430 reviews
Sadistic Sequel with a Great Twist
In Rome, the wealthy Beth (Lauren German) and her college friends Whitney (Bijou Phillips) and Lorna (Heather Matarazzo) decide to travel to Prague to spend a couple of spare days. In the train, they meet the model Axelle (Vera Jordanova) after an incident with rude natives of Prague and their acquaintance convinces them to take a detour to the beautiful Slovakia and lodge in a hostel. While partying in the village, they are lured and offered in an international auction to sadistic members of the Elite Hunting under a contract that does not allow leaving the torture chamber in a hidden facility alive.
"Hostel Part II" is a good sequel of "Hostel", disclosing the fate of backpacker Paxton that escaped alive from the facility in Bratislava, Slovakia, of the first movie and then following the tragic tour of three American friends. The story is quite similar to the first one, except the great twist in the last five minutes with the action and revenge of the clever and rich Beth. This violent and gore movie is recommended only for fans of the genre, and those that liked the first "Hostel" will certainly appreciate this sequel. My vote is seven.
Title (Brazil): "O Albergue Parte 2" ("The Hostel Part 2")
"Hostel Part II" is a good sequel of "Hostel", disclosing the fate of backpacker Paxton that escaped alive from the facility in Bratislava, Slovakia, of the first movie and then following the tragic tour of three American friends. The story is quite similar to the first one, except the great twist in the last five minutes with the action and revenge of the clever and rich Beth. This violent and gore movie is recommended only for fans of the genre, and those that liked the first "Hostel" will certainly appreciate this sequel. My vote is seven.
Title (Brazil): "O Albergue Parte 2" ("The Hostel Part 2")
- claudio_carvalho
- Feb 19, 2008
- Permalink
Not just more of the same.
A More Mature Follow-Up to the Disappointing Original
In "Hostel", a group of young men end up at a hostel in Slovakia that kidnaps people for its clients to torture and kill. Now, a group of American girls ends up at the same hostel. Will they meet the same fate, or perhaps they'll have more luck? And what ever became of the kids from the first film?
Full disclosure: I didn't like "Hostel" very much. I loved "Cabin Fever", but grew weary of Eli Roth after his second feature. So "Hostel 2" sat unreviewed for several month before I finally broke down and watched it. Guess what? We have a sequel that eclipses the original in every way -- this one is pretty amazing. Relying far less on torture and excessive nudity (although both are present here), we get an actual plot, likable characters and best of all a glimpse into the other side.
Torture clients aren't just faceless monsters in "Hostel 2", but real people with hopes, dreams and fears. There is a depth and complexity to them that allows us to almost sympathize with their angle, no matter how reprehensible they may be. (Some of them are still just ruthless killers, of course.) At one point, a potential murderer raises a philosophical point posed in the past by Hobbes, Rousseau and Locke: without laws, how is man naturally going to respond to others in a state of nature? To some degree, they attempt to answer this question. ("Battle Royale" also addressed this, though the characters in that film were in a more forced and less natural environment.)
Focusing on a female cast rather than male one really helps, I think. Let's assume the audience (mostly male) wants to see beautiful women, which I think is a safe assumption. In the first film, to accomplish this the boys had to come across numerous loose women with no character development. Visually appealing, sure -- but no substance. By having a female cast, the male audience gets to watch the young ladies the majority of the time while also developing a plot and character motivations. Nudity is less prevalent (but still present). Roth is fully capable of telling a story, as this movie shows, and I'm glad he chooses this over the shock value of sex and torture.
The cast is interesting. Rick Hoffman, who was "The American client" in the first film, returns as "the American businessman". He is something of an anti-hero. While we ought to be against him (he's after the protagonists), the film gives us the point of view that he's just being human, no matter how awful he comes across. Another great cameo is Ruggero Deodato, the maestro of Italian cannibal films ("Last Cannibal World" and "Cannibal Holocaust"). He appears, appropriately, as the Italian cannibal. His scene was not initially in the script (Roth showed up on Deodato's set personally to invite him to Prague) but I think it really clinches the deal of providing us a film that is both new and also giving homage to the classic.
Although you have to see "Hostel" to fully understand "Hostel 2", I think the punishment is worth the reward. For everything the first film lacked, the second makes up for it and then some. Romance, comedy, torture... a truly well-rounded horror film, which is a growing rarity in this age of shock cinema. Highly recommended.
Full disclosure: I didn't like "Hostel" very much. I loved "Cabin Fever", but grew weary of Eli Roth after his second feature. So "Hostel 2" sat unreviewed for several month before I finally broke down and watched it. Guess what? We have a sequel that eclipses the original in every way -- this one is pretty amazing. Relying far less on torture and excessive nudity (although both are present here), we get an actual plot, likable characters and best of all a glimpse into the other side.
