Hostel: Part II Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES PLOT SUMMARY
3 beautiful college students are tricked into entering a hostel where the 'hosts' like to torture, rape and murder. Following a geographical tour of Slovakia, three women are lured into a hostel by a handsome young man who sells them to the twisted masters, who tie them up and bring upon an unthinkable world of pain...
| Lauren German | Beth |
| Bijou Phillips | Whitney |
| Roger Bart | Stuart |
| Richard Burgi | Todd |
| Vera Jordanova | Axelle |
| Heather Matarazzo | Lorna |
| Stanislav Ianevski | Miroslav |
| Milan Knazko | Sasha |
| Ivan Furak | Big Guard |
| Zuzana Geislerová | Inya |
| Jay Hernandez | Paxton |
| Jordan Ladd | Stephanie |
| Monika Malacova | Mrs. Bathory |
| Davide Devenuto | Riccardo |
| Petr Vancura | Pavel |
| Eli Roth |
5.40 out of 10 (19742 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Overall enjoyable, but seeing original Hostel makes it better
posted on 16 Aug 2009Okay, I have to start by saying I completely disagree with the first guy that gave this movie 0 stars. This isn't "Million Dollar Baby" or "The Shawshank Redemption", but for Horror this is pretty good, and about as plot driven as a Horror movie can be without being labeled Suspense or Drama. Okay, so I've gotta say that the first Hostel is somewhat lame, although to be fair it hasn't been done before, and is pretty much "torture porn". And I mean come on, as sick and twisted as it is, those guys are total douschbags. With Hostel II, we're dealing with girls, and 2 of which are really sweet/nice. Note to reader: watching the first Hostel sets you up beautifully for Hostel II. It's not nearly as gruesome, and way more plot driven. Hostel II takes you "behind the scenes" of the Slovakian Bloodhound torture business, which makes the story more interesting. There are two definite twists, with a pretty cool ending. Also, due to the fact that we are dealing with 3 woman, the brutality is taken into effect. There is more suspense, and "ahhh, if only you knew!!" type of moments in Hostel II, but only if you see the first one of course. So, yes, I would recommend this movie to someone who would like to see a worthwhile horror movie, with some twists, not a whole lot of gruesome gore, and even some eroticism ... Mrs. Bathory ;). Which was a great scene by the way!
Really, really bad.
posted on 16 Aug 2009The first Hostel was a joke of a movie. What sets the first Hostel apart from Hostel Part II is that the first was laughably bad while Part II was a complete waste of two hours without any comedic relief such as the obviously fake dangling eyeball in the first. Also, if one thought the acting in the first one couldn't have been worse, Part II manages to outdo its precursor. It is truly a shame to know that another trashy American "horror" movie such as Hostel Part II will have so many viewers when it is nothing but a useless monstrosity of scenes with gratuitous gore. This review is not an advocate of the absence of gore in horror films. For example, Silence of the Lambs and Se7en are two fantastic movies with intriguing plots and good acting. Hostel Part II is the complete opposite. It seems as though this "up and coming" Eli Roth got hammered one night, got in front of his laptop, and wrote a pathetic story with aimlessly inserted scenes of nudity and gore while hiring ONE OF THE WORST CASTS EVER. Quentin, it's a marvel that you allow your name to appear in the same credits as this amateur who probably should own an adult novelty item store instead of being a film director. Oh, and to the readers, please don't watch it. There is nothing to be gained.
The ending just sucked....
