 |  |
Review #468 of 365
Movie Review of Hostel: Part II (2007) [R] 93 minutes
WIP™ Scale: $3.00
Where Viewed: United Artists Denver Pavilions Stadium 15, Denver, CO
When 1st Seen: 9 June 2007
Time: 3:30 p.m.
DVD Release Date: 23 October 2007
Directed by: Eli Roth (Hostel)
Written by: Eli Roth (Hostel)
Featured Cast (Where You Might Remember Him/Her From):
Lauren German (You Are Here) • Roger Bart (The Producers) • Heather Matarazzo (Believe in Me) • Bijou Phillips (You Are Here) • Richard Burgi ("Desperate Housewives") • Vera Jordanova (Harjunpää ja kiusantekijät) • Jay Hernandez (World Trade Center) • Jordan Ladd (Death Proof) • Stanislav Ianevski (Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire)
Click for 'Review Lite' [a 150-word or less review of this film]
First of all, I used my free movie pass to see this Hostel: Part 2. There is no way on this earth I would have paid to see it given that I gave its predecessor $3 on the W.I.P. Scale™. Second of all, there is no way Hostel: Part 2 is worth $3 on the W.I.P. Scale™. I vowed never to go lower than $3. It's the equivalent of 0 stars. So, on record, all $3 should get split accordingly: to $1 to actress Lauren German for being the only actor in the film that even sort of tries to make the film interesting, $1 to actress Heather Matarazzo for enduring a hideous upside down scene, and $.50 to Finnish model and actress Vera Jordanova for being so beautifully creepy, and $.50 to actor Richard Burgi best known for his role on "Desperate Housewives" for playing one of the most decisively psychotic characters who actually has a change of heart only to get devoured by in an elevator by terrifying mongrels for it—and no I won't apologize for spoiling that plot point.
Come on.
What does Quentin Tarantino see in this to put his name at the beginning of both parts to this story? If writer / director Eli Roth does have talent for both writing and directing, could somebody please give him money to do a real movie so we could find out for sure and maybe understand what Q.T. sees in him.
Naturally, after the first one, I went into Hostel: Part II with no expectations. The film starts off pretty close to the same way as the first one. Co-eds, in Europe, this time Rome and female, are scouted out by creepy Europeans as potential candidates for auction to bidders by high rollers who pay to come to Slovokia and murder them in the most sadistic, horrifying, evil, tortuous ways they can conceive. It's all part of a club / company run by a guy that actually makes Hannibal Lecter seem like a gentle soul. This ruthless, child-murdering villain may not do the actual killing, but he owns, profits from, and sets up the entire thing with a clean conscience.
Come on.
What does Quentin Tarantino see in this to put his name at the beginning of both parts to this story? If writer / director Eli Roth does have talent for both writing and directing, could somebody please give him money to do a real movie so we could find out for sure and maybe understand what Q.T. sees in him.
Naturally, after the first one, I went into Hostel: Part II with no expectations. The film starts off pretty close to the same way as the first one. Co-eds, in Europe, this time Rome and female, are scouted out by creepy Europeans as potential candidates for auction to bidders by high rollers who pay to come to Slovokia and murder them in the most sadistic, horrifying, evil, tortuous ways they can conceive. It's all part of a club / company run by a guy that actually makes Hannibal Lecter seem like a gentle soul. This ruthless, child-murdering villain may not do the actual killing, but he owns, profits from, and sets up the entire thing with a clean conscience.
"…even more dreadful than the first film."
So, Beth (Lauren German), Lorna (Heather Matarazzo), and Whitney (Bijou Phillips) are persuaded aboard a train to Prague to switch trains and travel with nude art model, Axelle (Vera Jordanova) who just happens to be some relation to the owner. Just as in Hostel, the women are lured to a special Hostel where and their every movement is monitored for the best and creepiest ways to abduct them, one by one, to take them to a former prison now turned into an elaborate chamber of horrors and torture. Despite some weird signs, the young women don't catch on to what's going on until it's mostly too late.
This time around, Roth gives us more insight into the people on the other side of the business and the clients—all of whom must get a tattoo of a blood hound's head to signify they are part of the club. The whole thing works because once you pay to become a customer, you must kill a person, and once you've done that, you're going to keep your mouth shut because you're not going to want to be put to death yourself. As soon as Beth, Whitney, and Lorna check into the hostel, their photos are immediately scanned to a world wide network of rich, very sick people who then bid on the rights to do the deed. Todd (Richard Burgi) and his buddy Stuart (Roger Bart) win the rights to Beth and Whitney. Poor Lorna, the least attractive of the trio, is won by an evil woman with a penchant for blood baths, literally. The little town in Slovakia has, apparently, nothing going for it economically, but this. Gangs of children run the streets attacking tourists and stealing their stuff. The idyllic settings mask nothing but horror as nearly everyone seems to be in on it.
