Drei amerikanische Studenten, die im Ausland studieren, werden in ein slowakisches Hostel gelockt und entdecken die düstere Realität dahinter.Drei amerikanische Studenten, die im Ausland studieren, werden in ein slowakisches Hostel gelockt und entdecken die düstere Realität dahinter.Drei amerikanische Studenten, die im Ausland studieren, werden in ein slowakisches Hostel gelockt und entdecken die düstere Realität dahinter.
- Auszeichnungen
- 10 Nominierungen insgesamt
Stanislav Yanevski
- Miroslav
- (as Stanislav Ianevski)
Empfohlene Bewertungen
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
"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.
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.
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.
For me, someone who thought the first installment of hostel was great, I had to check out the second.
I consider myself a fairly strong-stomached moviegoer, but I'm not ashamed to say this movie had me squirming in my seat.. Yet again! I would be hard pushed to argue this movie is anything but an excuse to once again try and push the boundaries of explicit violence and depravity, something that seems to be a bit of a trend these days. The narrative is fairly primitive, and in many aspects it is a replica of the first. American backpackers lured to a hostel in Slovakia where they are kidnapped and sold to the highest bidder to be tortured and killed. Only its girls this time.
However this movie does take the viewer a little further behind the scenes of the 'business', and follows two rich 'clients' through the process of purchasing a subject right through to the torture chamber sequences. Something that was quite interesting if you enjoyed the first film.
The first film I found fairly believable, and could actually imagine such a place in some remote part of Europe - which is party what added to my enjoyment of it. This installment not quite as well thought out and I did find the twist at the end totally impossible to accept. The shrouded secrecy of the business 'Elite Hunting' that was prevalent in the first film seemed to be totally thrown out of the window.
But If you want to see more of the same you will enjoy this film - its great for what it is, but don't expect anything original!
I consider myself a fairly strong-stomached moviegoer, but I'm not ashamed to say this movie had me squirming in my seat.. Yet again! I would be hard pushed to argue this movie is anything but an excuse to once again try and push the boundaries of explicit violence and depravity, something that seems to be a bit of a trend these days. The narrative is fairly primitive, and in many aspects it is a replica of the first. American backpackers lured to a hostel in Slovakia where they are kidnapped and sold to the highest bidder to be tortured and killed. Only its girls this time.
However this movie does take the viewer a little further behind the scenes of the 'business', and follows two rich 'clients' through the process of purchasing a subject right through to the torture chamber sequences. Something that was quite interesting if you enjoyed the first film.
The first film I found fairly believable, and could actually imagine such a place in some remote part of Europe - which is party what added to my enjoyment of it. This installment not quite as well thought out and I did find the twist at the end totally impossible to accept. The shrouded secrecy of the business 'Elite Hunting' that was prevalent in the first film seemed to be totally thrown out of the window.
But If you want to see more of the same you will enjoy this film - its great for what it is, but don't expect anything original!
Wusstest du schon
- WissenswertesRuggero Deodato: (at around 1h 19 mins) the director of the controversial 1980 film Nackt und zerfleischt (1980) has a brief cameo as a cannibal in the film.
- Patzer(at around 24 mins) After the girls check into the Hostel, the clerk takes their passports, and e-mails the details to various bidders. However, the pictures all show the girls smiling; standard passport rules do not allow smiling or other facial expressions.
- Crazy CreditsAt the very end of the credits, the Bubblegum Gang Leader can be heard saying "Bitches!" one last time.
- Alternative VersionenThe German theatrical version (based on the R-rated version) is rated FSK 18 and is cut by ca. 2 minutes. On DVD, two version were released: The extended version (based on the unrated version) with a SPIO/JK approval is cut by 7 seconds and misses the throat slashing scene. And the theatrical version (based on the R-rated version, the only home video release based on that version) which is cut by ca. 2.5 min.
- VerbindungenFeatured in Hollywood on Set: Ocean's Thirteen/Day Watch/Hostel: Part II (2007)
- SoundtracksHabanera
from "Carmen"
Written by Georges Bizet
Performed by Opus 1 Music Library
Courtesy of Opus 1 Music Library
Under license from Landor Music Publishing (BMI), Willowview Publishing (BMI)
Top-Auswahl
Melde dich zum Bewerten an und greife auf die Watchlist für personalisierte Empfehlungen zu.
Details
- Erscheinungsdatum
- Herkunftsländer
- Sprachen
- Auch bekannt als
- Hostal: parte II
- Drehorte
- Produktionsfirmen
- Weitere beteiligte Unternehmen bei IMDbPro anzeigen
Box Office
- Budget
- 10.200.000 $ (geschätzt)
- Bruttoertrag in den USA und Kanada
- 17.609.452 $
- Eröffnungswochenende in den USA und in Kanada
- 8.203.391 $
- 10. Juni 2007
- Weltweiter Bruttoertrag
- 35.728.183 $
- Laufzeit1 Stunde 34 Minuten
- Farbe
- Sound-Mix
- Seitenverhältnis
- 2.35 : 1
Zu dieser Seite beitragen
Bearbeitung vorschlagen oder fehlenden Inhalt hinzufügen