Hostel: Part II

Eli Roth is grossly overrated by 'horror fans' (probably just degenerates looking for more cinematic gore). I couldn't stand "Cabin Fever" and think of it as one of my least favorite movies of all time. I thought "Hostel" was a reasonably entertaining, average 'horror' film, but found that its 'gruesome' parts were laughable and brought its quality down a lot. For the most part, Roth is largely incapable of creating the most essential and important part of a horror film- a sense of dread. Or so I thought, until I saw "Hostel: Part II".

"Hostel" was cheesy, and that's a fact. It was nothing more than a slightly more light hearted and humorous recreation of a seventies exploitation film. It had it all- gratuitous violence and nudity, bad jokes, etc. It was camp to the extreme, and yet somehow it found an audience of people who apparently know a thing or two about film (including some fairly high profile film critics like Kyle Smith from the New York Post) and still thought it was a good horror film. Personally, I continually fail to understand why it was so acclaimed. "Hostel: Part II" is more of the same, except this time the backpackers are female (which caused a lot of controversy, of course, even though the film is actually a revenge flick and the males doing the torturing are aptly punished). Still, "Hostel: Part II" is much better.

Eli Roth has unquestionably grown as a filmmaker since his horrendous first effort "Cabin Fever", and it shows here. However, what's really important to note about "Hostel: Part II" is that it is by far Roth's best script to date. As I said earlier in this review, I thought Roth incapable of creating a feeling of dread in his films, and yet he does it here. This installment is far more serious than the previous one, and unlike the first, actually had me flinching at times, particularly during a scene involving a literal bloodbath and another involving a man suffering a particularly painful injury to his groin area. The gore here actually works, it's not scary, but it definitely is gruesome. The entire film is much more gruesome (more gruesome, not more gory) and far better than the first installment in every way.

"Hostel: Part II" isn't by any means a classic, nor is it the best horror film of the year, but it is a better film than "Hostel". Essentially, this is yet again a blatant copy of 70's exploitation, but it borrows from some of the better films among those. It's genuinely brutal at times, and overall a reasonably worthwhile horror film. More extreme than it needed to be, but still well made. "Hostel" left me laughing, but "Hostel: Part II" left me genuinely uncomfortable.

I'll give it a 6/10