Customer Reviews


170 Reviews
5 star:
 (51)
4 star:
 (34)
3 star:
 (34)
2 star:
 (17)
1 star:
 (34)
 
 
 
 
 
Average Customer Review
Share your thoughts with other customers
Create your own review
 
 

The most helpful favorable review
The most helpful critical review


2 of 2 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars Hostility On The Screen
For those of you who loved the original, Hostel 2 is definitely a worthy sequel. If you are like me & weren't particularly crazy about the first one, you might still enjoy it. I waited for DVD on this one & actually watched it twice on the same day.

I don't know where to begin on this one. For so many different reasons, Hostel 2 was a vast improvement over the...
Published on June 28, 2011 by Brian R Yandle

versus
8 of 9 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars ok movie, the killer characters were interesting. SPOILER Alert
I enjoyed this movie, it was a bit more interesting the first one. I was disappointed that Jay Hernandez gets killed right away, but it also it makes sense since no witnesses/survivors can be left or else the whole operation is at risk.

What really put a new light in the movie were the two male characters who are new to the club. There we get to see two...
Published on June 7, 2010 by Roberto Pang


‹ Previous | 1 217 | Next ›
Most Helpful First | Newest First

8 of 9 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars ok movie, the killer characters were interesting. SPOILER Alert, June 7, 2010
By 
Roberto Pang (Chicago, IL USA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   
I enjoyed this movie, it was a bit more interesting the first one. I was disappointed that Jay Hernandez gets killed right away, but it also it makes sense since no witnesses/survivors can be left or else the whole operation is at risk.

What really put a new light in the movie were the two male characters who are new to the club. There we get to see two different characters at play, one who is eager to taste evil and one who has to be dragged into the situation. The one who is eager has fantasies of how killing somebody will make him gain a characteristic that will intimidate others, a characteristic that does not need to be mentioned yet perceptible. What he fails to consider is that the characteristic that he years for, might not come from killing an innocent and defenseless victim, or killing without need or killing out of curiosity. The other clients of the club are truly evil, they indulge in their dark pastime as the goal, for pleasure, and that is how and why they can kill not only without remorse but with pure pleasure. At the end I did feel sorry for him, very little effort was needed (even a simple matter of just sit and wait) to complete his contract and he would have survived.

For Stuart, the character who has to be dragged into the situation, on the other hand, he does not want to be "that guy" yet slowly but surely when presented with the proper opportunities and motivations, he turns out to embrace the darkness and evil. Stuart's repressions and frustrations come to surface and he will project them into anybody who is in front of him. His transformation from the hesitant/undecided guy is extreme and very convincing. This also left me thinking about his friend, maybe his friend couldn't transform because he did not have any repressions or frustration. Being a wealthy and physically attractive man who probably got his way most of the time, there was probably very little to brew evil feelings.

The transformation to evil is also extreme for the surviving girl, Beth, who turn herself into a ruthless killer, too. But at least she did have a very good reason for that. Payback is a bitch, indeed.

I guess it was good for Stuart to embrace evil, the audience had to abandon any sympathy for this character for the ending to work. There was really no way out of that room without somebody murdered and had Stuart remain his old self and tried to save the girl, they both would have died.

Probably what I have mentioned was not the main idea of such a movie, but it was interesting to me.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


2 of 1 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars BETTER THAN EXPECTED! NOT NEARLY AS GORY AS IT'S REPUTATION!, November 15, 2008
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
There's a new monster in horror! Forget the misunderstood variety, like Frankenstein's monster, forget the Atomic bomb causing bugs to grow to enormous size and forget the relentless slashing madmen, like Michael Myers! Today, new horror fans have a new terror, it's the rich self absorbed A-Hole who is bored with his life and wants to torture and kill innocent people....why?... because he can!

Hostel II has been labeled one of the goriest films ever made, but it's really a self parody that is pretty entertaining. Oh there is some gore for sure, but nothing like I imagined there would be. I probably would hate both of these 'Hostel' films, but between all the nasty stuff there is a keen sense of wit that flows through both films.