Torture clients aren't just faceless monsters in "Hostel 2", but real people with hopes, dreams and fears. There is a depth and complexity to them that allows us to almost sympathize with their angle, no matter how reprehensible they may be. (Some of them are still just ruthless killers, of course.) At one point, a potential murderer raises a philosophical point posed in the past by Hobbes, Rousseau and Locke: without laws, how is man naturally going to respond to others in a state of nature? To some degree, they attempt to answer this question. ("Battle Royale" also addressed this, though the characters in that film were in a more forced and less natural environment.)
Focusing on a female cast rather than male one really helps, I think. Let's assume the audience (mostly male) wants to see beautiful women, which I think is a safe assumption. In the first film, to accomplish this the boys had to come across numerous loose women with no character development. Visually appealing, sure -- but no substance. By having a female cast, the male audience gets to watch the young ladies the majority of the time while also developing a plot and character motivations. Nudity is less prevalent (but still present). Roth is fully capable of telling a story, as this movie shows, and I'm glad he chooses this over the shock value of sex and torture.
The cast is interesting. Rick Hoffman, who was "The American client" in the first film, returns as "the American businessman". He is something of an anti-hero. While we ought to be against him (he's after the protagonists), the film gives us the point of view that he's just being human, no matter how awful he comes across. Another great cameo is Ruggero Deodato, the maestro of Italian cannibal films ("Last Cannibal World" and "Cannibal Holocaust"). He appears, appropriately, as the Italian cannibal. His scene was not initially in the script (Roth showed up on Deodato's set personally to invite him to Prague) but I think it really clinches the deal of providing us a film that is both new and also giving homage to the classic.
Although you have to see "Hostel" to fully understand "Hostel 2", I think the punishment is worth the reward. For everything the first film lacked, the second makes up for it and then some. Romance, comedy, torture... a truly well-rounded horror film, which is a growing rarity in this age of shock cinema. Highly recommended.
Hostel Part 2
- ExpendableMan
- Jun 6, 2007
- Permalink
Very sick, disturbing and sadistic. - Several Spoilers!
WARNING! DO NOT READ IF YOU DON'T LIKE SPOILERS!!! It amazes me that they can show murder, torture and blood and gore in this movie yet when it comes to nudity, they have to hide it by blurring the images. Even swearing with the F-bomb is omitted out which is stupid. In this movie, murder, torture and even decapitation are somehow more acceptable to televise but no swearing or nudity allowed? The Network censors are nuts!
This movie is sick and very disturbing! It's about an international club of sadistic rich people who pay big bucks through a bidding process to murder a man or woman through torture. Victims come from the hostel in Slovakia and their passport images are scanned and sent out to members. Once you enter into a "contract" to do this, you cannot leave until you murder your victim. Each of the members have a dog tattoo that identifies them as part of the club. Expect to see kids have guns pointed to their heads (one is shot in the head), cannibalism, dogs tearing a person to pieces, and a woman having her face shredded up with a saw to name a few. It seems like everyone in this town is bad to the bone.
You get the sense that once you're marked as a victim there really is no escape from the factory where they keep the victims. Even if you do, the reach of this group is so wide that they can still get you as you'll find out with Jay Hernandez's character. You really need to see the fist movie to understand the second although you can get the gist if you have not.
Sadly we see a decent caring person forced into becoming a monster herself first in a bid for survival then for revenge! It seems that in both the first and second movies, the lead characters commit murder without hesitation after being victimized themselves.
The message is that having enough money can do anything even turn the tables on those that would have you be the victim. I think most of us like to see evil people get their comeuppance so seeing some of them pay for their evil deeds is satisfying but unfortunately not all the people that deserve it do and it thus opens the door for yet another sequel! If you have a sick sense of humor, you will like the ending with the street kids playing soccer with someone's head! It's disgusting yet the victim got her comeuppance for being evil so to me it was good!I won't divulge who it was.
This movie is sick and very disturbing! It's about an international club of sadistic rich people who pay big bucks through a bidding process to murder a man or woman through torture. Victims come from the hostel in Slovakia and their passport images are scanned and sent out to members. Once you enter into a "contract" to do this, you cannot leave until you murder your victim. Each of the members have a dog tattoo that identifies them as part of the club. Expect to see kids have guns pointed to their heads (one is shot in the head), cannibalism, dogs tearing a person to pieces, and a woman having her face shredded up with a saw to name a few. It seems like everyone in this town is bad to the bone.
You get the sense that once you're marked as a victim there really is no escape from the factory where they keep the victims. Even if you do, the reach of this group is so wide that they can still get you as you'll find out with Jay Hernandez's character. You really need to see the fist movie to understand the second although you can get the gist if you have not.
Sadly we see a decent caring person forced into becoming a monster herself first in a bid for survival then for revenge! It seems that in both the first and second movies, the lead characters commit murder without hesitation after being victimized themselves.
The message is that having enough money can do anything even turn the tables on those that would have you be the victim. I think most of us like to see evil people get their comeuppance so seeing some of them pay for their evil deeds is satisfying but unfortunately not all the people that deserve it do and it thus opens the door for yet another sequel! If you have a sick sense of humor, you will like the ending with the street kids playing soccer with someone's head! It's disgusting yet the victim got her comeuppance for being evil so to me it was good!I won't divulge who it was.