posted on 14 Aug 2009This was pretty much a solid horror movie and that's it... It started where part 1 left off and i respect that... It had some pretty disturbing parts and i wont tell... Basically it was pretty good to be a sequel, it's hard to make sequels... Im sure it is, especially if the first movie was good... Then you have to make an even better one... The Saw series really out did them selves with great horror movies... Now one flaw i hated about this movie was the ending... It just was stupid which brings me to the conclusion that there will be a part 3... and i do believe it comes out next year... So Hostel fans i DO recommend this movie... And i cant wait till the third7/10 (only because the ending)
Better than a poke in the franchise
posted on 12 Aug 2009It's obvious from the subject matter that some people will tell you this is brilliantly-paced horror, while others will recommend it be cast into the pit of doom and never watched. Fact is, if you liked the first Hostel film you are likely to have an urge to watch this follow-up, which no amount of bad reviews is going to dissuade you from doing.In terms of pure and simple entertainment value I wouldn't really fault Hostel 2 that much. It does what it's meant to. It's fairly well-constructed, the script runs without major disaster, and while you'll know most of what's coming a mile off there are a few character twists that leave you feeling not totally short-changed. The gore is well-controlled and pays homage to a million predecessors like any good ride with Tarrantino's endorsement should. Sound track and atmosphere are OK as well.But if you're hoping this instalment is going to actually add anything to the first film then I'd lower your expectations. Hostel 1 provided an obvious franchise and this is prudently cashing in on a ready-made audience. There is no deeper revelation, just a different set of commodities and clients. Business is business. The mystery and subsequent dawning truth of the first film provided most of its substance. I'm not sure where you'll find substance in the second outing.But if you hear someone saying something clichéd like, "I'll never get those two hours back," it's worth considering they probably wasted 2 hours previously with Hostel 1 - and probably waste a lot of their time in fact. Again, if you liked the first film, or you're interested in brushing up on rudimentary horror film technique, or you just want to get your week's quota of entertaining gore (don't we all?)... then forget the reviews and see what you think. Of course, if you haven't seen the first film and none of the other criteria apply, then get the first train out of Slovakia my friend...
Awful
posted on 12 Aug 2009This movie was much weaker than its predecessor. The worst part about it was the plot. Towards the end I found myself utterly disbelieving the characters' actions and motives. As for the end - did we really hate that one character so much to see her head get kicked around like a soccer ball? Did that satisfy anyone? Didn't the evil head honcho behind the whole operation deserve it more (the older guy who shot the child)? The way they neatly pruned off Paxton in the first five minutes was transparent. I would've been fine without seeing him at all in the film. The torture scenes are much more scarce. Skip the movie and see the first one.
Rubbish of the highest order
posted on 10 Aug 2009The first Hostel was only so so-and the first half was just another excuse to show brothels and stuff and partying students-the 2nd half got more to the point and gave me an idea for one of my Internet published horror stories where rich people pay money to torture and kill people who were usually low lifes from the streets. It was though quite messy and could have been condensed into an hour.After all if the story is about torturing people to death than get on with it. In Hostel 2 it goes nowhere near.Its the New Breed of Horror where a story is not required to make sense and its like James Bond or something which no end of technology designed to trap people. From the original where half a dozen guys end up in what they thought was a museum the action had switched to females. And somehow its not as interesting when you see women at the receiving end. I just came on here to see what the Hell this film was supposed to be about.And after the main Hostel what was the point of flogging the idea again. To call this film rubbish is an insult to a tip
Another lame over hyped attempt at horror by Eli Roth
posted on 29 Jul 2009I really never understood all the hype for Eli Roth. Cabin Fever wasn't a very good movie and Hostel was just a total bore. I saw Hostel twice and kept an open mind but it's 90% talk and when someone does die you don't see very much, and what you do see looks incredibly fake. So is Hostel 2 much better? Kind of.So the characters aren't very interesting. Pretty shallow too, there is the main woman who is the better of the group, her slutty drunk of a friend, and the ultra winy friend who you would be tempted to kill too. It's almost like they just want you to see them die because they annoy you so much and give nothing back to redeem themselves. Then you have the people who are paying to kill these people, you get to see them and learn more about the kind of people who would pay over 60 thousand dollars to kill a stranger. But they aren't that interesting and very predictable.There isn't any real tension in the "will she escape alive" area of the movie, you already know that if someone is being chased then they will just end up in the killing place. Everything is extremely predictable and they never try to do anything you wouldn't expect. Also the pacing is just as bad as the first Hostel, there is one off screen kill early on and one very bloody yet not particularly gruesome kill in the first hour. Not much happens until near the end of the movie just like part one. The kills are mostly very over the top, it's like the movie tries to take itself so dead serious but they use kills that would look too stupid for a Troma movie.Also like Hostel 1 there is so much build up for the kills and then you don't get much out of it. Lots of really fast movements so you can barely tell what just happened, very hokey effects, unrealistic kills, and very bland torture scenes. Why not at least try and shock the viewer. OK so if someone is going to pay 80% to kill an American woman don't you think he would be sick enough to force himself on her before he kills her? And why is it that in both movies they have really stupid annoying kids that aren't really there for a reason. Why don't they kidnap children and have people pay twice as much to kill little kids? They have the opportunity to shock, offend, and disgust the viewer but they decide to take everything very soft and hype everything up. I wasn't expecting Cannibal Holocaust or anything but at least if you promise to have such a shocking movie style that the media calls "torture porn" then at least attempt to back it up. It's like going to a restaurant and seeing the thickest, juiciest, most tender steak you've ever seen so you order it and get a flat McDonald's looking hamburger pattie instead.The movie is just boring and the kills just aren't even shocking. It's like they're hyping it to be like the main stream equivalent to August Underground's Mordum when it's really the most tame horror movie imaginable with the biggest hype and build up that they can buy. It's all sizzle and no steak. Eli Roth just seems like Uwe Boll with more credibility.
