O Albergue 2

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")

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.

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.

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.

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.