and USD were trading close enough to 1-1 to not fundamentally change the rank order of the prices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.212.16.30 ( talk) 21:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
It seems likely to me the price list on card was for the person only. They would then have incidental costs (eg costs for weapons & equipment, disposal fees, extra fees for mementos) on top of that. As well a female probably commands a higher price and it seems likely Japanese would be rare enough to not be on the "normal" menu. Kav2001c ( talk) 19:38, 1 September 2021 (UTC)kav2001c
Does anyone know what UL the article refers to?-- 142.177.120.226 04:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
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)
The film trailer claims EMTs were called at one of the advance screenings due to reactions from the audience. Is this true? -unsigned
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)
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)
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)
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..
You are underplaying Tarantino a lot. The film basically didn't exist as a Hollywood movie when he started work on it. He spotted the movie script abroad, when Roth was trying to get it made, and helped Roth develop the script and film as a producer. He then single handidly got it made, and released as a Hollywood movie, by agreeing to put his name to it.
Cjmooney9 ( talk) 12:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
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.
I actually thought that the fact that the only one who survived, also the main character, was a vegetarian, had something to do with the theme? Portraying people who kill for lust and pay for it, could have an assemblance to the industrialized meat market today.. ? maybe this is over-analyzing the film, but the "butcher" outfitt that the killers have to wear, and how people are killed almost next to each other, could remind one of an actual slaugter house..
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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))
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)
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)
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)
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))
The Roma issue is controversial in terms of "whose fault it is". What isn't controversial is that the scenes in the film where a group of Roma children try to beg a cigarrette or take the American's telephone is an accurate reflection of how some Roma children live. I would be tempted to refer to the chjildren as "Roma children" including a link to the relevant wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.212.16.30 ( talk) 06:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
Okay, removed it.-- 80.7.118.35 22:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
Poorer than most of Europe?! So the Czech republic is poorer than Moldova, Ukraine, Macedonia, Bulgaria, Romania, Montenegro, Serbia, Kosovo, Croatia, Hungary, Poland, Belarus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Greece or Portugal?! Look at any list of countries by GDP per capita and than tell whether the Czech republic is poorer than most European countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.176.255.56 ( talk) 10:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
The comment above mine is dated 2013 and seems to be in response to one written (possibly by me) at least 5 years earlier - as I said, progress is being made (and most of those countries have very low populations). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.212.36.193 ( talk) 14:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
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) .
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.
Nobody in Amsterdam is positively identified as being Dutch - in fact the boys ask if there are any Dutch people in Amsterdam (rather than just tourists). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.212.36.193 ( talk) 14:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
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
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)
spanish word
Jose Angel....when the 3 guys are in the room of Alex in Amsterdam, Paxton says "We are going to Barcelona where a friend will introduce us stunning "senoritas" " —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.9.198.143 ( talk) 15:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Jest problem (but the J is pronounced like a Y) may be Russian, but it is also Polish and you could hear this in certain parts of Slovakia that are close to the border. It's considered slang though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.151.218.132 ( talk) 15:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
In the Sauna the Icelandic dude sings in Russian when he the girls says her parents were from Russia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.212.36.193 ( talk) 14:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
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 The film itself is based on true events...individuals used to pay or still do, to go to war zones and shoot at anyone and anything....An account of this is found in a book on the Holocaust, can't remember the name????, but the author went undercover to research this sort of thing, and also at one point viewed a snuff film involving the rape and torture of a 12 year old girl!! Think about the Holocaust, serial killers, and this fim does really does not step outside the bounds of reality at all....-- 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
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
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¢erX=134458880¢erY=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)
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)
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.
>> Plot must be deleted as soon as possible. Please, someone may edit it. It's horrible and it tells the movie step by step, even the end. I cannot edit it, I'm not a native English speaker, my English is not that good << --Jose Ángel - Spain 87.220.58.239 ( talk) 05:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
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)
According to the articel Paxton kills the Dutch businessman in the toilet, however in the Directors Cut, the Dutch businessman meets up with his daugther and they both go to the bathroom, male and female respectivly, on hes way out the Dutch man ses a surgents knife on the sink and then goes to wait for his daugther out side the womens public toilets, when she dosent come he goes in and looks for her and comes out with only her teddybear, looking around in horror trying to find her, then he starts to running around looking for her but dont find her.
