Disclaimer: As a accredited member of press, I get invited to press screenings under the condition that /Film won’t post our reviews until the day of release. And for the last year and a half, I have never EVER posted a movie review before the date of release. That said, Eli Roth told me to, so I am. Yes, I did just write that.
I just got back from the FIRST EVER screening of Hostel: Part II. According to director Eli Roth, who was in attendance, there hasn’t even been a test screening. And I could tell he wasn’t lying. During the screening he ran around the theater watching the audience reaction. Sometimes he was shifting in his seat eagerly anticipating the film’s laugh out loud or edge of your seat suspense moments. And I noticed the grin on his face when all of them hit the audience so precisely. After the screening Roth did a Question and Answer session (which we will post tomorrow) where he urged the crowd to write their reviews to online websites and spread the word. After the Q & A, I approached Roth and told him that I would be interviewing him tomorrow and that I loved the film, but couldn’t post my review until next week (per studio guidelines). He told me to “Just Post it.” I whipped out my digital voice recorder (the same one I had in my bag for the interview tomorrow) and asked him to give me permission on tape (or microchip). He told me to write the f’n review but warned me not to give any spoilers away (audio can be provided at request to the studio). So here you have it, my review of Hostel: Part II, per request of Eli Roth.
First off, many people didn’t like the first Hostel film because of the long set-up. I actually dugg the fact that Eli spent so much time building up the characters, not giving you the horror and torture you craved. It made you care about the boys, and when those scenes did come, you were that much more invested in their safety and possible escape. Those people will be relieved to hear that Hostel: Part II is a much tighter film. Roth spends less time with the girls leading up to the horror, but still manages to create the important and needed emotional bond.
One of the most intriguing scenes in Hostel: Part I was the part with Rick Hoffman’s character, the millionaire asshole who spoke to Jay Hernandez in the waiting/dressing room. The heart of Eli Roth’s idea was a website he discovered which promised human lives for millionaire cash. I’m not quite sure the website is real or even really exists, but that was the genesis of the idea. And to me the most interesting part of this concept is: what kind of sick f*cks would be willing to spend cash to kill a person.
In Hostel: Part II, Roth explores the story from both sides: three unexpecting American girls who are lured to a Slovakian Hostel, and two business men who have won an auction to kill two of them. And the best part of this is that Roth could have portrayed the two businessmen as total assholes, but he doesn’t. Richard Burgi (who many remember as Alan York / Kevin Carroll from the first season of 24) is the gung-ho business man who is fronting the trip, while Roger Bart plays a family man who is dragged there by Burgi’s character. Not only is the character empathetic, but you hope he will do the right thing. And when shit hits the fan in the climax, everything unfolds unlike you could ever expect it to happen.
But the key to Hostel II is seeing the behind the scenes action. From the millionaires bidding on potential college aged girls on their blackberries, to the cult like hound-dog tattoos, to the make-up room where the girls are sent to look beautiful before the kill, to the weapons and wardrobe room where the killers can pick out their exact murderous fantasy. It’s all so creepy.And sure, the torture sequences in the original disgusted a lot of people. Gratuitous and exploitative were the words I remember being thrown around. Let me warn you that Hostel: Part II is even more violent, intense and bloody than the original. Someone needs to explain to me how the hell the torture sequences got past the MPAA Ratings board. Most of the sequences not only involve blood, decapitation, and brutal violence, but also sex. That’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 they’ve had trouble with in the past). The first torture sequence was so much for one of my other reviewer friends that he ran from the theater. Not because he didn’t like the movie, not because he wasn’t enjoying the film, but because he was getting physically sick. If you thought Hostel: Part I was violent, you haven’t seen anything yet. Hostel: Part II has some of the sickest footage to ever grace the big screen. And there are other sequences which show Roth’s growth as a filmmaker. For example, one sequence with a bunch of little kids and a gun had people on the edges of their seats, yet involved no on screen violence. It was pure suspense, and masterfully done.
Heather Matarazzo is perfect as the motherly not-so-fun home-sick girl Lorna. One of the other things that makes Hostel: Part II so much creepier than the first is that this time it involves some college aged women. It becomes a test for the audience: can they sit through seeing the girls go through the same troubles that the boys from Hostel: Part I endured? The fact that you are watching females instead of men in these terrifying situations makes it every bit more horrifying.
And yes, the film begins only seconds after the ending of Hostel: Part I, with Jay Hernandez on the train. This is a nice touch. Roth uses the cinematic reunion to explain to any newcomers what happened in the first film. It’s done through quick flashbacks, and doesn’t feel at all like exposition.
I also think this film shows Roth’s growth as a cinematic horror director. There were some shots and sequences that impressed me immensely. Or it could be that he had the money and time this time around (Hostel: Part I cost under $4 million).
As Roth requested, I don’t want to give too much away in terms of plot. So I’m sorry if I left out some of the details. Truth be told, the audience loved the flick, and so did I. It’s the rare sequel that is better than the first. But squeamish beware, Hostel: Part II pushes the R-Rating to it’s limit. And that might be too much for a lot of people. I dare you to see it!
/Film Rating: 7 out of 10
May 31st, 2007 at 5:56 am
Wow. I guess the workprint has changed a lot then.. like, he made a completely different film. Because the workprint was dull, predictable, not particularly gory or extreme. Sex? Where? Edge of your seat? Yeah, about to leave. Hostel 2 was even worse than Hostel 1, and Cabin Fever was just as crap. Eli Roth is a crap horror movie maker. His movies are not scary, suspenseful or engaging.
May 31st, 2007 at 8:41 am
The point the first one missed was having boys tortured at all. There’s no shock factor there at all - guys, especially, young American college fucks, get splattered all the time in films. No-one cares. The audiences just laugh. That’s why the original slashers were so much more effective. They exploited our fascination with sex and death by having gorgeous, half-naked girls tortured and murdered. Those kids in Hostel 1? They had it coming.
May 31st, 2007 at 11:06 am
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.
May 31st, 2007 at 11:10 am
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.
May 31st, 2007 at 12:40 pm
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.
May 31st, 2007 at 3:44 pm
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.
June 1st, 2007 at 1:58 am
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.
June 1st, 2007 at 8:43 am
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.
June 1st, 2007 at 10:47 am
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.
June 4th, 2007 at 3:55 am
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.
June 4th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
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.
June 5th, 2007 at 7:42 am
@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.
:)
June 5th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
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.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:04 am
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.
June 8th, 2007 at 11:52 am
@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. :)
June 8th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
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.
June 8th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
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.
June 9th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
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
June 9th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
Quoting you:
“…not giving you the horror and torture you craved …
That’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 they’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.
June 10th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
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.
June 11th, 2007 at 12:52 am
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.
June 26th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
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…