Hostel two a vast improvement over the first.
For anyone with a real objective taste in movies, including those based on terror, would know after watching hostel part 2 that it is way better than the first installment. Hostel 2 not only a better ending than the typical horror (is it really over) ending of part 1 but it also has a more consistent story line, better acting, descent lead character development and interesting plot twist. I would highly recommend this film to any fans of the handful of truly good horror/thriller movies out there such as (Saw1 and the Ring). If you watched hostel 1 and thought it was an over rated farce of a movie like I did, then watch part 2, you wont be disappointed.
- mic_assassin
- Oct 13, 2007
- Permalink
Truly a let down.
- moviedoors
- Jun 7, 2007
- Permalink
Hostel 2 is Unsettling!
What It Doesn't Borrow It Steals
Apparently, Director Eli Roth has a fetish for "snuff." If fact, in a documentary I watched on the subject recently, Roth is interviewed and becomes visibly "giddy" when he comments on the realism of "Cannibal Holocaust." It is no small wonder that he developed the idea for, and directed the two Hostel films. I don't see that as an admirable quality, but then... I am old school and still believe the best horror isn't in-your-face-gore. I realize I am in the minority these days.
The first "Hostel" was not a great film. It was, in fact, not very good, but what it did have was an intriguing premise: a club whose wealthy members pay to torture and murder abducted people. What worked was that such an idea was not entirely inconceivable. I would argue that such clubs, just like "snuff" films, currently exist, and that was what made the film interestingly creepy for me.
Hostel Part 2, however, offers nothing original. Instead, it robs from various horror films of old. For example, the opening scene mirrors that of Friday The 13th Part 2. In another scene, as I watched a female club-member bathing in the blood of her "purchase", I couldn't decide which vampire film the scene reminded me of most, there are so many. It was at the ending that I actually let a laugh slip. The foiled attempt at irony was followed by a scene reminiscent of "Blood Sucking Freaks". "Hostel" provided solid potential for a redeeming sequel, but instead, "Hostel Part 2" ended up being nothing more than a compilation of already tried and over used gimmicks.
The first "Hostel" was not a great film. It was, in fact, not very good, but what it did have was an intriguing premise: a club whose wealthy members pay to torture and murder abducted people. What worked was that such an idea was not entirely inconceivable. I would argue that such clubs, just like "snuff" films, currently exist, and that was what made the film interestingly creepy for me.
Hostel Part 2, however, offers nothing original. Instead, it robs from various horror films of old. For example, the opening scene mirrors that of Friday The 13th Part 2. In another scene, as I watched a female club-member bathing in the blood of her "purchase", I couldn't decide which vampire film the scene reminded me of most, there are so many. It was at the ending that I actually let a laugh slip. The foiled attempt at irony was followed by a scene reminiscent of "Blood Sucking Freaks". "Hostel" provided solid potential for a redeeming sequel, but instead, "Hostel Part 2" ended up being nothing more than a compilation of already tried and over used gimmicks.
- Kashmirgrey
- Jun 3, 2007
- Permalink
Beat my extremely low expectations, maybe Roth still has it....
- LoneWolfAndCub
- Oct 23, 2007
- Permalink
This was TORTURE
- kute_lokita
- May 31, 2007
- Permalink
Actually, I thought it rocked!
OK, I know people are just going to hate my review after seeing that title, I have a feeling people are going to give this movie a harsh rating just because it is a sequel to Hostel. I know there are not that many fans to the first film, I understand somewhat, it's not for the faint of heart and the first half is like a soft core porno, not to mention the blood and gore that's involved. But I think somewhere down the line it will be a classic cult film. Now for the sequel, I thought, despite a few flaws here and there, I thought it was just as good, maybe even BETTER than the first. Not the most shocking ending I've ever seen either, but it was a good one.
Well, the tables have turned, now we have 3 American girls who are the target of this blood hound club's addiction to torture and death. Two brothers are in this together, one isn't quite sure if he could do it, one is psyched out. One of the girls is a bit naive, one is a total slut, and one is the calm and collected one. But when they are taken by the same people as in the first film falling into the same trap, they soon realize the massive trouble they're in. But I think one of the girls has heard the term "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" a little too much when she realizes what she's in for.
There are some massive gory scenes, a warning in advance. I thought that they kinda took an idea, if you ever heard this woman from history, they called her "Countess Blood", I believe, look her up if you do not know what I'm talking about, because there is a scene that is very much like that in Hostel 2. I would only recommend this for fans of the first Hostel, or if you have an open mind, it's not for the faint of heart. It's very gory and very disturbing, but it's a great horror flick with a great ending!
8/10
Well, the tables have turned, now we have 3 American girls who are the target of this blood hound club's addiction to torture and death. Two brothers are in this together, one isn't quite sure if he could do it, one is psyched out. One of the girls is a bit naive, one is a total slut, and one is the calm and collected one. But when they are taken by the same people as in the first film falling into the same trap, they soon realize the massive trouble they're in. But I think one of the girls has heard the term "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" a little too much when she realizes what she's in for.