Shouldnt this be added somehow or somewhere ? --> Halmstad, Charla to moi 17:09, 27 November 2008 ( UTC)
Space between the last link in ==External links== and the succession box. Remove. 96.53.149.117 ( talk) 15:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
The film is basically a big homage to Takashi Miike, with Miike even making an appearance in it. While I don't care enough to look for direct sources, it's fairly common knowledge. I think it should definitely at least be mentioned in the article. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dumpydooby ( talk • contribs) 03:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
All of his work and input on this movie seems to have been underplayed a bit. The movie probably wouldn't even have existed without Tarantino. Roth came up with an idea, wrote a draft script, and then he and Tarantino then developed the idea, to create a screenplay. Tarantino then worked on post production, and then helped get it widlely distributed in the United States
The film almost certainly wouldn't have been shown in America or Europe without Tarantino. And almost certainly wouldn't have been any sort of hit totally right...this film has got Tarrantino written all over it, so to speak..... Cjmooney9 ( talk) 12:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
ERROR IN THE PLOT----
there is a small error in the plot. The German guy who was torturing Paxton asked for a gag BEFORE cutting his fingers. After Paxton vomited, the german guy took the jigsaw, cut Paxton's finger and than slide in his blood. Ah, ah, i have seen the movie around 30 times and i know it almost sequence by sequence.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.9.198.143 ( talk) 15:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Please read WP:FILMPLOT. If anyone disagrees, feel free to address it here so that we can establish consensus. Millahnna ( talk) 17:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
This article has little information on the film's production including information on the film's development. I've also read from multiple sources in books about the film's popularity overseas by American troops who use it as a way of catharsis for the war, this should be mention in the film's reception section.-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 22:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
The whole section has been copied almost word by word from one of the cited sources, http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art43785.asp -- 2A01:C23:6041:3A00:50ED:50B7:6EA9:FF4D ( talk) 13:31, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Hostel (2005 film) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
Around the time the film was made, the Euro and USD were trading close enough to 1-1 to not fundamentally change the rank order of the prices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.212.16.30 ( talk) 21:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
It seems likely to me the price list on card was for the person only. They would then have incidental costs (eg costs for weapons & equipment, disposal fees, extra fees for mementos) on top of that. As well a female probably commands a higher price and it seems likely Japanese would be rare enough to not be on the "normal" menu. Kav2001c ( talk) 19:38, 1 September 2021 (UTC)kav2001c
Does anyone know what UL the article refers to?-- 142.177.120.226 04:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
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)
The film trailer claims EMTs were called at one of the advance screenings due to reactions from the audience. Is this true? -unsigned
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)
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)
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)
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..
You are underplaying Tarantino a lot. The film basically didn't exist as a Hollywood movie when he started work on it. He spotted the movie script abroad, when Roth was trying to get it made, and helped Roth develop the script and film as a producer. He then single handidly got it made, and released as a Hollywood movie, by agreeing to put his name to it.
Cjmooney9 ( talk) 12:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
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.
I actually thought that the fact that the only one who survived, also the main character, was a vegetarian, had something to do with the theme? Portraying people who kill for lust and pay for it, could have an assemblance to the industrialized meat market today.. ? maybe this is over-analyzing the film, but the "butcher" outfitt that the killers have to wear, and how people are killed almost next to each other, could remind one of an actual slaugter house..
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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))
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)
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)
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)
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))
The Roma issue is controversial in terms of "whose fault it is". What isn't controversial is that the scenes in the film where a group of Roma children try to beg a cigarrette or take the American's telephone is an accurate reflection of how some Roma children live. I would be tempted to refer to the chjildren as "Roma children" including a link to the relevant wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.212.16.30 ( talk) 06:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
Okay, removed it.-- 80.7.118.35 22:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
Poorer than most of Europe?! So the Czech republic is poorer than Moldova, Ukraine, Macedonia, Bulgaria, Romania, Montenegro, Serbia, Kosovo, Croatia, Hungary, Poland, Belarus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Greece or Portugal?! Look at any list of countries by GDP per capita and than tell whether the Czech republic is poorer than most European countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.176.255.56 ( talk) 10:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
The comment above mine is dated 2013 and seems to be in response to one written (possibly by me) at least 5 years earlier - as I said, progress is being made (and most of those countries have very low populations). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.212.36.193 ( talk) 14:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
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) .
