Hostal: parte II

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.

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

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

"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.