What?
posted on 27 Jul 2009Are you serious? This movie sucked worse than the first one- and the first one was a hefty sack of crap. Eli Roth should commit suicide after the horrible movies he has made. Hostel: an hour of a really bad dark rip off of "Euro Trip" followed by 8 minutes of actual horror, followed by more crap. How the hell do people find Hostel a decent movie? What a boring set of films. These are both absolutely horrible movies with no thought put into them whatsoever. I love the morons who think they are good movies- glad to see you guys have an IQ of about 30... Jesus... It's bad enough we have horrible filmmakers like Eli Roth creating a bunch of crap he calls movies, but we have people out there who actually like his movies... Again I will say, "Are you serious?"
Do not agree at all. laughed through a lot of it
posted on 25 Jul 2009Hostel 2 did not meet my expectations. I was told this movie would be terrifying. Some of the goriest scene people have ever scene. The people in my theater were actually laughing through most of it. I must admit there were one or two scenes where I was shocked at what was happening but I believe Hostel 1 was definitely more scary and more gorie than the second one. Iw as left disappointed and not scared at all by the end of the movie. Eli Roth did not show how some of the characters were kidnapped. He could have taken the movie another step further in my opinion. As I said, some parts were shocking ie: Mazzarro's death scene, the penis getting chopped off, the dogs devouring the man in the elevator (although I think they could have showed what was going on and it would have made it more scarier. I just think it could have been better thats all.
Recycled, Reduced, Reused
posted on 25 Jul 2009The beginning of Hostel: Part 2 ruins what made the ending of Hostel 1 great. Despite being a separate film, I find it to be very anticlimactic.I would not call this film much of a sequel, as its structure is recycled in the same fashion as the first, making it very predictable. It's almost as if Eli Roth re-wrote the first Hostel, and changed the main characters from male to female.And don't be fooled by the ads that claim this movie has an "amazing ending that has never been seen on film before", I was not so impressed, although it was much more entertaining than the first hour of the film.A good aspect of this film is that it focuses more on the people who pay to torture these tourists, showing you how their organization operates. The characters you are supposed to hate and find evil had the most depth, and were the most intriguing. The victims of the film were the usual horror film girls: 1 strong willed and logical, 1 slutty bimbo, and 1 outcast that the bimbo doesn't like.Unlike most sequels, Hostel: Part 2 does not do much to top the original. I personally felt that it did less. The first Hostel was gruesome, frightening, and very gory. This film fails to raise the bar set by the original, and just gives you more of the same with reduced entertainment value.Don't make it a trilogy, Eli.