Some people have labeled this film the best horror film in a decade. Hostel: Part II is not a horror film. It is a gore fest dread film. The film does cause dread. There was never a scary moment. There was, however, dreadful moment after dreadful scene. I dreaded worrying about how dreadful it was going to be. I was not let down. It was even more dreadful than the first film.
Probably the worst thing about both films is that it's difficult to comprehend the point of making them in the first place. It's beyond the "what kind of a human mind does it take to think up such a story", and moves right on to what is wrong with a culture that presents fertile ground for a large number of wealthy, intelligent, educated people to invest money in this concept and then watch the millions of dollars roll in from theaters showing it to people who go to see them. Hostel, for example and according to the-numbers.com had a budget of $4.8 million and an advertising budget of $19 million for worldwide grosses of $78.4 million. Not a bad return on the investment. Hostel: Part II was given a budget of $7.5 million. Figures for advertising and box office results are yet to come. It's just terribly hard to comprehend why people would want to go and see either of these films. What exactly draws people to see elaborate films that have no purpose other than to show people being tortured and killed by other sadistic people? This is NOT art unless you consider the talent it takes to design and execute the special effects of people being tortured and killed without really torturing and killing them. I guess it's just beyond my comprehension. All I can say is that Hostel: Part II is slightly less creative as a re-hash of much of the same from Hostel, though it does go behind the scenes more, and deliver more of the despicable psychopathology behind the customers. I cannot recommend the film, and I can see no possible benefit to seeing it. The only emotion it stirred in me was, as I wrote, dread. And now I am filled with even more dread that a Part III might be in the works already.
This time around, Roth gives us more insight into the people on the other side of the business and the clients—all of whom must get a tattoo of a blood hound's head to signify they are part of the club. The whole thing works because once you pay to become a customer, you must kill a person, and once you've done that, you're going to keep your mouth shut because you're not going to want to be put to death yourself. As soon as Beth, Whitney, and Lorna check into the hostel, their photos are immediately scanned to a world wide network of rich, very sick people who then bid on the rights to do the deed. Todd (Richard Burgi) and his buddy Stuart (Roger Bart) win the rights to Beth and Whitney. Poor Lorna, the least attractive of the trio, is won by an evil woman with a penchant for blood baths, literally. The little town in Slovakia has, apparently, nothing going for it economically, but this. Gangs of children run the streets attacking tourists and stealing their stuff. The idyllic settings mask nothing but horror as nearly everyone seems to be in on it.
Some people have labeled this film the best horror film in a decade. Hostel: Part II is not a horror film. It is a gore fest dread film. The film does cause dread. There was never a scary moment. There was, however, dreadful moment after dreadful scene. I dreaded worrying about how dreadful it was going to be. I was not let down. It was even more dreadful than the first film.
Probably the worst thing about both films is that it's difficult to comprehend the point of making them in the first place. It's beyond the "what kind of a human mind does it take to think up such a story", and moves right on to what is wrong with a culture that presents fertile ground for a large number of wealthy, intelligent, educated people to invest money in this concept and then watch the millions of dollars roll in from theaters showing it to people who go to see them. Hostel, for example and according to the-numbers.com had a budget of $4.8 million and an advertising budget of $19 million for worldwide grosses of $78.4 million. Not a bad return on the investment. Hostel: Part II was given a budget of $7.5 million. Figures for advertising and box office results are yet to come. It's just terribly hard to comprehend why people would want to go and see either of these films. What exactly draws people to see elaborate films that have no purpose other than to show people being tortured and killed by other sadistic people? This is NOT art unless you consider the talent it takes to design and execute the special effects of people being tortured and killed without really torturing and killing them. I guess it's just beyond my comprehension. All I can say is that Hostel: Part II is slightly less creative as a re-hash of much of the same from Hostel, though it does go behind the scenes more, and deliver more of the despicable psychopathology behind the customers. I cannot recommend the film, and I can see no possible benefit to seeing it. The only emotion it stirred in me was, as I wrote, dread. And now I am filled with even more dread that a Part III might be in the works already.
Back to Top | W.I.P. Scale™ | Most Recently Reviewed Films | Films of 2005 | Films of 2006 | Films of 2007
Click for 'Review Lite' [a 150-word review of this film]
Click for 'Review Lite' [a 150-word review of this film]
Hostel: Part II (2007) Review-lite [150-word cap]
One of the most dreadful films ever made, Eli Roth's Hostel: Part II serves up more of the same. There's no accounting for Quentin Tarantino's support of this or the first film. The story is without redemption, purposeless, and morally indignant. There's no reason to see the films and they make no positive contribution to the genre. The only emotion this second part evokes is dread. It wasn't terrifying. It wasn't scary. It was simply dreadful.
No comments:
Post a Comment