"Hostel" isn't Horror

I know I'm not making an informed opinion about this, but I don't care. I've seen the synopsis and I know what the movies are about (plus, I'm not going to see these movies EVER), so screw it.

Hostel 2, the new "horror" flick that is coming out today, is a sequel to the movie Hostel, a series of movies about American kids who get duped into going to a hotel where, instead of staying the night free of charge, they are totured and murdered for no reason.

Um... can you say "snuff film" kids?

How does Eli Roth get away with making these movies? Where is the entertainment in watching someone be mutilated and ultimately killed? And when did this sort of movie shimmy it's way into the "horror" category of movies?

Horror movies, to me, refers more to monster movies or movies that seek to scare us through the useful exploitation of ghosts, zombies, serial killers, or other such cliches. Though we sometimes do see a gruesome death, it's obviously meant to only scare us for a few seconds and then keep us anxious until the plot is resolved... at least until the sequel.

Movies like Saw and Hostel aren't scary in that regard. They are movies that make you want to puke once the credits role. I'm not scared of vomiting, I've done it before (espeically after one too many Jagerbombs). But never after a movie.

Movies should be entertaining, not gut wrenching to the point of hurling your popcorn and 32 ounce Coke onto the floor.

I suppose that's why I'm excited for Rob Zombie's remake of Halloween, since I'm still a fan of the old school horror formula. Slow, drunken high school/college students + seemingly unstoppable serial killer = scary but FUN.

Unless for some reason you enjoy people being given a living autopsy, avoid Hostel 2. I know I will.

~Nate-O