Comments on: Movie Review: Hostel: Part II

By: God

God — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 23:06:55 +0000

Hostel II SUCKED! Part I was alot BETTER! The first movie explains that Americans people are the targets of torture by Slovakians in the abandoned factory. Hostel II contradicts itself all the way. WTF??? Plus, the main character (Beth) is a spoil rich bitch that deserved to die in part II, unlike the main character in the first movie who I empathized with… Plus, Paxton’s character has it alot harder to escape,which makes Hostel I even better…

By: faliklunj

faliklunj — Mon, 11 Jun 2007 07:52:25 +0000

Today’s horror films lack the ability to scare so they go for the shock instead.
Why? Because we are no longer afraid of the dark, the boogie man, ghosts, the physically deformed/handicapped etc. which used to be, in more superstitious times, perfectly acceptable elements in any scary movie. Now we have electric lights, a politically-correct view of physical imperfections and a healthy skepticism towards the supernatural, so the only thing they have left to scare us is gore/torture movie (which we giggle at with our girlfriends).
I foresee a return to Frank Capra-esque type films. If culture is cyclical, that can be the only way to go.

By: Robb H

Robb H — Mon, 11 Jun 2007 01:16:35 +0000

Lol, sorry for the harshness of my prior phrasing, faliklunj. For some reason at the moment I felt the extreme, intense desire to really “hammer the point across” as far as my opinion on movie length. I’ll say that I do understand your position on it, but I still prefer build-ups. To me, it’s all part of the fun and ride, even if the build-up is not by any means exceptional or has a lot of ‘eye-rolling’ moments. I would just feel cheated of the ‘full effect’ if there was next to nothing in the way of build-up.

By: Anie Cella

Anie Cella — Sun, 10 Jun 2007 01:17:29 +0000

Quoting you:
“…not giving you the horror and torture you craved …
Thatâ€™s right, Eli Roth has successfully gotten the MPAA to okay sequences that involve both violence and sex at the same time (this is something theyâ€™ve had trouble with in the past) …
what kind of sick f*cks would be willing to spend cash to kill a person.”

The kind of sick f*cks who crave watching at least a realistic detailed emulation of others being tortured or slashed, for your ‘entertainment,’ and those of you who “love” such depictions especially if mixed at the same time with sex. The mixture of violence with sex in the nightly grisly news are actions you will understand the emotions for more than most people.

The popularity as entertainment for some of you gives me a better
understanding of why the news each night reports on the thrills that actual
torturers and killers get, after being excited by these movies, to capture
a real person, usually a young woman, and torturing and killing them.

As I said, you understand that kind of thing better than most of us. You can laugh and be light-hearted, but it’s just a for-now milder form of what you so enjoy seeing in these movies. But no, I don’t think there’s a cure for that, just the law to prevent it from happening more, for fun, than it already does.
And pulling for someone doing the ‘right thing’ while you crave the other for the thrills of such a movie is just rationalization because you hope not every character gets it, only a few.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Sat, 09 Jun 2007 22:22:01 +0000

The Hostel 2 is so bad…That guy Eli Roth should be ashamed of him self for making that shit. Than i wondered how hi could make the first
Hostel full of great characters and a good plot.

I hope hi won’t make anymore movies and I’ll hate him forever for killing a great movie like Hostel and so easy to do a sequel.

Came on…it so easy…you just need to make the same as the first one…with some party going on, pot, clubbing and of curse nice torture scene and freaky killer.
We don’t wanna see a mafia boss, stupid killers and blah blah blah

I hate u Eli Roth

By: Richie

Richie — Sat, 09 Jun 2007 03:12:37 +0000

This Movie Was Gruesomely Funny As Hell, Right When You Think The Chick Is Ganna Be Mutilated By the Sick Rich Guy, The Cord Of The Saw Is To Short And Gets Unpluged!!!! LOL IT WAS SO FREAKING FUNNY! The Whole Theater Just Bursted Into Laughter, This Has To Be the Sickest/Funnest Horror/Suspense Movie I Have Ever Saten Though.

