Grade: C

Its not a painful chore to sit through and it flashes by pretty fast, but it really did seem Roth's only idea's in terms of improving on the first was throw even more gore and "shocking acts" into the mix. Pity that really doesn't help the films overall quality.

The main characters are thin cyphers, granted their not as bad as the cardboard cut outs from the first film but their close, In the first I found myself not giving a toss when they were being tortured/killed, In this I managed to raise mild interest.

I was also wondering how Roth was going to deal with any implied sexual gratification from the torture of his female characters without the viewer wanting to throw up, and the dumb bastard decided to deal with it by swapping in a female torturer instead of a male and have her orgasm on a river of blood from one of the hapless victims. Subtly isn't a word this man has heard of and the whole scene made me wonder what the hell he was thinking.

Somebody should also tell him Kids getting shot isn't that amazing, City of God is one film that managed it with infinitely more weight, but of course Roth thinks throwing something at the viewer and screaming "oh look horrible act, I'm clearly a great horror director" would do the trick. No dice Rothy.

The last act really did stretch my patience to the limit. And like I said elsewhere the nuts getting chopped off was totally uncalled for.

I mean like I said at the start its not a bad movie, and I didn't feel too bored watching it, but the boundaries of its central conceit really do make it near impossible to make a great film from the premise.

C-

I still don't understand why he shot the kid.

But, um, yeah, it's an alright movie. I liked how there was more depth to the backgrounds of the people who pay to kill, and not just a repeat of Hostel. Two scenes were rather disgusting, though: the tub scene and, well... you know.

C+

The kid was a sacrifice since they were trying to hurt/kill one of the "club's" victims. If she was dead or beaten to a pulp he would've lost a lot of money. I guess that's how they keep the kids in line.

Anyway, solid B from me. Only parts I really hated were the beginning when the guy from the last movie has a dream that he's being killed, then wakes up and talks about his feelings, and then gets an off screen death. What was the point? If his girlfriend had somehow come back in to the story I wouldn't have minded but it all seemed very pointless to not just kill him in the Hospital. What was with all the cock eating? First that creepy dude is eating it and then the dog eats it. Guess it's good for gross out value or something.

And the so called "Biggest twist in horror movie history" I kinda liked. I was rooting for her to make it out alive and kill that bitch that kept trying to seduce her (you know Eli shot that scene, but had to cut it so the movie didn't get an NC-17). So definitely better than the first one, but now Eli has to make a good movie that doesn't rely on the torture porn gimmick. Or any gimmick for that matter. I might be asking a little too much.

Watching the first half of a film I expected to be a dumb and violent offering from Eli Roth, I was wondering if this movie (which has spent 1/2 it's run time introducing us to characters we'll see in maybe two more scenes) I began to think maybe just maybe this could be nearly as bad as the crap on film of Epic Movie. My question was soon answered, with a scythe.

The aforementioned beginning (which as it happens is the most interesting part of the movie) as drawn out as a certain body part would be later in the movie, Roth shows us so many characters who don't matter it's hard to keep track of actually does matter, not that these characters ever evolve from one dimension they are presented in, but I could let that go sure the opening went long but there's still another 1/2 of a movie to go all out on torture scenes that while no where near horror greatness are the dumb fun I was expecting.

That's where Hostel Part II surprises, and in a very bad way. The torture scenes few in number and in length are short in the innovativeness that made the Saw franchise and the first Hostel film the hits they were. Roth seems to think that idea of a horror film is to show naked girls (and in the future, if the naked girls are your main selling point don't use Heather Matarazzo) and some interesting weapons (Scythe!!) make a horror film. Well they don't actual good direction along with naked girls and cool weapons make good horror films and the torture scenes in this film seriously lack it.


Ignoring the bad acting, the awful dialogue (What's the code? Fuck You!) and lackluster script which when done make the first Hostel a contender for Best Picture the second offering suffers in lack of direction in what should be the selling point of the film along with few moments that couldn't be seen from 5 minutes beofre. Along with possibly the most obnoxious and overdone score make Hostel II a step back for Eli Roth, who can't have been steps left until he is name antiquated with overly gory lackluster "horror" films.


F

I finished watching it a couple days ago and while it's better than the first for sure, it's not by much. The first ten minutes is pretty lame, then it gets kind of promising, then it becomes lame all over again. The first torture scene was absolutely disgusting and I'm really hard to gross out. The "shocking ending" was absolutely hysterical as well and had me rolling. It was so stupid. Still, I'd be lying if I didn't have a good time watching this, spare for the last fifteen minutes. It was an alright way to kill an hour and a half. My rating is generous for this one. See it if you're a fan of the first.