The subject matter alone in a shocking setting and there in always tension in the air because you don't know when something really messed up in about to happen. I don't think we need a part 3 in this franchise, but this one is worth a look......if you like this sort of thing! The unrated DVD has an excellent transfer and some interesting extras. It also sports one of the most shocking(and funny) endings I've ever seen!
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


7 of 8 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars Not as Terrible as People Say But Fails to Live Up to its Potential, January 20, 2008
By 
Tsuyoshi (Kyoto, Japan) - See all my reviews
"Hostel Part 2" picks up the thread where the original left off. After this effective opening chapter, director Eli Roth starts telling the horrifying tales again, about three American college students in Slovakia. For the sequel Roth changes the gender of the students to female (Lauren German, Heather Matarazzo and Bijou Phillips) and also includes the sub-plots of "buyers" or sadistic tormentors played by Roger Bart and Richard Burgi.

Not much can be said about the thin plot originally inspired by urban legends. "Hostel Part 2" like its predecessor takes it granted that legends are true. As a consequence all we have to do is to wait for the tortures to begin, and end. The sequel provides the gruesome tortures and slow deaths and is full of blood and screams. The extremely graphic film, however, is hardly called scary because it has no nuance or subtlety suggesting the horrors that are to arrive.

In fact the film does not attempt to hide the fact that terrible fates await the characters. There is no sense of suspense; what we don't know is the way how these unsuspecting students are tortured. But maybe two "Hostel" films are supposed to be like that. Roth is quite good at making the bloody torture scenes and the dark interior sets are impressive. The photography showing the countryside is also very good, beautiful and creepy at the same time.

There is another thing Eli Roth is good at and that is the casting. The main cast is very good (and they are all talented), but here I'm talking about the cameos. Ruggero Deodato, director of "Cannibal Holocaust" briefly appears, doing something I shouldn't mention. Milan Knazko (who was really Minister for Culture of the Slovak Republic) appears as "Sacha." To watch cameos and references to other films would be pretty amusing to me because they are virtually the list of the people Roth idolizes. Was there Quentin Tarantino? Yes, watch the TV closely.

However, I couldn't like the film very much despite (or because of) these "merits." From at certain point "Hostel Part 2" starts being too self-conscious. Should we take seriously the middle-aged lady taking a shower of blood, apparent reference to Elizabeth Báthory? Should we laugh when Roger Bart's character refers to one Disney animation character he played? The third act of the film almost becomes slapstick with gores.

"Hostel Part 2" with the structure that has been getting more and more repetitious since the original has surprisingly less scares than you expect, being emotionally detached from the viewers, almost cynical in its tone in describing the characters (good or bad, killing or killed) and their behaviors. The film is content with doing what it does, often disregarding the audiences who want to be scared or (if I may use the word) entertained.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


7 of 9 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Unbox quality is great, but the movie is terrible, January 6, 2008
By 
M. Larsen "diamond" (Vernon Hills, IL USA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   
I have our computer hooked up with a DVI-to-HDMI cable, and the quality of Amazon Unbox is suprprisingly good. It's almost indistinguishable from DVD quality except in a few rare cases of very high-speed camera pans where it is just a little staggered. The quality of this movie is no different, and the contrast of the dark settings is outstanding on Unbox.

Unfortunately that technology is wasted on Hostel Part 2. I like Roth's film "Cabin Fever". It was a creative film with a gritty plot line and a creative use of special effects. Hostel Part 2 really boils down to nothing more than "how creative can we be about torture" and "how stupid and obvious can we make the ending". I decided to see the movie because Eli Roth's promotion of the movie when it was realeased talked about the incredible ending. I love a good twist ending ("The Prestige" was one of my favorites for good endings), but this one was way too obvious. I won't spoil it, but it's not even worth the $4 rental fee.