Erosion of a genre
posted on 25 Jul 2009After a very successful box office turnaround with Hostel, no time was wasted in crafting a Hostel: Part Two. The trailers came out very far in advance, the film promised to be bloodier, scarier, and more intense, and the audience waited. Generally, I have to say I was disappointed—not because the film didn't live up to its promises—it did, but with this little niche in the market soon to become saturated, audiences are left feeling short changed. There are no genuine scares, and the film seems much like it is torture scenes pieced together by a flimsy plot. Eli Roth knows his gore, but proves his inability to successfully craft a scene of suspense.The film is a reverse reworking of the first Hostel. The three male protagonists are replaced with female counterparts. As common horror movie knowledge goes, females are more well-liked than males, so that should scare us more as we will hopefully sympathize with the characters? This logic works to an extent, but ultimately alienates the audience from the intentions of Roth to bring us closer to the characters. We are disgusted by the first slaying, which only makes us feel bad. The subtleties make all the difference between the supporting characters. Josh (Derek Richardson) from the first Hostel had the right combination between nerd and nice guy to make him an extremely likable character. The audience would rather he and Paxton (Jay Hernandez) switch places. The character of Lorna played by Heather Matarazzo, who is already too recognizable to star in this kind of role, is too over the top, and difficult for the audience to take seriously. In Hostel: Part Two the heroine is exactly who you think it will be, and the audience is not left hung up on that dilemma.The anonymity of the first Hostel added to the scare factor. We are not sure who these people are, what is going on, or how this business works. Unfortunately Hostel: Part Two flushes all these aspects out, and methodically desensitizes us to the procedures involved in this "business". It evens comes to be comical, for example, when businessmen around the world are bidding on victims to torture, it really takes the edge off that anonymous masked man scare. In the first Hostel, the brief awkward contact with Josh's soon to be torturer did not reveal too much about the businessman to make him less menacing later in the film. However, in Part Two, we don't really perceive Stewart (Roger Bart) to be that threatening or believe Todd (Richard Burgi) will carry out his plans, and with each minute more of screen time they receive they become more of a person, and less menacing.The pacing and structure of the film lack in comparison to its predecessor. Paxton worries more about the whereabouts of his friends than does Beth (Lauren German). Little hints are also dropped like the jacket worn by an Oli look-alike, and the severed head text message. Part Two doesn't even give Beth time to digest the information before she too is swept up into the world of torture. There are no superfluous characters such as Kana (Jennifer Lim) from the original, and nothing to even sidestep from the very linear plot, and the 'us and them' feeling generate by Part Two.I wasn't the world's biggest advocate of the first Hostel, but when sequels are made I either like them as a radical departure from the formula such as Aliens, or a film very adherent to the original such as The Bourne Supremacy. Hostel: Part Two seems to be undecided on what it wants to be. Like the Saw films, sequels will be easy to make and will profit well in the box office, but I'm sure the series will quickly erode without a strict adherence to formula. The deterioration in quality between these two films, the first not being so great to begin with, is proof that this series will probably run itself out of business and should perhaps quite while it's winning.
Enjoyable, better than the first one
posted on 25 Jul 2009I guess I have a high tolerance for gore, so I won't comment on the gore content.I will say, though, that this is a much better film than Hostel. I enjoyed the enhanced story about the infrastructure of the factory and the fact that we are introduced more intimately to a couple of the customers.The story is familiar, if you saw the first movie (or even if you didn't), and plot twists are guessable, but I liked the fact that they were in there, anyway.The acting across the board is good to very good.All in all, a fun, enjoyable way to spend a couple of hours.
Once again, Roth uses violence and gore as a substitute for fear, tension and character.