There are some massive gory scenes, a warning in advance. I thought that they kinda took an idea, if you ever heard this woman from history, they called her "Countess Blood", I believe, look her up if you do not know what I'm talking about, because there is a scene that is very much like that in Hostel 2. I would only recommend this for fans of the first Hostel, or if you have an open mind, it's not for the faint of heart. It's very gory and very disturbing, but it's a great horror flick with a great ending!
8/10
- Smells_Like_Cheese
- Jun 7, 2007
- Permalink
Can't wait for Hostel: Part 3
Wow! I lapped up every minute of this fine polished sequel to Eli Roth's raw and unnerving 'Hostel'. It ended quite abruptly and I just sat there with my mouth agape. I just wanted more and there are not many modern day horror films I can say that about.
The first 'Hostel' took me by surprise and I found it to be more compelling than I had anticipated. This second installment is equally enthralling and grabbed me by the......... well if you have seen this film you will know what I'm talking about.
Although bloody and sadistically violent; it is also darkly funny and populated with some of the strangest; menacing and unusual looking characters to grace the silver screen in quite some time. I felt I was in 'Argento' territory here during some of the sequences and this is most certainly not a bad thing at all. The design of the film was great, with some excellent cinematography and evocative music that all melded together to create an exciting; tense and dare I say entertaining movie experience. Not for the faint of heart—but it wasn't made for pussies!
The first 'Hostel' took me by surprise and I found it to be more compelling than I had anticipated. This second installment is equally enthralling and grabbed me by the......... well if you have seen this film you will know what I'm talking about.
Although bloody and sadistically violent; it is also darkly funny and populated with some of the strangest; menacing and unusual looking characters to grace the silver screen in quite some time. I felt I was in 'Argento' territory here during some of the sequences and this is most certainly not a bad thing at all. The design of the film was great, with some excellent cinematography and evocative music that all melded together to create an exciting; tense and dare I say entertaining movie experience. Not for the faint of heart—but it wasn't made for pussies!
Preferred Over The First Film, But That's Not Saying Much.
"Hostel: Part II" follows a group of American art students who are studying in Rome. Among them are good-girl Beth (Lauren German), wild Whitney (Bijou Phillips), and the soft-spoken Lorna (Heather Matarazzo). This group of girls end up on a train to Prauge, where they meet a model, Axelle (Vera Jordanova), who convinces them to go to Slovakia with her to a mineral spring spa. The girls arrive to Slovakia, where they enjoy spending a few days at the youth hostel. Little do they know, the girls have been auctioned off to wealthy tycoons who want to find the thrill in their murder - and at an abandoned warehouse, they can do that. Soon after, the three young women are taken off to the warehouse one by one, where their grisly fates await them - but can they make it out alive?
To be put plainly, I didn't like the original "Hostel". The only reason I saw this was because a friend of mine convinced me to go, I would've rather seen something else. To my surprise, I enjoyed this movie a little more than I did the first, if that means anything. Story-wise, this movie is essentially a complete rehash of the events in the original, minus the fact that our main characters are young women rather than a bunch of hormone-crazed guys. There are some tweaks on the story as well, so it isn't a complete copy. Some of the writing is clever (and I thought there was a small bit more of depth, for instance the exploration of the "businessmen" themselves who were paying to torture), but it has it's fair share of problems as well. I thought the film got off to a decent start, but after sitting through the first thirty minutes my hopes for it diminished. Like in it's predecessor, "Hostel: Part II" contains some utterly ridiculous moments. At times I wasn't sure if the movie was going for a bad comedy or a horror flick - it balances on that line awkwardly, and it doesn't work out well. That was one of my biggest problems with the original, the humor just didn't work. Both of these movies could have been very suspenseful and terrifying, but the attempt at dark comedy and the over-the-top violence ruined it.
As expected, the violence and gore is amped up for this sequel, and I was thoroughly grossed out on quite a few moments. But the problem is that that's basically all Eli Roth knows how to do. Sure, I may have squirmed - but was I scared? Of course not. The idea that the "Hostel" films are based upon is intriguing, but you need some solid suspense and terror to get a good reaction out of me, and this movie failed to do that. Call me old fashioned, but the majority of these gore-filled "horror" movies don't cut it for me. As for the acting, that was one thing I did enjoy about this movie - I personally liked the cast. Lauren German ("Texas Chainsaw Massacre" remake) plays our lead quite well, along with Bijou Phillips ("Venom") who turns in a good performance in the type of role she plays often. And Heather Matarazzo ("Scream 3") was excellent in her role as the quirky and naive Lorna. I have to admit, I did care about the characters in this movie, so in that sense it did something right in my eyes, but that is mainly due to the actors, and nothing else. As for the finale of the film, it ended with another ridiculous gag that was attempting to be funny, but I just thought it made the film seem even more unbelievable and stupid.