6/10 (C+)

C-

HOSTEL: PART II - 4/10 (D+)

I wasn't even a fan of the first, but at least it was somewhat creepy and had at least some sense of atmosphere. The sequel is an absolute mess, from the awful acting to the terrible screenplay. None of the main characters are likable or interesting in the slightest, and there is paper-thin development for all three of them. Lauren German is probably the best of the cast, but isn't even very good here. She is unbelievable in the role and at several points comes off as laughable. Bijou Philips is atrocious, continuing to prove that she is one of the worst actresses working today. Heather Matarazzo is annoying, but at least one can't help but feel sorry for her character at a certain point in the film. Supporting actors Roger Bart and Richard Burgi are ridiculous as two of the film's villains, especially the former. Returning cast member Jay Hernandez is completely wasted as well. But why this film is terrible is not solely based on performances. It is also based on the fact that Eli Roth shows absolutely no growth as either a director or a screenwriter, and seems hellbent on producing some of the most disgusting death scenes imaginable. One of the earliest death scenes is vile, brutal and incredibly offensive, not adding any suspense to the mix but instead provoking disgust. He doesn't understand how to adequately build tension in a film, and instead adds dumb sections of utter ridiculousness (the idiotic children from the original are back in full force this time around) set to a horrific musical score. The only thing Hostel: Part II has to its credit is that it is certainly never boring. The running time went by quite fast, which was a very good thing. Although the Saw franchise is essentially a similar movie series, there is a crucial difference between the two. While the Saw films manage to build up tension and have a creepy atmosphere in addition to a fascinating villain, the Hostel films are essentially sadistic and disgusting trash. Stay away from this awful film.

C+

timyad, I don't think you understand why they have to introduce the characters the way they do. I actually liked the backstory.

It goes to complete shit in the final ten minutes... shame. Eli, characters swearing like 14-year-olds does not make them intimidating. It's laughable. Lesson from this movie: if a woman holds your balls in a clamp, don't threaten to fuck her up and call her a cunt.

A vast improvement over the original, this time actually giving you characters you cared about and a palpable sense of dread that simply wasn't present in the original film. I'd actually have liked to see a third just to see where they would take it now that all the bases seem to be covered. There still might be a direct-to-video one down the road but Lionsgate actually doesn't do that as much as Sony and others do. By the way, where was the Screen Gems logo? It wasn't present before the film like it was with the original and the print copy I watched the first 10 minutes of.

As for the gross-out scenes, they simply weren't that bad as there weren't many of them and the blood-drenching one was disgusting to be sure but isn't that the point Roth had? To see how far he could push things? It certainly was no worse than anything in Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning, which was far vile than this film as it offered no light-hearted moments. This one at least shows the bad guys getting their comeuppance, one in in a very painful manner.

B+

What a fucking disaster. This was a train wreck. not a single likeable character. The only one who was half way likeable did a complete 180 with 15 minutes left in the film. The gory scenes were stupid and none of it was scary. Oh and the graphics were AWFUL, FUCKING AWFUL. They open up a picture of the chick on their cell phone and laptop and the fuckin pictures starts to move off the computer screen, i mean come the fuck on. Films like these have no business being made. Fuck you Eli Roth and every other horror film. You call can go suck it.

F-.

I don't understand why you keep viewing horror films if you hate them so much? You see like every single one and constantly say the same thing. It makes no sense.

This movie wasn't good, that's true. I just don't get why you keep watching horror films when you know you hate them? Is it for something to complain about?

This was head and shoulders better than the original. That montage of all the rich, old white people bidding on the girls... friggin' brilliant!

I agree with that.

Well, that's not to say this is a great movie by any means. It is a marked improvement over the original (which was complete and total shit), but Roth still has yet to make good on the promise of Cabin Fever.

because i pray that i may be wrong about one of them some day. So far no dice. Plus i watch them on the internet so i dont pay for them.

You don't like any horror movies? Not even classic ones like Alien or The Thing or The Shining?

Except they weren't all white. I remember one being an Asian businessman. All the women they were bidding on were white though.

I actually think that while every film Roth has made has been noticably more polished and well crafted from a framing/lighting/etc. standpoint, they've gone downwards in terms of excitement and imagination. Then again, I'm one of three people on here who still enjoys Hostel as much as they seemed to when they first saw it. And I guess I'm the only person who thought the film went from being rather repetitive to very cool thanks to the last act. Not reading that it was the craziest horror twist ever certainly helped but still, I was wowed.

htosetl 2 si ta bigh peiscj of mother sfuskin shit

ugh!... i was going to watch it like 2 days ago and the stupid computer froze