posted on 25 Jul 2009As with the first Hostel (2005), the central concept here is a familiar one, with the stranger in a strange-land motif having been used in a number of great, similarly-minded horror films of the last thirty-years, most notably in John Landis's classic black comedy, An American Werewolf in London (1981) and again, more recently, in films such as Wolf Creek (2005) and Them (2006), The concept is one that lends itself to ideas of paranoia, unease, uncertainty and helplessness, as we realise that there is no one to turn to and no one to trust. With this in mind, the fact that Hostel Part II (2006) seems almost entirely devoid of tension is a real testament to the ineptitude of director Eli Roth and his bizarre quest to put violence and sadism above even the most basic levels of character, narrative, horror and style.If Roth's mentor Quentin Tarantino was once considered to be the Bob Dylan of the radical, post-80's film generation, then Roth himself is probably comparable to Limp Bizkit; with his particular style mixing crude attempts at frat-boy humour, wanton aggression, vicious violence, and knowing nods towards sexism, misogyny and perhaps even xenophobia! Like Tarantino he's clearly seen a lot of films and borrows, references and pastiches with the best of them, but unlike Tarantino, you get the sense that Roth doesn't really love films, but rather, is in awe of the violence that they present to him. His first film, Cabin Fever (2003) attempted to revive the splatter film genre with a combination of Romero's zombie horror and Raimi's kids in the cabin theatrics, with knowing references to films such as Sleepaway Camp, Dawn of the Dead, The Crazies, Deliverance, Sothern Comfort, Evil Dead and The Last House on the Left. Sadly, for all the clever references, buckets of gore and sporadic bursts of T&A, the film was completely devoid of all sense of character or empathy; giving us a film that failed to create any kind of emotional resonance with the audience or anything that made an impression after the final credits had rolled.Roth rectified these problems somewhat with the first Hostel; which overcame the complete lack of anything approaching real character and his shallow attempts to pay lip service to more talented filmmakers, such as Tarantino and Takashi Miike (who's work Roth seems to completely misinterpret on almost every level) by at least having an interesting concept, an air of dramatic mystery and some truly imaginative death sequences. As a result, I had high hopes for this sequel, which Roth promised would up the ante in terms of on screen tension and reveal a little more into the background of the first film's terrifying universe. Sadly, this has proved to be untrue.What we get with Hostel Part II is a complete retread of the first film, only this time, instead of three horny guys we get three horny girls. This is juxtaposed with an interweaving plot strand about two successful businessmen preparing for a weekend of "death sports", who each equip themselves for this inevitable bout of carnage in entirely different ways. For me, this was the much more interesting element of the film, making points about male aggression and the concept of violence and repression; though far too often I felt that this idea took a backseat to the less interesting scenes of the three girls wandering around Eastern Europe, getting drunk, looking for men and generally discussing nothing of particular interest, and at length! The violence this time around has nothing to do with being inventive and, instead, has resigned itself to being gratuitous for the sake of it, with naked teenage girls strung up and disembowelled, eyes gouged out, heads cut off, and at one point, a graphic castration scene. None of it means anything because the characters don't mean anything, so, whereas a more skilled filmmaker could have given us great characters and still created true horror by showing hardly anything in the way of violence at all, Roth panders to the needs of desensitised children by showing everything in lurid, close up detail.It's impossible to feel anything for these characters because they are badly written, badly acted and underdeveloped. As a result, their deaths are meaningless and their suffering used only as a means of titillating the blood lust of teenage boys. Now, I have nothing against violence in cinema, but the old adage that a little goes a long way is certainly true. For me, the most memorable scenes of violence are the ones that hold the most dramatic weight; the ones that feel real and very much believable, where we can feel for the characters in that situation and apply our own various psychological fears and anxieties alongside it.There is plenty here that audiences will find disgusting, maybe even offensive, but there is nothing that will scare you or remain with you when you make your next trip out into town or down a darkened, gloomy alley. Like the first Hostel, this sequel lacks character, tension, thrills and scares, leaving only the excessive violence and attempts to shock. However, unlike the first film, it doesn't have the vaguely original story and that great chase sequence during the last twenty-minutes to make it anything other than a vicious novelty. If you're looking for mindless entertainment for a post-pub Friday night with the gang, then Hostel Part II might just give you a few decent squirms; but really, anyone looking for a truly great horror/suspense thriller would be better off looking elsewhere.
This Hostel is closed for good.
posted on 23 Jul 2009Well, whatever "Hostel" achieved in terms of popularity, shock, quality, and even cult status; this sequel destroyed it but it got in exchange plenty of dollars.The film's opening had potential and reminded me that sometimes sequels are better than the original, specially when you keep connections with the original.We're led to believe that Paxton escaped for good and now will have to start a new life. Sadly for him and his girlfriend, he's murdered in probably the best scene in the movie. In a very MTV style scene but anyhow creepy, Paxton's girlfriend discovers his be-headed body and a cat standing on his neck, licking his blood.Then the film shows that one of the founders of the murder corporation from the original is behind this and now has taken revenge.But things go down when the plot from the original repeats itself but this time with female protagonists. So we will have three tortured women trying to survive exactly the same situations from the original.Expect once again, plenty of torture sequences, boobs (not very nice), and violence.The difference between this sequel and the original is the quality factor. There isn't very much quality on this sequel and that's why I think it's one of the worst torture oriented movies made.Avoid it like the plague, and stick with the original of course, if you liked it.