By: faliklunj

faliklunj — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 19:27:57 +0000

Despite being hysterically insulted by you Robb, I will endeavor to explain exactly what I mean. For matinee programming reasons, a lot of films are artificially padded to run longer. Those characters that pop up and then disappear, never to return: those “Basil Expositions’ actors that turn up and repeat the storyline more than twice: and those ‘female interest’ characters that lend nothing to the plot are all stuffed into the movie to give it length. I’d much prefer it if they got to the point. WE KNOW the cop’s gonna get revenge for his buddy/wife/kid’s death (do we really care about a character we’ve only met for half an hour when they get blown away? I don’t I don’t see anyone in the cinema caring either). WE KNOW that those bullets are going to miss the hero. WE KNOW no little kids are going to die horribly. WE KNOW the black dude’s gonna cop it in the first reel. Cinema is so predictable that I find myself accurately guessing the script before the credits have run (the opening credits, mind). So, the future is, probably not to your liking, going to have double bills and features coupled with shorts. I am trying to get the franchises here in Prague to show short films and student movies. Without the large cinemas, these gems may never get shown to the general public, probably because they can’t get their pointy little heads away from the ‘feature’ concept.

By: txGreg

txGreg — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 18:52:49 +0000

@Robb H,

I’m not sure if we’re on the same page or not… You’re right in that cut down that short, it wouldn’t have been a feature. I’m saying that - from my point of view - it really wasn’t a “feature” anyway. It was a violent music video, heavily padded. I felt no sense of tension from the build-up. I felt no connection to the supposed protagonists from all the time spent “getting to know them.” For me, the payoff was no better at the full running length than it would have been at “music video length.” I guess I’m just saying I didn’t care for the movie… I thought it was very poorly executed, and it did nothhing to enhance Eli Roth’s reputation for me. Oh well, different strokes and all that. :)

By: James

James — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 11:04:50 +0000

I picked up a copy of Hostel: Part II while overseas in Sarajevo. Note: Sorry Eli but trust me, I WILL buy the DVD. This movie plays very well and was the first movie in a year to leave me unsettled. Hostel:Part 1 being the other. The whole of the movie was excuted (no pun intented) grossly, cruelly, effectively, and wonderfully. When I want to see a horror movie, I want to be scared. This accomplished this effect. The ante has to be upped. We’re no longer scared of the constant slasher genre pieces that come out lately. The Horror Greats of the past have become cliche and predictable, i.e.- Jason and Freddy always come back. These two film work outside that cliche because in the back of your mind you know you are watching a movie, but you think, ‘Hey, this could actually happen.’ That, my friends, is most unsettling thing to think about. Not only that, but what kind of person could stand there and torture someone to death. Maybe you thought about. Maybe you stopped yourself before you got to carried away. That’s the reality- there are sick people out there who might like to act. I only hope no one gets inspired to open one of these places.
As far as the plot, for a second outting I was not expecting much difference from the first. Three guys are replaced by three girls. While in the first movie, you know the creepy shaky hand surgeon was going to play some role. The creepy people are all around this time from the train ride there to the parties in the Slovenia town. Our favorite incorrigible bastard kids are back and better than before. I agree with Peter Sciretta; the suspenseful scene with the businessman and the kids. Sometimes, a little can go further than a lot. The scene with Heather Matarazzo reminded me of something from ‘Batman: The Cult.’ Well executed (there I go again) and leaves you shuttering. Best of all was not the shock and gore, which there literally was, but the business side of the ’service’ offered to the highest bidder. Draw your own conclusion on the metaphor the business types, but in a world of capitalism where anything can be bought and sold… this concept is scary by itself.
As a whole, this film is effective, if not surpasses the expectations of a fan of horror. Sometimes in art the boundaries have to pushed. To all those people out there who are too sensitive or too PC, my recommendation is to go a real horror movie like Wil Ferrell’s ‘Bewitched.’ If you want to see a true horror film that will leave a bad taste in your mouth… this is your movie.

PS- ELI ROTH- I PROMISE TO BUY THIS ON DVD, swear- cross my heart.

PPS– That last scene in the factory was just wrong. man– Wrong!!! Reader- Treat women with respect. Trust Eli and me on this one.

By: Robb H

Robb H — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 22:09:59 +0000

Regarding your comment on the first Hostel, txGreg: If it had in fact been chopped down in such a way, it wouldn’t be a feature at all, but rather exactly what you said–a music video or short. Some degree of build-up is necessary to make any of the later shocks/gore/surprises effective. If Paxton and his pals’ entrance into the ‘dungeon of unthinkable tortures’ had occurred within 2 minutes of the opening, followed directly escape/revenge sequence had taken place directly afterward, nothing in either sequence would have been built up sufficiently to provide any sort of pay-off. The build-up has to be there, followed by reward.

By: txGreg

txGreg — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 14:42:03 +0000

@Robb H

Well - not necessarily wrong… as for the wrong reasons. If a movie has the “skillz” to tell a long tale and actually be interesting, you’re right — it should be longer. However, some movies (Hostel part 1 IMO) should be cut down to approximately music video length.

