Four Eyed Monsters
Advertisement
Sign in
Username   Password         Forgot password?
Wanna join? Tour Spout | Sign up
Find movies you'll love

The Paxton Log

  • The Good, The Bad, & The Bottom Line of 'Hostel: Part II'

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Hostel Part II  (2007)

    Oh, the horror!  No, I can't believe it either, but here I am doing another review for a sequel.  Up this week is the follow-up to last year's much hyped, only mediocre "stomach churning" splatter-fest 'Hostel'.  In 'Part II' the roles have been reversed (in more ways than one as you'll see after viewing it) as the victims this time are young women.  Upon changing plans the three ladies end up traveling to Slovakia after persuaded by the gorgeous model from their art class.  One by one they are kidnapped and taken to the oh so familiar place visited last year where a world of torture and pain awaits.

     

    The Good
    - The victims whom are played by Lauren German, Heather Matarazzo, & Bijou Phillips each do a great job with their roles.  Even though the three characters have similar traits seen in various other horror films, all three personalize them making each their own and more realistic.

    - Instead of primarily getting to know only the women, we get a better understanding of the those paying to torture via Todd and Stuart played by Richard Burgi and Roger Bart; both from ABC's 'Desperate Housewives'.

    - 'Hannibal Holocaust' director Ruggero Deodato makes a cameo as one of the twisted torturers who is what else, a cannibal!


    The Bad
    - The most shocking scene in the entire film isn't even one of the torturings.  It's actually one that's quite questionable as being necessary or not.

    - The switch from wimp to bad-ass by Stuart isn't believable at all.  It's 50% Bart's fault and 50% Roth's reason for the sudden change.

    - The ending quoted as being "one of the most shocking endings people have ever seen" by Roth himself isn't anything new.  The same thing was done better in 1978 by Meir Zarchi in 'I Spit On Your Grave'.  Even though I knew it was coming when I saw it, it still had me feeling uneasy.  Here it just wasn't executed well.


    The Bottom Line
    It's easy to see Roth did try to show some growth here.  Unlike many sequels, it doesn't appear like he made this solely for profit.  There actually was more to be told; that being the more in-depth look at the view held by the torturers.  Unfortunately, like the first, this one didn't measure up to the hype.  It started out pretty good at the start, but fell flat in the last thirty minutes.  He hasn't shown any interest in doing a 'Part III'.  I may be a little crazy for saying this, but I hope he does.  There's one last thing to be explained and that's the creation of the whole "business".  So I say, go for it.


 

Like what you're reading?

Subscribe
Search
  Go

Browse previous
<June 2007>
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
272829303112
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
1234567


Categories
 


Advertisement