The attempted creative use of torture winds up losing all creativity. It is obvious that the writers and directors were trying to be clever, but all you wind up seeing is their attempted cleverness regardless of the fact that it adds nothing to the plot.

If you want a good horror movie, try the remake of Halloween, 28 Weeks Later, or even Saw 4 (not the best, but at least it has a plot...). Save your money and avoid this one.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


2 of 2 people found the following review helpful
2.0 out of 5 stars not punishing enough, February 16, 2008
The gore film, once a devoted worshiper I was! Seriously, is there really any need for new gore films? It seems the defining alpha-omega load was blown in the 70s and 80s then refined in Japan for almost 2 decades as many reviewers have already noted. There isn't much you can do that hasn't been done besides soften up the delivery to ensure mass distribution. I really enjoyed the first Hostel film for its story, it seemed with a bit more restraint without taking the easy way out going with over the top comedy/violence it would have made for some classic material. Sometimes you need to be dark and uncompromising. For all of their flaws and unintentional humor, Cannibal Holocaust and Men Behind The Sun were unrelenting, gory, and made you feel truly awful after seeing them. More recently, Irreversible though only containing two extremely explicit (and genuinely disturbing) scenes of violence is far more my idea of what a hellish dark trip to Europe can be. No "cute" laughs in that one, if you were disappointed in this film but liked the scenery and dark mood it was trying to evoke check that movie out. If the violence doesn't give you a headache the camera work will.

This movie is an unfortunate bore from start to finish, everything that has been done already in the first Hostel is done again, in the most uninspired way imaginable. It would have been good to see a straight film about two American businessmen who take a trip to a "murder brothel" and what happens. But here its just, urgghghg! Also Eli Roth really needs to stop lifting scenes from other movies, the execution of the street kid was taken straight from City of God only this time its far more watered down, unshocking and lame. There's not even a blood spurt, whats the point? The only reason this movie exists is because violence is now completely acceptable in mainstream film, there is a massive audience ignorant of the genre this spawned from with an interest in the darker side of cinema so why not capitalize on it? I'm not saying its an outrage just, well, there's far better films out there heavy on violence that can be taken seriously enough to have an impression on you other than a re-run through the basics of Tom Savini splatterdom.

As just a movie to watch, its boring, badly written, and horribly acted, the girl from Welcome To The Dollhouse, an amazing actress judging from that film, is reduced to a stuttering idiot who gets killed in a tribute to Elizabeth Bathory, you can actualy visualize Eli Roth's moronic thought process every step of the way down to how he cast the film. Eli Roth probably won't reach the heights of badness Wes Craven did in the 90s ruining the horror genre for a decade+ but he's certainly the kid with the Green Day shirt at the GG Allin show. Ok thats harsh, he's the kid with the Misfits shirt at The Undead show.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


2 of 2 people found the following review helpful
2.0 out of 5 stars Redundant, January 22, 2008
By 
Douglas King (Cincinnati, OH United States) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)    (REAL NAME)   
I liked the first "Hostel" movie. It was gratuitous, to be sure, but it also had a political subtext to it, where the young men who go off to Europe in order to exploit the culture end up being the ones exploited.

Although "Hostel part II" picks up right where the last one left off, any political subtext is gone from this film, and it really plays more like another sequel in the "Saw" franchise, where gory stunts take the place of real suspense. Even the characters seem to be borrowed from better films ... Heather Matarazzo basically plays a grown up version of the tragic outcast she played in the groundbreaking "Welcome to the Dollhouse" and Bijou Phillips plays the same cautionary party girl she played in Larry Clark's excellent "Bully". The whole thing just feels really redundant.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