Overall, "Hostel: Part II" is one gross flick, but the gore doesn't do anything for the story. It's awkward balance of humor and horror doesn't mesh, and the ridiculous gore gags in this film add to it's stupidity more than it's scariness. The cast was good, I'll give it that - but unfortunately they can't redeem it. I'll admit I enjoyed it a tad bit more than I did the original (and I was "entertained" throughout it), but that's really not saying much. If you didn't like the original, I wouldn't bother seeing this sequel. I could tolerate it, but it's nothing even remotely remarkable. 4/10.
To be put plainly, I didn't like the original "Hostel". The only reason I saw this was because a friend of mine convinced me to go, I would've rather seen something else. To my surprise, I enjoyed this movie a little more than I did the first, if that means anything. Story-wise, this movie is essentially a complete rehash of the events in the original, minus the fact that our main characters are young women rather than a bunch of hormone-crazed guys. There are some tweaks on the story as well, so it isn't a complete copy. Some of the writing is clever (and I thought there was a small bit more of depth, for instance the exploration of the "businessmen" themselves who were paying to torture), but it has it's fair share of problems as well. I thought the film got off to a decent start, but after sitting through the first thirty minutes my hopes for it diminished. Like in it's predecessor, "Hostel: Part II" contains some utterly ridiculous moments. At times I wasn't sure if the movie was going for a bad comedy or a horror flick - it balances on that line awkwardly, and it doesn't work out well. That was one of my biggest problems with the original, the humor just didn't work. Both of these movies could have been very suspenseful and terrifying, but the attempt at dark comedy and the over-the-top violence ruined it.
As expected, the violence and gore is amped up for this sequel, and I was thoroughly grossed out on quite a few moments. But the problem is that that's basically all Eli Roth knows how to do. Sure, I may have squirmed - but was I scared? Of course not. The idea that the "Hostel" films are based upon is intriguing, but you need some solid suspense and terror to get a good reaction out of me, and this movie failed to do that. Call me old fashioned, but the majority of these gore-filled "horror" movies don't cut it for me. As for the acting, that was one thing I did enjoy about this movie - I personally liked the cast. Lauren German ("Texas Chainsaw Massacre" remake) plays our lead quite well, along with Bijou Phillips ("Venom") who turns in a good performance in the type of role she plays often. And Heather Matarazzo ("Scream 3") was excellent in her role as the quirky and naive Lorna. I have to admit, I did care about the characters in this movie, so in that sense it did something right in my eyes, but that is mainly due to the actors, and nothing else. As for the finale of the film, it ended with another ridiculous gag that was attempting to be funny, but I just thought it made the film seem even more unbelievable and stupid.
Overall, "Hostel: Part II" is one gross flick, but the gore doesn't do anything for the story. It's awkward balance of humor and horror doesn't mesh, and the ridiculous gore gags in this film add to it's stupidity more than it's scariness. The cast was good, I'll give it that - but unfortunately they can't redeem it. I'll admit I enjoyed it a tad bit more than I did the original (and I was "entertained" throughout it), but that's really not saying much. If you didn't like the original, I wouldn't bother seeing this sequel. I could tolerate it, but it's nothing even remotely remarkable. 4/10.
- drownsoda90
- Jun 7, 2007
- Permalink
Just plain Awful
- zstatrdust111
- May 31, 2007
- Permalink
Solid Horror Sequel
When I first saw "Hostel" back in 2006, I thought it was a solid, entertaining flick, but still full of flaws, so when a sequel was announced, along with its official synopsis and promising cast, I naturally got really excited as I thought it sounded great and had lots of potential to be even better than the original, hence this easily became one of my most anticipated movies of the year. After finally seeing the film I have to admit that I still like the original a tad more, but I'm happy I waited as this is surely one of the better horror sequels I've seen recently.
The plot this time focuses around 3 American college students - Beth (Lauren German), her best friend Whitney (Bijou Phillips), and the sweet Lorna (Heather Matarazzo) who are studying art in Rome for the Summer and plan on going to Prague to explore Europe. However, they cross paths with the mysterious Axelle (Vera Jordanova), a beautiful model from their art class who somehow convinces them to skip their journey to Prague and head to Slovakia where they can relax and enjoy the country. Soon they find a hostel for the weekend and it seems like everything is going to be great, but little do they know that staying at a hostel was the biggest mistake in their lives, and that they are going to pay the price in the worst possible way.
To be honest, I was never too big on Eli Roth before. I thought Cabin Fever" was very mediocre and full of clichés and pointless nudity, whereas Hostel a big step from "Cabin" with an interesting and original concept, but still full of flaws, so I guessed if Roth continued to improve, this could have even been better than the original. I was wrong though as I actually found myself liking this a bit less than the first one, but still thinking this is definitely one of the better and gorier horror sequels in the last few years, and one of the most entertaining movies this year.