Lousy sequel
posted on 19 Jul 2009This was a real letdown from the first film. It deserved it's Razzie nominations for Worst Excuse for a Horror Movie, and Worst Prequel or Sequel. I have not seen the two films that beat this for the awards, and I plan to avoid them.There was just too much talk and setup and very little action at the end. They had the formula right in the first one, and I cannot understand why they changed it for this one. There was very little titillation, and almost no horror.I hope they are through as they have certainly lost their way. What was Roth thinking?
Extremely Poor
posted on 17 Jul 2009This film was truly over publicised and I give more credit to the marketing of this film than I do the film itself.The film consists of poorly drawn characters, no exposition into the characters or what they're like so you just don't care and a weak story line. For those who like their gratuitous gore be warned: you'll have to watch one hour and fifteen minutes out of the 1hr 28 before you see the goods. Gore aside, there was some potential for it to be a good sequel. Writing off the jay Hernandez character was a useless exercise (although seeing him being eaten... presumably bit by bit was quite horrific). There's an attempt to learn how one guy is driven to playing out his fantasy but it just doesn't hold water. Overall this film is a waste of money and time. The 'heroine' could've been used a lot more too but instead she was relegated to a villain in a weak ending that lacked imagination and fails to bring us any closer to an understanding (especially the weird kids) which made the entire film looked like a rushed project that could have been trimmed down to a 45 minute slot for a creepshow/Tales from the Crypt/Darkside horror compendium and been more effective. Watch this out of curiosity, watch it if you're bored, but don't expect too much
More Unbelievable Rubbish
posted on 17 Jul 2009I watched this second movie, again with a bit of chagrin. The start was plausible and the holiday etc rolled on. The girls go on holiday and become lured, then trapped in the 'Hostel'. Then the disgusting torture porn starts. Everything that happens in this film is again, JUST NOT BELIEVABLE. It is pure imaginary sadism coming from the mind of mentally unwell people who seem to get off on watching others suffer. The scene where the girl hung upside down and is carved and slashed to death by a sicko with a scythe is utterly disgusting and disturbing. The rest is just as terrible. At a lot of points it seems a little dragged out. The end, and revenge angle was justice done etc was enjoyable but entirely predictable, and the same as the first. That's why my comment about this imaginary crud is similar to the first installment. Didn't enjoy this either and those who did need help. I was genuinely surprised they're making a third one...
This was TORTURE
posted on 15 Jul 2009This is a very cheesy, obnoxious, and predictable movie. Three American girls follow a young woman to Slovakia, but later find themselves being kidnapped and perhaps murdered.This film lacked character development, motivation, and overall uniqueness. I had a huge problem with some of the scenes in the film. For example, the scene where the woman is bathing in blood; it could definitely had been shorter if they would have cut down the men lighting up the candles. Also, when Stuart (Roger Bart) first untied Beth (Lauren German) but then re-tied her again. It made absolutely no sense. In addition, I believe that the entire begin was okay where we thought Paxton (Jay Hernandez) was trapped and killed, that is until he woke up next to a young woman (who by the way serves absolutely no purpose to the movie) and got killed for good.Another issue that I had with this movie was how predictable it was. The young American women were so naïve that of course we felt they had to be killed. Like, Lorna (Heather Matarazzo), didn't your mother ever tell you not to go alone with strangers? Again too pathetic. I say, don't waste your money, time, or effort to watch this film, you would truly be disappointed.
