by Eric M. Harvey

Oh, Jesus Christ, how HOSTEL PART II blows. Possibly more so than CABIN FEVER.

I thought CABIN FEVER was a total mess yet blown away by the streamlined structure and brutality of HOSTEL.

I went thinking we'd get something similar to HOSTEL (which I would’ve welcomed), but apparently now that it's "Eli Roth's HOSTEL PART II", it proves that there was a guiding hand on that first one that was absent from this sequel.

About 15 to 20 minutes could be cut out, yet I don't think those cuts would make it better. For example, we’d still have to hang out at the stupid harvest festival the chicks go to in this movie. Why? Because a good chunk of the running time is at the frigging thing. I hate seasonal festivals. They suck. Who puts them in movies, goddamnit?

What the hell happened here? HOSTEL was really good.

Then again, I guess after CABIN FEVER, anything Eli Roth did had to be good.

The truth is, HOSTEL was a lean, mean welcome addition to modern horror. It’s pace, economically driven by it’s meager budget, left no time for useless jaunts to European harvest festivals, hot springs and art classes, as what happens in HOSTEL PART II.

Are chick trips really that boring?

Apparently not, because the chick that went and saw PART II with me found the chicks’ trip boring as well.

Why is HOSTEL II so boring? Why did it become so pretentious? Why is cock on display so much here?

I get that it’s the girl version of HOSTEL, but fuck, there’s a real dearth of boob and bush here (to be fair, there’s only two cock shots, but that’s two cock shots too many).

My dismay due to cock shots in a chick HOSTEL could be interpreted as sexist and homophobic to some, but it really hurt my feelings. I like boobs and bush, and Roth really delivered in the first one.

And with Bijou Phillips drunkenly running around Slovakia, there’s no reason for such a lack of boobage.

The chick that went with me also agreed that this is the chick version of HOSTEL but explained that she really didn’t need the cock shots because “unlike guys with boobs and bush, we don’t complain about the lack of cock shots in movies.”

Well, to each their own, I guess…

Where the first film played with genre conventions, this one holds steadily to them, in ways that do not benefit those having expectations that HOSTEL PART II would once again defy the slasher archetype.

Very similar to this summer’s KNOCKED UP, we have a director who’s so in love with his work (and also being hampered by a larger budget), that he loses sight of what made HOSTEL a great film. It moved with such precision that I believe now what made HOSTEL great possibly had nothing to do with Roth. CABIN FEVER was a self-indulgent train wreck, engineered solely by ol’ Eli. HOSTEL PART II is very similar.

The beginning of HOSTEL PART II is a cheat, and probably the first time I’ve had a movie ruined by the beginning. Roth creates tension with an excellent hospital scene involving the Jay Hernandez character from the first one but blows it by it being a dream sequence. Then he kills off Hernandez’ character in such an unsatisfying way, you have to wonder if Roth is just being a dick. Not to mention its similarity to the beginning of FRIDAY THE 13th PART II.

Everything seemed perfectly planned out in the third act of HOSTEL, fulfilling in its structure and vengeance. Here, it seems like Roth wrote himself into a corner (a lousy corner at that) and couldn’t get out, leaving an ending devoid of any suspense, surprise or satisfaction.

More important though, the last thing a film like HOSTEL 2 needs is a pretentious stab at art. The Elizabeth Bathory sequence, the operatic strains as two businessmen gear up for the kill and the foggy hot springs with the odd-placed PHANTASM reference reek of a unsure director stretching for artistic credibility.

I’ve been a horror fan since I was a kid, but not in the way many are. I’ve never been a collector of toys, or had a hankering for horror metal or punk (although I do like the Misfits) or any other fandom quirks that have made some people either anti-social or obnoxious (my anti-social, obnoxious nature is purely chemical).

Now don’t get me wrong, I’m a total nerd when it comes to movies, with horror in particular, but not in the way, like say, fans who attend conventions religiously and dress up as their favorite monster. And in no way am I talking down or putting myself above these people, for these are my people, whether I’ve enjoyed being around them or not (you have to admit, some of these people are just downright creepy).

But I’ve always held the notion that people who profess to love horror like Roth so much do not make good horror movies. The glut of self-referencing genre pics (whether in dialogue, cameos or straight visual cribs) and poorly made straight to video crap is proof positive. These filmmakers shortchange the horror kids growing up today, who are truly lacking in original monsters and nightmares.

If you look at classic horror movies, most were made by folks whose cinematic interests lay elsewhere. The horror film was merely an in to the industry or just another genre to mess around in for journeymen directors (something we sorely lack today). Some got pigeonholed into this genre and suffered (Romero, Hooper and Craven to name a few).

Roth wears his fan boy nature on his sleeve so much, his films are less of a frightening narrative experience than a “wouldn’t it be cool if I did this sick thing on camera” mentality. Now it’s bad enough you’re going to waste my time with this limited attitude, don’t dummy it up with art. That’s disingenuous.

HOSTEL II is being slagged as torture porn by critics, which I guess to a degree it is, but I find it offensive in not what it shows, but how poorly it’s presented.

Which I guess does make it porn in a sense.

Damn, this review rambles. Hopefully not as bad as HOSTEL PART II. Hopefully not as boring.

Stupid fucking harvest festival.

Return to Classics

Home Page