Without a doubt the best thing about the movie is the great acting. Honestly, as much as I'm a HUGE horror fan, even I admit there are really rare horror movies (or even movies in general) in which most of the actors did a great job, but fortunately, that was the case here. Heather Matarazzo, who has really grown up since her debut in "Welcome to the Dollhouse" does an amazing job in portraying without a doubt the sweetest character in the whole movie, and when bad things start happening to her you really feel bad for her as she just gives a great performance. Lauren German, who played the unfortunate hitchhiker in the awesome "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" Remake, gives an amazing performance too and I was happy to see her as a lead in a horror movie as I thought she was great in the Chainsaw remake. Bijou Phillips also does a great job in playing the loyal and tough "best-friend" type of character, and she is surely one of the bets characters in the film, something she didn't have a chance to be in movies like "Venom" for instance. Worth mentioning is also the newcomer Vera Jordanova, even though her character is waisted and should have gotten more screen-time. The other characters are greatly build up and you really do feel bad for them when bad things start happening to them, thanks to both the already mentioned, great acting, and a good script written by Eli Roth who actually surprised me in the movie as I thought he did a pretty good job and didn't put any unnecessary nudity like in "Cabin Fever". I also liked how the movie didn't just center on the 3 girls and their torturing, but also the tortures themselves (played by Roger Bart and Richard Burgi) and their fears and thoughts, which was a pretty fresh add to the plot. No need to say this is way more brutal than the original too, even though the ending could have been less comical and more action-packed.
Of course, there are weak points of the movie though. First of all, I was very much disappointed with the route Eli went with the character of Paxton (Jay Hernandez), our hero in the last movie, as I thought it was very clichéd and already seen before in other horror sequels. The movie also felt rushed towards the ending, as all the action and torture scenes were fairly short and incomparable to the ones in the original. The movie also didn't feel as "dark" as the original, and some scenes were just pointlessly funny, but that's probably why I liked this sequel; it wasn't trying to be a carbon copy of the original, actually quite the opposite -- it was trying to a different, yet loyal follow up.
In some sequels that method never works, but in this one it did. Hostel: Part II isn't as fresh as the original, but it's a solid Horror Sequel and an impressive follow up to the original.
6/10
The plot this time focuses around 3 American college students - Beth (Lauren German), her best friend Whitney (Bijou Phillips), and the sweet Lorna (Heather Matarazzo) who are studying art in Rome for the Summer and plan on going to Prague to explore Europe. However, they cross paths with the mysterious Axelle (Vera Jordanova), a beautiful model from their art class who somehow convinces them to skip their journey to Prague and head to Slovakia where they can relax and enjoy the country. Soon they find a hostel for the weekend and it seems like everything is going to be great, but little do they know that staying at a hostel was the biggest mistake in their lives, and that they are going to pay the price in the worst possible way.
To be honest, I was never too big on Eli Roth before. I thought Cabin Fever" was very mediocre and full of clichés and pointless nudity, whereas Hostel a big step from "Cabin" with an interesting and original concept, but still full of flaws, so I guessed if Roth continued to improve, this could have even been better than the original. I was wrong though as I actually found myself liking this a bit less than the first one, but still thinking this is definitely one of the better and gorier horror sequels in the last few years, and one of the most entertaining movies this year.
Without a doubt the best thing about the movie is the great acting. Honestly, as much as I'm a HUGE horror fan, even I admit there are really rare horror movies (or even movies in general) in which most of the actors did a great job, but fortunately, that was the case here. Heather Matarazzo, who has really grown up since her debut in "Welcome to the Dollhouse" does an amazing job in portraying without a doubt the sweetest character in the whole movie, and when bad things start happening to her you really feel bad for her as she just gives a great performance. Lauren German, who played the unfortunate hitchhiker in the awesome "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" Remake, gives an amazing performance too and I was happy to see her as a lead in a horror movie as I thought she was great in the Chainsaw remake. Bijou Phillips also does a great job in playing the loyal and tough "best-friend" type of character, and she is surely one of the bets characters in the film, something she didn't have a chance to be in movies like "Venom" for instance. Worth mentioning is also the newcomer Vera Jordanova, even though her character is waisted and should have gotten more screen-time. The other characters are greatly build up and you really do feel bad for them when bad things start happening to them, thanks to both the already mentioned, great acting, and a good script written by Eli Roth who actually surprised me in the movie as I thought he did a pretty good job and didn't put any unnecessary nudity like in "Cabin Fever". I also liked how the movie didn't just center on the 3 girls and their torturing, but also the tortures themselves (played by Roger Bart and Richard Burgi) and their fears and thoughts, which was a pretty fresh add to the plot. No need to say this is way more brutal than the original too, even though the ending could have been less comical and more action-packed.
Of course, there are weak points of the movie though. First of all, I was very much disappointed with the route Eli went with the character of Paxton (Jay Hernandez), our hero in the last movie, as I thought it was very clichéd and already seen before in other horror sequels. The movie also felt rushed towards the ending, as all the action and torture scenes were fairly short and incomparable to the ones in the original. The movie also didn't feel as "dark" as the original, and some scenes were just pointlessly funny, but that's probably why I liked this sequel; it wasn't trying to be a carbon copy of the original, actually quite the opposite -- it was trying to a different, yet loyal follow up.