6 of 8 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars "Hostel: Part II" will disappoint anyone looking for more of the same, June 18, 2007
By 
Amazon Customer (The Zenith City, Duluth, Minnesota) - See all my reviews
(HALL OF FAME REVIEWER)    (VINE VOICE)    (COMMUNITY FORUM 04)   
I went to go see "Hostel: Part II" in the theater because I was interested in seeing what it would be like to watch one of these torture/horror films in a situation where you cannot push the pause or stop button on your remote. I had only seen "Hostel," "Wolf Creek," and other examples of this particularly grizzly little splatter flick genre at home and I do not think the experience is ever as intense. The only horror films I have seen in theaters in recent years have been the "Saw" trilogy, and as bloody and gory as those get they are really not the same genre as what you have with this film. However, it turns out my little experiment was doomed to failure because Eli Roth's sequel is certainly not "worse" than the original in terms of the scenes of torture and killing, which should be a major disappointment to fans of the first because there is nothing here to rival it.

This perception is colored somewhat by the fact that in addition to things being more gruesome in the original there was the underlying question of what the hell was going on that added to the horror. That element is removed in the sequel because we know immediately when the "recruiter" for the hostel shows up to lure the victims to their respective fates. This time instead of three guys it is three gals: Beth (Lauren German, "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre") is the good girl, Whiteny (Bijou Phillips, "Havoc") is the bad girl, and Lorna (Heather Matarazzo, "Welcome to the Dollhouse" is the weird girl. They start off in Rome but quickly make their way to Slovakia. Of course the second time around we know what is going on, so this time Roth shows us the other half of the story, with rich people bidding on the girls to win the right to the kill and laying out the key elements of the all-important contract that the winners have to sign before they get to have their fun. The focus is on a pair of Americans, the over excited Todd (Richard Burgi) and his more reticent friend Stuart (Roger Bart). We also get to meet the man who is running the whole operation.

After seeing this movie I have had to rethink what happened in the first one because it now appears clear that Roth is more interested in the twists that the terror, because I now consider that to be the biggest common denominator between the two films. Again, if you come for the blood and gore, you are probably going to be quite disappointed, because Roth is more interested in surprising you with what is really going on than getting you to consider losing your popcorn. I caught Roth in a television interview where the talking head asking the questions literally gave away the final scene of the movie, and the writer-director was talking about the political sub-text of this film as having to do with why the rest of the world hates Americans. After all, the Americans are boring and unimaginative amateurs compared to the Europeans who clearly have developed a taste for these blood baths. The victims are not required to be much more than victims, somewhat culpable in their own deaths, but that does not strike me as being primarily because they are American girls.

I did like the "twist" at the end, because it appeals to both my sense of justice and my love of irony. However, the set up was not really elegant and the element of complete surprise, so important to the original, ends up getting lost. I mean, come on, when you get a hold of passports to copy the photos and send them around the world to your potential clients how hard is it to do a quick check to make sure you are not causing yourself problems? Plus there have to be easier ways to get the girls to the factory. Then there is the cinematic commonplace of the bad guys talking rather than shooting at the critical moment and how quickly the movie gets to the end credits once the twist is revealed. Also, it seems to me that the bidding for these victims was rather low, but then clearly I place a higher value on human life than the characters in this film (hard not to).

Actually, the scariest thing when I saw this film in the theater were the guys behind me who declared the heroine to be a "bitch" because she would not let her friend go off with some strange guy when she was falling down drunk. I worry about guys who would think that was the most upsetting part of the movie, especially since buying some six packs or spiking a girl's drink with Rohypnol to get "lucky" happens in the real world even if paying thousands of dollars to torture and kill them for fun is only something that happens in movies and their less than satisfying sequels. I suppose the urge to turn this into a trilogy will be irresistible, but I will not make the same mistake twice. Instead I will find a whole bunch of new mistakes to make and will wait to see the next one on DVD, which is how you should see this one.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


8 of 11 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars What Has Happened To Us?, October 10, 2013
By 
Mr. Mambo (Burnsville, MN USA) - See all my reviews
I only watched a few minutes of this movie; it was on TV and I came upon it. Because of that, I cannot give a totally fair review, but I do have a comment or two. A few years ago, a first "Hostel" was made, which I avoided--and it must have done well at the box office, so here we have a sequel, or continuation. I see that there is also a "Hostel III", so....who knows how long this will go on? After all, they are up to about #6 for "Saw", correct?).