So, while I don’t agree with faliklunj for his (?) reasons, I could certainly agree for other ones.

@faliklunj

BTW - what world do you live in where movies aren’t “pumped out, like in the days of Roger Corman?” I find that to be one of the problems with films of today. It may take ‘em a while to get it done, but there’s probably less thought and effort put into today’s movies than most of Roger’s work.

By: Robb H

Robb H — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 03:38:47 +0000

Pretty much everything you said is objectively wrong, and incredibly stupid, faliklunj. So, let’s see…hollywood should start churning out double/triple-bills of films each 45-60 min. in length, “because we live in the age of pop videos, microwaveable meals and the soundbite”. Amazing logic there. I’ll give you a hint–it’s NOT a GOOD thing that we live in such an age. The very last thing feature length films need to become is any shorter. Average feature length in the horror genre today is around just under 90 minutes…why whittle it down even further? To do away with ANY trace of tension, plot structure, and character development in favor of immediate ADHD gratification?If anything, they should be made longer on average, so as to battle, at least in some small way, the crippling epidemic of ever-lowering attention spans plaguing the world’s youth, especially the U.S. Sorry, I know this has nothing to do with Hostel II, but that was literally one of the stupidest fucking things I’ve ever read.

By: Judy Howa

Judy Howa — Mon, 04 Jun 2007 10:55:08 +0000

When people enjoy watching a feature length horror movie involving torture, it’s disturbing. Sex & violence together is really perverted. Sad commentary on movie goers.

By: faliklunj

faliklunj — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 17:47:41 +0000

Movies, by and large, are too long. We live in the age of the pop video, microwave meals and the soundbite and the move back to TV viewing represents that. I prefer the TV episode length of 35 to 40 minutes. Bring back cinema serials and double bills. Film people are mostly up their own arses. It takes up to four years to get a film into production. Movies should be pumped out, like in the days of Roger Corman.

By: txGreg

txGreg — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 15:43:35 +0000

Sorry - going backwards a bit here… In your review, you mention people not liking the long set-up in H1. I’m one of those people. I didn’t like it because it didn’t do what you claim it did. It did nothing to develop the characters - or make me care for them - that couldn’t have been done in five minutes. It simply drug on & on, repeatedly reminding me that these were a couple of a-holes that I wouldn’t care to know. In turn, this minimized the impact of the finale, because I didn’t care that they got offed. I might see this iteration anyway, but it will be at the discount theater.

By: asdf

asdf — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 08:58:14 +0000

Meh, I was at this screening as well. Actually heard the reviewer ask this question. My take on the movie; did a search to see if he actually posted. Anyway, to me the movie was merely decent, enjoyable, and definitely worth the ten bucks to see it.. I wouldn’t say it is as clever as the original. Usually in sequels the killings are more brutal, but manages to lose the magic of the first. Well, unlike this reveiwer, I didn’t find the scenes more difficult to stomach - your friend sounds like a pussy. And while I thoroughly enjoyed the ending, I definitely saw it coming from about 67 minutes away. I think the majority of people who see it will agree the first was better, as I didn’t really know what to expect. Hostel Part II follows a lot of horror movie cliches - maybe I’m just jaded. I would say 7 is about right though.

By: faliklunj

faliklunj — Thu, 31 May 2007 22:44:12 +0000

You’re all pussies raped by political correctness. You’re getting worked up by pseudo-snuff. Rich kids whose reality is distorted by capitalism and gonzo porn. At least abel Ferrara and their ilk had something to say: the current crop of shlockers are just cashing in on pure gore: there’s a genre that’s not gonna last the month.

By: Maya

Maya — Thu, 31 May 2007 19:40:57 +0000

Thoroughly enjoyable review, Peter, and appreciated from the perspective of someone who stayed up late at night pounding out his own on the keyboard. Count me as a new fan to your film site.

By: Fyodor_Fish

Fyodor_Fish — Thu, 31 May 2007 18:10:10 +0000

Wow, great review Mr. Sciretta. Looks like I’ll give Eli Roth’s latest foray into torture porn a pass (as I did the Hostel) and this is coming from someone who’s seen hundreds of horror films. Glad you enjoyed it though.

By: Bianca

Bianca — Thu, 31 May 2007 18:06:07 +0000

I gotta say … even though the Heather Matarazzo scene was unsettling
and scary, i really don’t think this had anywhere near the amount of torture,
blood and violence as the first. I liked this one much better than Hostel I, which
i was really let down by. Maybe it’s because I’m a girl though and was pretty
excited with the way it unfolds towards the end.