In some sequels that method never works, but in this one it did. Hostel: Part II isn't as fresh as the original, but it's a solid Horror Sequel and an impressive follow up to the original.
6/10
More Of The First
"I have Smints! Would you like a Smint?"
Why is horror always better when girls are involved? In this case, girls getting their own back on men, well that happens later on in the movie.
Hostel: Part II does what Part I didn't: it actually concentrates on gore and horror. Where the first movie shows full frontal nudity of a porn-like nature, part two cuts most of that out and just gives gore fans what they want.
What's especially good here is that it doesn't just start a completely different story with brand new characters. It picks up right where the first film left off with Paxton, although it swiftly finishes off in the first 10 minutes and we get introduced to the new characters. Part II follows three female college students who enter a hostel in Slovakia and are effectively bought by external bidders to be tortured and killed, much like in Part !.
Realistically, Hostel: Part II is essentially more of the same from Part I apart from this time, it's with women. It's gritty and creepy most of the time and because of the weak and vulnerable stereotype of women in film, you really find yourself being scared and anxious for the girls. Especially Lorna in her death scene. Ouch.
Considering this movie didn't make even close to as much as the first, it's a pretty enjoyable torture flick and the ending is far better. I would even dare to say that this is almost as good as the first. Definitely not for the squeamish though.
http://ukmore.tk/
Why is horror always better when girls are involved? In this case, girls getting their own back on men, well that happens later on in the movie.
Hostel: Part II does what Part I didn't: it actually concentrates on gore and horror. Where the first movie shows full frontal nudity of a porn-like nature, part two cuts most of that out and just gives gore fans what they want.
What's especially good here is that it doesn't just start a completely different story with brand new characters. It picks up right where the first film left off with Paxton, although it swiftly finishes off in the first 10 minutes and we get introduced to the new characters. Part II follows three female college students who enter a hostel in Slovakia and are effectively bought by external bidders to be tortured and killed, much like in Part !.
Realistically, Hostel: Part II is essentially more of the same from Part I apart from this time, it's with women. It's gritty and creepy most of the time and because of the weak and vulnerable stereotype of women in film, you really find yourself being scared and anxious for the girls. Especially Lorna in her death scene. Ouch.
Considering this movie didn't make even close to as much as the first, it's a pretty enjoyable torture flick and the ending is far better. I would even dare to say that this is almost as good as the first. Definitely not for the squeamish though.
http://ukmore.tk/
Disgusting sadistic piece of trash
definitely better than the first
Not a patch on the first film...
- alex_united2
- Jul 8, 2008
- Permalink
Overall enjoyable, but seeing original Hostel makes it better
Okay, I have to start by saying I completely disagree with the first guy that gave this movie 0 stars. This isn't "Million Dollar Baby" or "The Shawshank Redemption", but for Horror this is pretty good, and about as plot driven as a Horror movie can be without being labeled Suspense or Drama. Okay, so I've gotta say that the first Hostel is somewhat lame, although to be fair it hasn't been done before, and is pretty much "torture porn". And I mean come on, as sick and twisted as it is, those guys are total douschbags. With Hostel II, we're dealing with girls, and 2 of which are really sweet/nice. Note to reader: watching the first Hostel sets you up beautifully for Hostel II. It's not nearly as gruesome, and way more plot driven. Hostel II takes you "behind the scenes" of the Slovakian Bloodhound torture business, which makes the story more interesting. There are two definite twists, with a pretty cool ending. Also, due to the fact that we are dealing with 3 woman, the brutality is taken into effect. There is more suspense, and "ahhh, if only you knew!!" type of moments in Hostel II, but only if you see the first one of course. So, yes, I would recommend this movie to someone who would like to see a worthwhile horror movie, with some twists, not a whole lot of gruesome gore, and even some eroticism ... Mrs. Bathory ;). Which was a great scene by the way!
The Only movie I have ever turned off because it's so offensive!
- patrick-98
- Jul 9, 2007
- Permalink
Most Satisfying Sequel in a Summer Full Of Disappointing Ones
It's strange that the critics who are giving this movie bad reviews aren't even giving an argument. They're simply saying it's "crud" and "torture porn." They are complaining that there is too much violence, while fans complain that there isn't enough. I strongly believe that this film deserves more credit than it's receiving. I also read a user comment on IMDb that said this film had the worst cast ever. That almost makes me think that the person did not see the movie.
The cast was the strongest aspect of the movie. German, Phillips, and Matarazzo were pretty damn perfect for their roles. They are the three leads, but the core of the film is the duo of Richard Burgi and Roger Bart. I knew they both looked kind of creepy but I had no idea they could act so well. Lionsgate did a very good thing by not pressuring Eli Roth into casting huge stars. I can honestly say that Burgi and Bart give the best performances in any horror movie I've seen in a long time. I also love how Roth wrote their characters. They were very real and believable because they're not just evil villains, they are family men. I thought I knew exactly where the characters were going, but Roth was successful in surprising me. I found it very entertaining to watch these two characters unravel. In addition to the main characters, the many offbeat minor characters were freaking amazing. I'm not certain at the moment who was in charge of casting, but to whoever was, I salute you. There are countless new characters with great faces, as well as the return of the desk clerk, who is surprisingly menacing. Roth also knows that he owes a lot to Italian cinema from the 70s and 80s. He's cast two famous actors from that period, as well as the director of the most infamous movie of all time. Their cameos were very (for lack of a much better word) good. I also have to mention the bubblegum gang. This time, the kids are interwoven nicely into the narrative. Their scenes were comedic but also had genuine emotional impact.
