'Hostel: Part II' review

Rating: *** out of ****

I've learned that often times a person is either a horror fan, or not. If people don't care much for horror movies, there's little that can be done (or should be done) to try to convince them otherwise. It also goes for the fans of the genre - they love them in spite of many factors (flaws, violence, etc.) and there's little that can be done (or should be done) to convince them otherwise. I like horror movies. To me, horror movies are one of the purest forms of escapism. Often times they're a chance to see things that you would never get to see (or should ever see) in any civilized society. The 'Hostel' flicks have this in spades. Now, if you were not a fan of 'Hostel', you will probably not like the second and I expect you may not even read this review. I know many horror fans who liked the first film and so I hope this review is helpful.

Although I enjoyed Eli Roth's 'Hostel', I found its major weakness was a somewhat one-dimensional story: American guys go to Eastern Europe, go to hostel, are abducted, are killed, one guy escapes, the end. It felt as if Writer/Director Eli Roth was just going through the motions - A leads to B leads to C, etc. This weakness is corrected in part II. The story follows three simultaneous plots, interweaving between them as we go. The first of the three is the same story as the first 'Hostel', substituting the guys for gals, though adding quite the twist at the end. I'm sure there will be some major debates as to whether or not 'Hostel: Part II' is seen as misogynistic or empowering to females. The second story follows two American men who are paying customers of the death business - shelling out thousands of dollars to live out their sickest fantasies. The third story follows the business itself. We get to see how the business works, how victims are selected, how they're paid for, the eBay-like bidding war that ensues for certain victims, etc. This was by far the most interesting sub-plot of the film. There is also a brief fourth story (more of an intro really) where we find out what Paxton (the lone survivor of the first film) has been up to since his Eastern European getaway. Roth is able to juggle these stories without ever letting the film feel convoluted (unlike two other recent summer films that will go unnamed).

Writer/Director Eli Roth ups the anti yet again with 'Hostel: Part II', outdoing himself in the shock, thrills and gore departments. Roth is quickly climbing his way up the Hollywood ladder (his 'Thanksgiving' trailer in 'Grindhouse' was one of the most talked-about parts of the film) and he is becoming a force to be reckoned with - it doesn't hurt that Quentin Tarantino cuts the cheques for his movies either. According to Boxofficemojo.com, Roth is considered one of the most profitable directors working in film today. Both of his first films, 'Cabin Fever' and 'Hostel' earned over five times their production cost at the box office in their opening weekends. Neither film boasted major stars, proving that Roth's name guarantees a built in audience. I have little doubt that 'Hostel: Part II' will follow in this tradition.

While 'Hostel: Part II' is not as riveting, clever or well crafted as some other recent horror films ('The Descent', 'Severance') it is better than the first and is sure not to disappoint many of the fans of the genre who will go see it for what it is: a sick, twisted, demented splatter-fest. However, unlike with other genre films, these are all GOOD qualities that the fans crave!

(Note: 'Hostel' received **1/2 out of **** from Jeff)