Hostel: Part II

"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.

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.

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.

An unnecessary re-hash of the original which was already bad. Plot-hole after plot-hole, improbable situations leading only to an anti-climax and an embarrassing ending, this turkey is cold meat instead of gushing hot blood it would have liked to pretend. I thought that the first one was not remarkable, but kind of wished that Mr Roth would've learned for the second. Instead, i just can't comprehend the need for this... "sequel"...

For starters, forget the scenario, there isn't one. I suppose that as the first one set the scene, we needn't embarrass ourselves with a convoluted script, right ? OK, let's assume so (but it doesn't make it right). So this time, let's just introduce the necessary brain-dead bunch, and get to the nasty parts as soon as possible, right ? OK, let's assume i could buy that (but this is already stretching it a bit too far). So we get to meet the girls, don't learn anything about them (except they're brain-dead alright), so let's get to the immoral stuff already, right ? Erm, no. In the quest for going even further, Mr Roth has crossed the line of ridicule, and as such the movie has nothing left ; no script, no characters worthy of existence, and no horror, let alone gore.

He however decides to show a bit more of the machinery of this secret society ; we see the clichéd-to-death mean faces of those who pull he strings, sunglasses and expensive suits obliged, sipping beverages on a town café's terrace, and receiving occasionally a decapitated head in a box delivered by a courier, just as the dude at the next table might get his soda. The most natural thing in the world you might say. Of course he lives in a manor, filled with everything of exquisite taste, art galore. Their men are everywhere. We get the feeling they control the town. In fact i got the impression that they might even control the whole country. OK so they're powerful. So how come all the convoluted plans to trap the girls ? Which, as they never work as planned (i imagine i should've felt for the girls at these moments, but was too amazed by these sloppy amateurs), makes me feel very embarrassed for an organization of that size. I mean, they control *everything*, and they had to empty a whole SPA of people in the middle of a day so that their men can come to capture the girl left alone and in a bathrobe, who, without any effort at all just jumps over the fence and escapes ? And this is just one example but everything is just as air-headed (i could just go on and on), suffice to say the whole film follows this same logic : no logic at all.

So the nasty stuff then ? What could be morally worse than torturing people and then killing them (so as to surpass the first film) ? Mr Roth must've thought that he would surely get there by killing a child for no reason (and another example of a scene which has no reason to exist, it's just there so as to shock, and even there it fails), and making someone bathe in blood (mixing sex and death in a literal sense). Wow. And that's that. The rest is some sloppy gore hacks that aren't even as good as in the first one. Mix into that the two ridiculous "clients" (the torturers), the ridiculous "twists" of the story, and a ridiculous ending, and you've got yourself a sorry-ass ridiculous wanna-be hardcore flop. But still not ridiculous enough to be actually funny, just lame.

You want some good fun, avoid this one and watch Planet Terror another time...

3* out of 10

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.