Hostel: Part II

[Dreddz]

After a legend put a DVDrip of the film onto the internet, I put it onto DVD and watched it. I thoroughly enjoyed it, more so than the first. I dont get why some people loathed the first film, I thought it was unsettlingly awesome. Maybe a bit slow moving but still great. Fortunately this film didnt start as slow, although still not going lightening speed. I liked the two different perspectives that were shown in the movie, not entirely original but nonetheless better than if they had only shown the victims story. I found this movie less gory, which may or may not be a good thing. It certainly isnt less unsettling though, probably more so on that factor.

Overall I thought this movie was brilliant and better than the original. Which is quite something in this day and age.

[*ETERNAL FANTASY*]

yea my friend and i randomly just watched number 1 in the movies when it came out and i like how its one of those tension builders...like it made me feel uneasy from mid point to the end...so i am curious about the second movie!

but seriously though i hear its more gory than the first (SPOILER)something about getting a saw to a face and some unholy things done to "manly parts" lol

whats the deal with the girl hangin upside down...she looks screwed!

[Madame Adequate]

I thoroughly enjoyed it, more so than the first. I dont get why some people loathed the first film, I thought it was unsettlingly awesome.

Because it, like almost everything else in the genre*, and like this sequel probably is, is a talentless exercise in using shock tactics and blunt, brutal methods of violence to effect the audience. It requires no effort, no thought, no insight, and no expertise. Anyone - and I literally mean anyone - can make a film like Saw or Hostel, because it's so freaking easy to unsettle people through depictions of torture. Even Hellraiser isn't terribly impressive, and that's a really well-made, well conceived horror movie that uses the trope.

Short answer: Because even the Silent Hill movie is more enjoyable, scarier, and has significantly more awesome gore.

* Edit: I should say, like almost everything else since the early 1990s.

[Discord]

I'm still failing to see how torture-films can be cool.

[escobert]

I'm still failing to see how torture-films can be cool.

I'm with you on that one.

[Monol]

I agree with the following two comments but i find myself wanting to feed my darker appetite once in awhile...to be honest im not a fan of torture flicks...or horror flicks in general (at least new age horror) it really just doesnt do it for me...the first hostel film to be honest wasnt as "horrible" as i thought it would be...I mean I'm a man who loves karma but the first one sort of over did it for me...i would like to see the second one though for some reason as im intrigued to see this new
"twist" and i would like to see if a horror movie can pull off a decent sequel (or continuation in this case) AND twist and win me over though i doubt it (I've heard good things about the movie though so we shall see) And golly seems i got that off my chest and with that

Hellraiser was awsome

[*ETERNAL FANTASY*]

I'm still failing to see how torture-films can be cool.

Personally its not about the gore (well not just that) but what happens before that...you know the whole ' the anticipation of death is worse than death itself' (i know that was from some movie lol)! Honestly though i dont really like watch torture films regularly...jus wait for that one flick that might actually be worth paying 11 bucks (or 750mb's if you d/l) for lol!

And i thought the silent hill movie was ok up until the whole "lets just lay out the whole plot for you in 10 mins" in the last 2/3 of the movie....it went all pear shaped from there lol!

[Sergeant Hartman]

That eye from the first one was enough for me

[Dreddz]

but seriously though i hear its more gory than the first (SPOILER)something about getting a saw to a face and some unholy things done to "manly parts" lol

It isnt as gory as the first one. Nothing tops the eye gouge in this one. (SPOILER) But you did happen to mention the part where the man gets his penis victim to some untasteful scenarios, I found that part surprisingly graphic

I thoroughly enjoyed it, more so than the first. I dont get why some people loathed the first film, I thought it was unsettlingly awesome.

Because it, like almost everything else in the genre*, and like this sequel probably is, is a talentless exercise in using shock tactics and blunt, brutal methods of violence to effect the audience. It requires no effort, no thought, no insight, and no expertise. Anyone - and I literally mean anyone - can make a film like Saw or Hostel, because it's so freaking easy to unsettle people through depictions of torture. Even Hellraiser isn't terribly impressive, and that's a really well-made, well conceived horror movie that uses the trope.