It is easy to notice that the photography, editing, and set designs of this film are much improved from the original. Unlike in the Saw films, the viewer is not distracted by these elements. Instead, the experience is enhanced. I was quite impressed.
I respect Roth much more as a filmmaker after this movie. There are several awesome montages, which I'm always a sucker for. He also constantly builds up our expectations (and, based on his other movies, we think everything will go according to plan) only to shatter them and fulfill in them in another way. This, in my opinion, is the way to go because it's both surprising and satisfying.
All in all, this movie offers SO much more than most horror sequels. Saw II, even though it was very successful, went in the direction of most horror sequels, focusing more and more on the killings instead of the people involved. Hostel Part II does the opposite, similar to Kill Bill. Fans may be disappointed that the torture scenes are shorter than in the first, but I think Roth handles the material wisely in most instances. And, yes, the girls' story is almost a mirror image of the boys' in the original, but it all feels fresh since we get to watch their journey knowing what's happening every step of the way.
The introduction with Jay Hernandez is one of the only things feels like something that's done in a lot of sequels. He should have been given more to do. It wouldn't have been necessary, but it would have been more interesting. His scenes here feel kind of forced, even though they're well done.
Oh, and about that ending. I didn't know how to feel at first. Roth has been promising so much. My first words after the movie were, "That wasn't the most shocking ending in history!" But the more I think about it, the more I love it. It's not a twist like I was expecting, although there is a nice twist in the climax. The final scene is very entertaining, however straight-forward it may be. It's still more fun than watching a bunch of billionaires steal money.
The cast was the strongest aspect of the movie. German, Phillips, and Matarazzo were pretty damn perfect for their roles. They are the three leads, but the core of the film is the duo of Richard Burgi and Roger Bart. I knew they both looked kind of creepy but I had no idea they could act so well. Lionsgate did a very good thing by not pressuring Eli Roth into casting huge stars. I can honestly say that Burgi and Bart give the best performances in any horror movie I've seen in a long time. I also love how Roth wrote their characters. They were very real and believable because they're not just evil villains, they are family men. I thought I knew exactly where the characters were going, but Roth was successful in surprising me. I found it very entertaining to watch these two characters unravel. In addition to the main characters, the many offbeat minor characters were freaking amazing. I'm not certain at the moment who was in charge of casting, but to whoever was, I salute you. There are countless new characters with great faces, as well as the return of the desk clerk, who is surprisingly menacing. Roth also knows that he owes a lot to Italian cinema from the 70s and 80s. He's cast two famous actors from that period, as well as the director of the most infamous movie of all time. Their cameos were very (for lack of a much better word) good. I also have to mention the bubblegum gang. This time, the kids are interwoven nicely into the narrative. Their scenes were comedic but also had genuine emotional impact.
It is easy to notice that the photography, editing, and set designs of this film are much improved from the original. Unlike in the Saw films, the viewer is not distracted by these elements. Instead, the experience is enhanced. I was quite impressed.
I respect Roth much more as a filmmaker after this movie. There are several awesome montages, which I'm always a sucker for. He also constantly builds up our expectations (and, based on his other movies, we think everything will go according to plan) only to shatter them and fulfill in them in another way. This, in my opinion, is the way to go because it's both surprising and satisfying.
All in all, this movie offers SO much more than most horror sequels. Saw II, even though it was very successful, went in the direction of most horror sequels, focusing more and more on the killings instead of the people involved. Hostel Part II does the opposite, similar to Kill Bill. Fans may be disappointed that the torture scenes are shorter than in the first, but I think Roth handles the material wisely in most instances. And, yes, the girls' story is almost a mirror image of the boys' in the original, but it all feels fresh since we get to watch their journey knowing what's happening every step of the way.
The introduction with Jay Hernandez is one of the only things feels like something that's done in a lot of sequels. He should have been given more to do. It wouldn't have been necessary, but it would have been more interesting. His scenes here feel kind of forced, even though they're well done.
Oh, and about that ending. I didn't know how to feel at first. Roth has been promising so much. My first words after the movie were, "That wasn't the most shocking ending in history!" But the more I think about it, the more I love it. It's not a twist like I was expecting, although there is a nice twist in the climax. The final scene is very entertaining, however straight-forward it may be. It's still more fun than watching a bunch of billionaires steal money.
- ludwigvanbuddtwang
- Jun 10, 2007
- Permalink
Same Thing but with girls
- ShadowHades
- Jun 6, 2007
- Permalink
Cinematic trash