Hostel, chapitre II

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

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")

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