Your in no posi<b></b>tion to be saying that anyone can make a film like this. Are you a film director? No. So how would you know. Maybe when your a multi oscar winning film director then Ill take your word to be true. And you comparing Saw and Hostel just shows you havent seen either of the Hostel movies. Yes, they both show explicit torture sequences but Hostel is more story driven, especially in the second outing. The fact that there are very few violent scenes in both Hostels should show that the film director isnt luring people in just for the gore. And the most unsettling aspects of Hostel arent the torture scenes, which you would know if you had seen them.

And Eli Roth talentless? You dont know what your talking about.

[Madame Adequate]

Your in no posi<b></b>tion to be saying that anyone can make a film like this. Are you a film director? No. So how would you know. Maybe when your a multi oscar winning film director then Ill take your word to be true.

You do realize that this argument means you have absolutely no grounds to judge the movie either, right?

[Monol]

Your in no posi<b></b>tion to be saying that anyone can make a film like this. Are you a film director? No. So how would you know. Maybe when your a multi oscar winning film director then Ill take your word to be true.

You do realize that this argument means you have absolutely no grounds to judge the movie either, right?

OHHH SNAP!

[Mr.SimpleandClean]

That eye from the first one was enough for me :(

i feel you

[Necronopticous]

The first film was great.

Using Miike's "Audition" formula, Hostel showed me that Eli Roth knew what made great foreign torture/horror films great, and that he understood what American films of the same genre were lacking. A lighthearted, braindead script turned grim and amazing all at once, and the audience learns from the inside out what's happening. After the turning point I thought the script, acting, and direction were rich, and Roth even managed to put a bit of cultural commentary in there.

Also, kudos for the perfect Miike cameo.

Hostel II was awful.

The style was stupid, anticlimactic, boring, and as broodingly traditional as it gets. The gore was somehow much worse than its cheaper predecessor, and seemed almost comical and cartoonish...Eh, I could go on forever. I honestly don't know what Eli Roth was thinking. It makes me wonder if Hostel was accidently a great film.

[Peegee]

It was definitely not a good film. It just didn't deserve a sequel. I don't know if I should blame the director or YOU (america) though.

Why blame the director:

- One of the major reasons the first film was good is because Hollywood-based "torture porn" isn't very prolific, if at all existing (8mm was not torture porn, Se7en had a plot that involved murder and torture, and anything else I haven't watched or cared about.
- Another reason was, as you put it, the formula. The first film was basically a huge hommage to Japanese horror / gore movies. Miike plays a cameo as a customer, the suicide circle-esque suicide of the girl with a blowtorch-cauterized face, etc etc. The second movie was nothing like that. Sure they had some visceral scenes and some hommages (Elizabeth Báthory), but to me, they couldn't do much, which leads me to the next section.

Why blame you, the american viewing public.

Oh yes I went there. The only reason a film about three women going to Slovakia could be truly murdered and etc would be....well that's impossible. Whether it is our feminist-centric world or a 'universal' reverence for females, I don't really find many instances where women are brutalised on-camera, with no negative consequences for the action.

The one person who was shown to die on screen was killed by a woman. The other gets cannibalised but that isn't shown, just strongly implied. The last person doesn't even have anything happen to her (Oli had some of his digits chopped off by mistake), and the 'haha I have more money than this entire country' deux ex machina? C'mon.

Actually now that I think about it, the movie itself sucked. Followed the same plot with none of the wit.

[Shoeberto]

"torture porn"

Man, I was hoping to be the one to bring out that term!

I have not seen either of the Hostel films nor do I ever plan to, because after seeing the first three Saw films, I refuse to support the torture porn genre. Oh, sure, Hostel has plot, it has social commentary... that means jack if it's advertised as torture porn, gets buzz as torture porn, and inspires thousands of gradually more poorly made sequels and knockoffs of the same genre.

The worst part is that the only choice anyone has for horror films anymore is either these or bad Japanese remakes.