We give the people want they want, but if this is what they want, what does that say about them?

I am a grandfather, I'm not a prude or religious fanatic, and I've seen thousands and thousands of movies in my time. And I appreciate a good horror film, one which frightens me and surprises me (the two go hand-in-hand). I am sure that I am much older than the average person who 'likes' "Hostel" and its ilk, and so that probably has a lot to do with it. I thought the first "Halloween" was a damn good and very frightening horror film, because it was smart, subtle and suspenseful, and did not rely upon buckets of gore in a misguided attempt to frighten us. The original "Night of the Living Dead" was pretty gory, and the opposite of subtle, but the nightmarish, crude, high contrast B/W images helped tone it down, and the whole premise and execution of the film was extremely frightening. I believe that less talented filmmakers saw the success of those two landmarks of the horror genre, tried to cash in it, but took the easy way out, and upped the gore/violence quotient, in lieu of story or dialogue or restraint or mood. Thus we had the Nightmare on Elm Streets, the even more inferior Friday the 13th's, and the interminable remakes of the Texas Chainsaw Massacres.

The entire premise of "Hostel II" is extremely disturbing: there are wealthy but very sick and twisted people who put up thousands of dollars in online bidding wars, with the winner having the right to torture and kill a particular young girl. These girls are innocent tourists who've happened to check into the wrong "hostel". Passport photos are surreptitiously scanned and sent worldwide to a host of these rich freaks, men and women alike, and the bidding escalates. We are 'treated' to the girls' kidnapping and torture and very few punches are pulled. Call me crazy, but haven't we crossed a line here? To me this is very dangerous territory, for many reasons.

First of all, it suggests that, if you have enough money, you can literally buy anyone and do anything to them you want. And secondly, the truly scary thing is that there probably ARE real monsters in the world who might be interested in doing this to people.

But really, and most importantly, how can anyone be 'entertained' by this? Scenes of torture? Are you kidding me? Why would anyone want to watch this stuff? I did not last until the end, so maybe some of the creeps do get their just desserts, which would help things, I guess. But even so, I don't want to wade through all this monstrous and disgusting behavior just to see some creep get wasted.

Somewhere we've gone off the rails. To me films like these are a kind of violent, sadistic pornography. Used to be that good old sex and nudity would do it for us, but now we seem to want to watch the girls get carved up too, the more blood the better! Porn is a 'progressive' thing; what floats your boat today quickly becomes pedestrian, and you need to amp things up. It reminds one of ancient Rome, where the wealthier they got, the more jaded and depraved they became. By the end the patricians were digging scenes of people getting torn apart by lions. Eventually the Empire rotted away from within. Is that happening to us? Again, I am not a conservative Republican or religious fanatic! I'm just asking.

Hitchcock's "Psycho" really crossed some lines when it came out in 1960. For one thing, we'd never had a main character get killed only twenty minutes or so into the film! But among the many things that made this film a classic is the restrained and artful editing of that ground-breaking, legendary shower scene. To be fair, the heavy hand of the censorship board kept Hitch in check--he would have loved to show more blood and more skin--but we don't need to see any more! We know what is happening. BECAUSE we don't see that much makes it all the more frightening to us. Less IS more!

It's an interesting concept that should be revisited.

To sum up, strapping people down on tables and eviscerating them,...burning them,...shocking them with electrodes,...cutting off their limbs,...flaying them and watching the blood flow is not frightening; it is disgusting, degrading, and deadening. There is a difference. Modern filmmakers and audiences seem to have forgotten this concept. And don't tell me that 'it's only a movie!, as if that tired old line is actually a legitimate excuse. If you can actually say you enjoy watching this stuff, then your soul is on its way to death, and I truly feel sorry for you.

I am more frightened by the fact that so many people choose to see movies like this, than by the movies themselves.

