HOSTEL: PART II
3 out of 5The first Hostel came in for a lot of criticism for perpetuating "torture porn". Whereas I feel the Saw films fit this description in full, I thought Hostel had more substance. That said it was certainly a guilty pleasure for sick little gorehounds!
Hostel: Part II also came in for the same complaints, if not more. I must admit, I was put off seeing it for a while because I was given the impression it was more of the same, with less structure; a classic sequel mistake. Also the idea that it uses girls where before it was boys seemed so damn obvious I assumed that was probably the limit of its ambition.
Well I was wrong! Thanks to Empire magazine and a balanced DVD review I was tempted to give it a chance. Overall I liked it. First of all it opens with a simple scene I found very disturbing, then it finishes off the arc of the first film and smoothly demonstrates the depth of the organisation running the show. Then we get two threads running in parallel; the girls being lured into the trap via similar methods that befell the boys, and two business men travelling to Slovakia to take part.
By giving more time to demonstrating the mechanics of the "Hunters Club", the film isn't as immediate and potent as Hostel. It lacks the focus and therefore the punch. The gore seems scaled back, or at least less gratuitous. That's right! It isn't as shocking. This has to be by design though, showing a confidence in the back story. I think I'll appreciate it more on a second viewing when my "I MUST SEE BLOOD!" thoughts have calmed down. Trust me, I really am quite, quite sane. Honest. Really I am...
It'll work really well in a double-bill because it doesn't just repeat, it tries to add something new.
By the way, gorehounds, the blood is still there. There's some really nasty inventive shit to make you squirm! But mainly it's from the point of view of the killer and there's less shock value in seeing the cutter cut than the cuttee be cut. Erm... you know what I mean...
I found the whole film to have a more slow burn disgust. Hostel was brutal, presenting the killers as relatively faceless monsters with weird fetishes, but here it is more explicit in showing them as normal business men just looking for kicks. I found that quite powerful, probably because it's closer to the truth. In one of the featurettes Eli Roth mentions business men he has met that travel the world just to try different prostitutes. Not so far away really. Those interviews also show how much he is trying to give his film relevance.
This film is worth seeing because it doesn't treat the viewer like a prat. It gives us something new and both parts compliment each other. The first is all round a better film because it has that basic premise of a lonely traveller in a hopeless situation, but two films of that wouldn't have worked (Saw, anyone?). By the end there's been a couple of dafter plot points and cliches, but a nice twist or two. However it's the stories broader targets that are more interesting and give this film real value.
| Sitemap