Fair improvements, but weak, lousy script
posted on 15 Jul 2009Eli Roth, the director and writer, has talent. His movies Cabin Fever and Hostel part 1 were creative and fun. Hostel was, for me at the time, was the most gruesomest movie I ever saw. When I wanted to see Hostel 2, I had heard lots of mixed reviews. some said that it was better then the first. Others said that it was a real flop. IT even received a few Razzie awards.When I first saw it, I tried to like it because I really thought that the first one, despite it's flaws, was one of the best horror movies around. But as the movie progressed, I was asking myself 'what were they thinking writing this?' It had none of the imagination of the first.It started off with Paxton, the only survivor of the first. He is living with his girlfriend while recovering from what happened to him at the hostel/Elite Hunting. For some stupid reason, he refuses to tell anybody about what happened to his murdered friend Josh. He feels that the people that were customers of the Elite Hunting will track him down if he reports them because apparently, they are linked to everybody. The next morning, Paxton is found decapitated.Meanwhile, in Europe, three young girls are vacationing. Soon, a strange girl named Axelle (Vera Jordanova) meets up with them and offers them a chance for relaxation at a hostel/spa in Slovakia. Oddly enough, the three girls accept Axelle's offer and head of to Slovakia. When they get there, each of the girls are acquainted with the fun and pleasures that the spa offers. But soon, their relaxation suddenly turns into their worst nightmare.As the movie goes on, each girl gets picked on one by one. Lorna (Heather Matarazzo), the dopey idiot, is lured to her bloody fate by some stranger she meets who she falls in love with. She's hacked to death, while being hung upside down naked, by a scythe a woman with bathing in her blood. Whitney, the 'brat' of the group, almost escapes after biting off the nose of the make-up artist that was trying to prepare her for her ultimate doom with a customer, she is taken into full custody and decapitated off-screen, by Roger Bart.Then it all comes down to Beth (Lauren German), who is obviously the first choice of the audience to be the survivor of the movie. Apparently, and for some odd reason she didn't see this coming; There's a scene where Beth is saved from a beating by the street children by Axelle. Then Axelle takes her to her house, asks her to sleep in her bed, and then Axelle gives her to the owners of the hostel, where she is taken away to be murdered. Before She is tortured to death by her crazy friend, Stuart (Roger Bart), he forces her into having sex on the floor of the torture chamber But luckily, she kicks him in his shins and chains him to the chair. After the owners of the hostel come into the torture chamber, they see that Beth has Stuart chained while threatening to castrate him with scissors. The owner of the murderous hostel says that she can live, but she has to buy her way out. Beth, apparently, had a huge sum of money left to her by distant family members. The owner agrees, Beth castrates Stuart, she is given the tattoo symbol which proves her as a Elite Hunting member, and she kills Axelle as revenge. The movie ends with the hope of a third installment.While watching this movie, I couldn't help but wonder what was going through Eli Roth's head as he wrote this. The characters were pathetic , especially Stuart, who agrees to go to the hostel, but chickens out before ultimately becoming one of the main villains of the movie. In my opinion, I wish they didn't kill off Paxton. Throughout the first movie, I was glad that he made it through. Plus, there were so many lousy scenes in this movie, like the girls accepting an offer for a spa from a girl they hardly know, Paxton not reporting the police about the hostel (which actually would've been cool to see), Beth being the only survivor of the group because she was the only one that had enough money to pay her way out of the hostel, Stuart asking his sadistic friend Todd if what they are doing is sick, and the part when Todd, who is through out the first half of the movie intrigued with killing somebody, chickens out because he saws off half of Whitney's face. The acting is okay. But the script should've just been recycled.I'll admit that there were parts of the movie that made it sort of an improvement over the first. In one scene, we see Whitney tied up in a cell with a bunch of prisoners bond and gaged for their untimely death. It was good to see from the killers point of view. Whitney's first attempt at escaping was good. Plus, it was, I guess, good to see Beth get back at her torturer and save herself from her death.My advice for Eli Roth would be to go back and remake this. It could be sort of like when the makers of the Exorcist the Beginning remade that movie into the descent Dominion: Prequel to the Exorcist.My overall rating; C+
Oh No, What Have They Done
posted on 18 Aug 2009Were do i begin with Hostel Part 2, first of all it ain't as good as the first one. Not by much though but it is definitely not as good. One of these reasons are because there isn't much action or horror it's more about the hostel than anything. Were as the first one shocked those who watched it due to it's gore this one doesn't because we have already seen it, despite a very different death at the end that i don't recall seeing in any film before but that needs to be seen yourself. Although the film lacks in torture scenes it is based more about how the hostel functions which is how the film gains a bit of credit it helps you understand the film a bit more. Also one good thing about again is the women involved in the film they are very nice to look at. The main things is it ain't better than its predecessor and it less gory but still worth watching if you like a horror films, more of a rental than a purchase.