I worry about our future.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


30 of 43 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars Didn't live up to its potential in any way, but still lots of fun., June 10, 2007
Hostel Part II (Eli Roth,2007)

The second film in the Hostel franchise is a difficult one to review, and that's pretty obvious given that reviews of the film have been split almost right down the middle. The problem is that while it's enjoyable (assuming you like that sort of thing), this is a movie that could have been so very, very much more than it was.

After a quick, and morbidly amusing, stop in to see Paxton (Jay Hernandez), the sole survivor of the first film, we immediately get back to teenagers in peril. This time it's a trio of American girls, Beth (A Walk to Remember's Lauren German), Whitney (Bijou Phillips, recently of Havoc), and Lorna (Welcome to the Dollhouse's Heather Matarazzo). You know what's coming. An alternating storyline also focuses on Todd (Richard Burgi), who buys one of the girls as a present for his friend Stuart (Roger Bart; both guys normally do time on Desperate Housewives). And that's where the germs of brilliance that could have grown into a full-blown virus lie in this movie-- the idea of taking the same scenario from the original and turning it on its head, giving us the dirt from the perspective of the killers. And we do get some of that, but it's not the focus of the film. That would have been genius.

The strongest point of the movie is that Roth dropped the softcore angle and went for the straight gore-- which has the effect, of course, of heightening the ugliness of scenes where sexuality does play a role. The greatest of these is truly brilliant, and displaces the infamous leg-shaving scene in Cabin Fever as the best single scene Roth has yet committed to film; you'll know it when you get to it, and it would be worth the price of admission alone. It is a profoundly discomfiting piece of filmmaking, and shows that Roth, when he brings his A game, is truly capable of being on the level of the guys he idolizes (another one of whom turns up for a brief cameo in this movie; I was floored, but no one else in the audience recognized him. Don't look at the cast list before you go, and see if you catch the cameo before the end credits).

All that said, the movie is rife with inconsistencies and plot holes, but that may be by design; from the opening scene, it's obvious that Roth intended this movie as a rather vicious parody of the horror film sequel formula; if you can look at the odd lapses as satire-- and Roth's own body of work, which is usually tight as a drum, lends credence to such an interpretation-- they're forgivable. The movie also contains a surprising amount of grim humor; it's a rare thing when an otherwise straight horror film has the audience walking out of the theater laughing hysterically. If the original Hostel was Roth's take on Takashi Miike's Visitor Q, this one is Ichi the Killer. with a dose of Flower of Flesh and Blood thrown in for good measure. Roth continues his one-man quest to drag Hollywood into the same space Asian horror filmmakers have been inhabiting since the late eighties, and he's turned in a movie in service of that goal that, while not living up to its potential, remains the most fun I've had seeing a horror film on the big screen in a whole lot of years. *** ˝
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


4 of 5 people found the following review helpful
2.0 out of 5 stars Plain out bad!!!, December 25, 2007
A Kid's Review
The first Hostel movie was really scary, suspensfull, and bloody. That's what any horror movie should have. But, Hostel part II failed in those aspects miserably. The 3 main characters didn't have to much personality and you just coulden't find yourself rooting for them. I really liked the reappearence of Jay Hernandez from the origional Hostel. But, after Jay's appearence was over, I found myself really bored throughout the rest of the movie. It's to bad that Hostel part II was a bad movie. The origional Hostel had the potential to spark a wide range of sequals. But with the failures of Hostel part II, I don't think that there will be any more Hostel movies. I hope my review was helpfull. Bye now.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


‹ Previous | 1 217 | Next ›
Most Helpful First | Newest First

Details

Hostel - Part II [Blu-ray]
Hostel - Part II [Blu-ray] by Jay Hernandez (Blu-ray - 2007)
$14.99 $8.99
In Stock
Add to cart Add to wishlist
Search these reviews only
Send us feedback How can we make Amazon Customer Reviews better for you? Let us know here.