SAW vs HOSTEL

Which was the better movie in your opinion?

I think HOSTEL

Hostel is more gruesome but Saw was a better movie. Saw was better put together, had a better storyline, had a better lead villian and had better acting. I like Hostel, but it has nothing on Saw.

Saw, no contest.

Saw everytime.

i would say hostel cuz of the sex blood and then it had that revenge plot at the end where see those people and your like what run them over kill them kill them and then she ends up surviving it your like aww f*** then he comes back and hit her it like yea and saw doesnt have the dangling eye now that was classic

Hostel, Saw was an overrated piece of crap with a dumb twist and a shitty villain that made no sense.

Saw. Hostel was half porn, half cheese with bad editing.

I didn't see Hostel but it looks stupid as hell. Actually, my dad was watching it and I was there and only paying half attention and it sucked.

Saw easily.

Saw, the original, blew. Saw II, was pretty good.

I liked Hostel. The second hasn't come out yet 🙁

I can't vote......I like Saw II, and I like Hostel. Who knows?

Saw is way better than Hostel ...hostel just went for the gruesome factor where as Saw 1 had more of a sinister plot to it

Oh, these two shouldn't even be compared. Hostel was aim for the horror fanbase with all homeages in the film. I have mention this many times before that the eye scene was trully a homeage to Lucio Fulci's films. Then there were the town kids that remind me so much of Children of the Corn. And of course the chainsaw scene. Hostel was much better.

On the other hand Saw and the sequel was more directed for the mainstrain public. Basically a genetic storyline of madman with a desire for revenge.

Hostel was a 5 star buffet for gorehounds like me. Hostel alone is better than the two Saw movies.

Basically a genetic storyline of madman with a desire for revenge.

From what i saw the reasons he did what he did was because he felt that too many people wasted their lives doing meaningless stuff or being insensitive or generally a bad person in some way and felt that they didnt appreciate life. what ever it was it was complex then revenge,

Saw 1 was way better than saw 2.

Originally posted by DanZeke25
Saw 1 was way better than saw 2.

psh, the acting blew freakin goats in the first one. At least in the second one they had a little bit of class.

Originally posted by DanZeke25
Saw 1 was way better than saw 2.

Agreed. The first Saw blew the second out of the water. The second Saw simply seemed like more of a typical/average horror movie.

As for Hostel, I didn't necessarily dislike the film, but I didn't find it to be that good. Like Wolfie mentioned, the first half was unnecessary porn, and the second half was pretty decent (for the gore factor at least). I just didn't think a movie about 2 guys looking to get laid in Europe but then accidently got lured into a sick torturing industry made for a very good plot. It set the story up for there to be gore, but other than that, what was so good about the movie?

In Saw, I actually enjoyed the plot quite a bit. I wanted to find out what was going on, why, and who was involved. It intrigued me and continued to do so throughout the entire film, with many plot twists. Not to mention the acting was pretty good.

While Hostel wasn't good filmwise, it was fun and did not take itself seriously. Saw was awful, right along with Saw II. There's almost no contest.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Oh, these two shouldn't even be compared. Hostel was aim for the horror fanbase with all homeages in the film. I have mention this many times before that the eye scene was trully a homeage to Lucio Fulci's films. Then there were the town kids that remind me so much of Children of the Corn. And of course the chainsaw scene. Hostel was much better.

On the other hand Saw and the sequel was more directed for the mainstrain public. Basically a genetic storyline of madman with a desire for revenge.

Hostel was a 5 star buffet for gorehounds like me. Hostel alone is better than the two Saw movies.

👆 I agree.

Originally posted by SelphieT
psh, the acting blew freakin goats in the first one. At least in the second one they had a little bit of class.

I liked the acting, and in the second one, everybody was stupid. They would see a trap and say "OH! WHAT DOES THIS THING DO?!?!" 2 seconds later they were dead. As SnakeEyes said it was more of a typical horror movie. Saw 1 was more of a thriller IMO and the character at least thought it out and tried all the ways to escape instead running around crazily. It made it better to watch.

I did like Saw 2 a lot though. Better than most Horror movies, but nowhere near Saw 1.

THe 2nd Saw was to much like a teen horror flick

Saw definitely. It had an incredible story, great characters and villain, and some really good tension, amazing considering 90% of the movie takes place in one single room. And the payoff at the end was very well done. One of the best twists I have ever seen.

And I know Lizzie might hate me for saying this =P, but I really liked the acting in Saw, especially with the Dr. character. When he finally snapped at the end and began getting hysterical, then actually cut off his own foot, I really felt for the guy. It was so tragic to see him get to that point.

Hostel was just some porn mixed in with horror. (That's not to say seeing a bunch of hot naked chicks is a bad thing hehe). No storyline, bad acting, it felt to me like a 10 minute idea stretched into 2 hours. And I never bought the main character in the movie going one minute from being a guy who only cares about himself and bangs a lot of chicks, to suddenly becoming a gung ho action hero, taking out professional killers left and right.

Anyways Saw wins IMO. I can't wait for the third one =)