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.
Nobody in Amsterdam is positively identified as being Dutch - in fact the boys ask if there are any Dutch people in Amsterdam (rather than just tourists). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.212.36.193 ( talk) 14:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
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
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)
spanish word
Jose Angel....when the 3 guys are in the room of Alex in Amsterdam, Paxton says "We are going to Barcelona where a friend will introduce us stunning "senoritas" " —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.9.198.143 ( talk) 15:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Jest problem (but the J is pronounced like a Y) may be Russian, but it is also Polish and you could hear this in certain parts of Slovakia that are close to the border. It's considered slang though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.151.218.132 ( talk) 15:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
In the Sauna the Icelandic dude sings in Russian when he the girls says her parents were from Russia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.212.36.193 ( talk) 14:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
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 The film itself is based on true events...individuals used to pay or still do, to go to war zones and shoot at anyone and anything....An account of this is found in a book on the Holocaust, can't remember the name????, but the author went undercover to research this sort of thing, and also at one point viewed a snuff film involving the rape and torture of a 12 year old girl!! Think about the Holocaust, serial killers, and this fim does really does not step outside the bounds of reality at all....-- 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
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
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¢erX=134458880¢erY=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)
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)
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.
>> Plot must be deleted as soon as possible. Please, someone may edit it. It's horrible and it tells the movie step by step, even the end. I cannot edit it, I'm not a native English speaker, my English is not that good << --Jose Ángel - Spain 87.220.58.239 ( talk) 05:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
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)
According to the articel Paxton kills the Dutch businessman in the toilet, however in the Directors Cut, the Dutch businessman meets up with his daugther and they both go to the bathroom, male and female respectivly, on hes way out the Dutch man ses a surgents knife on the sink and then goes to wait for his daugther out side the womens public toilets, when she dosent come he goes in and looks for her and comes out with only her teddybear, looking around in horror trying to find her, then he starts to running around looking for her but dont find her.
Shouldnt this be added somehow or somewhere ? --> Halmstad, Charla to moi 17:09, 27 November 2008 ( UTC)
Space between the last link in ==External links== and the succession box. Remove. 96.53.149.117 ( talk) 15:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
The film is basically a big homage to Takashi Miike, with Miike even making an appearance in it. While I don't care enough to look for direct sources, it's fairly common knowledge. I think it should definitely at least be mentioned in the article. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dumpydooby ( talk • contribs) 03:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
All of his work and input on this movie seems to have been underplayed a bit. The movie probably wouldn't even have existed without Tarantino. Roth came up with an idea, wrote a draft script, and then he and Tarantino then developed the idea, to create a screenplay. Tarantino then worked on post production, and then helped get it widlely distributed in the United States
The film almost certainly wouldn't have been shown in America or Europe without Tarantino. And almost certainly wouldn't have been any sort of hit totally right...this film has got Tarrantino written all over it, so to speak..... Cjmooney9 ( talk) 12:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
ERROR IN THE PLOT----
there is a small error in the plot. The German guy who was torturing Paxton asked for a gag BEFORE cutting his fingers. After Paxton vomited, the german guy took the jigsaw, cut Paxton's finger and than slide in his blood. Ah, ah, i have seen the movie around 30 times and i know it almost sequence by sequence.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.9.198.143 ( talk) 15:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Please read WP:FILMPLOT. If anyone disagrees, feel free to address it here so that we can establish consensus. Millahnna ( talk) 17:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
This article has little information on the film's production including information on the film's development. I've also read from multiple sources in books about the film's popularity overseas by American troops who use it as a way of catharsis for the war, this should be mention in the film's reception section.-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 22:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
The whole section has been copied almost word by word from one of the cited sources, http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art43785.asp -- 2A01:C23:6041:3A00:50ED:50B7:6EA9:FF4D ( talk) 13:31, 18 October 2018 (UTC)