WARNING: The following review is not for the squeamish. As with Eli Roth's Hostel in 2005, this summer's sequel Hostel II (opening June 8 throughout San Diego) hits theaters without preview screenings for critics. But the lack of advance reviews for the original Hostel didn't dissuade horror fans from coming out opening weekend and making the low budget flick a surprise hit. Let's see if the sequel can live up to its predecessor. Filmmaker Eli Roth at work on Hostel II (Lions Gate)
Eli Roth's trailer for Hostel II stirred buzz among horror fans when it came out a few months ago. It promised more gruesome terror, as a new group of youths abroad become a commodity in a black market that caters to rich sadists looking for victims to torture.
Now I remember chatting with Roth after Hostel came out (I was working on a Halloween feature on horror). I had just gone to see Hostel with a young woman horror filmmaker. We had liked Hostel but we both complained that there was too much jiggly, gratuitous female nudity. I passed on this comment to Roth (and I'm sure I wasn't the only one to mention this) and reminded him that more and more women are becoming horror fans, so he should think about them as well as the standard horror demo of males 18 to 34. Hostel II arrives and Roth seems to have addressed all our complaints. There's far less female nudity this time out and even a bit of exposed male flesh. Plus, we get to see a woman turn the tables on her male assailants with lethal vengeance. This is a horror film that women horror fans will be able to embrace. And before you dismiss me as totally sick and twisted, let me just say that there is something appealing about confronting something dark and disturbing in the safety of a movie theater and knowing that everything you're watching is just pretend.
In the first film, you were almost rooting for the shallow, horny young American guys to be knocked off. In Hostel II , a trio of femme protagonists/victims proves far more sympathetic from the get-go. So Roth sets himself up to be condemned as a misogynist for the brutal abuse dished out to the women. But hold off on those complaints until after you see the satisfyingly cathartic final reel.
But I get ahead of myself. Hostel II opens at almost exactly the point where Hostel left offwith Paxton (Jay Hernandez) having just escaped the torture factory where his friends had just been murdered.
When Roth was doing press for Grindhouse (in which he directed the faux trailer for the slasher film Thanksgiving ) he spoke to me about the Hostel films. He confessed, "I never planned to do a sequel. Hostel was supposed to be this little three million dollar movie between movies. But then when the sequel came up I really wanted it to be a better movie than the first. Obviously it has more violence in it. But I thought what if I had not shot credits at the end of Hostel and the story just continued. There were things I wanted to cover but didn't have a chance to."
So Hostel II , has an opening sequence that closes the chapter on Paxton before moving on to the fate of three American girls on holiday. The girls, like the guys before them, end up getting lured to a Slovakian youth hostel by a beautiful woman. Once at the hostel, they are sized up as the ideal product for a murder-for-money syndicate. The girls passport photos are sent out over the Web, and as advertisements. Each is then put up for sale to the highest bidder. Pay top dollar and youll be able to torture these women to death. That's the sick and twisted premise, and, as with the first film, the question is, will any of them survive?
Roth said he took the same strategy for Hostel II as he did for Hostel, no advance screenings for the press. But that's not because he or the studio think critics won't like the film.
Will Lauren German be the one that gets away in Hostel II (Lions Gate)
"The reason we didn't screen Hostel for critics and the reason we're not going to preview screen Hostel II is because people want to know if it's scary. And now with the Internet spoilers get out so fast that if you have a preview screening and one person sees it, it's all over the Internet. If people go to the movie and they know what's gonna happen, it's not as scary any more. So you do everything you can to protect your movie, especially with horror movies. And that's why we won't screen it for critics, not because we're scared of the kind of reviews we'll get."
While some critics dismissed Hostel as nasty fare, others have recognized that Roth is not your run of the mill schlock horror director. He's smart, and his films are clever works of nastiness. Just take the name "hostel." It's a word meant to conjure up pleasant thoughts of a place where young people abroad can stay for a reasonable price. But Roth's film delivers a wicked play on words as it conjures up the homonym for hostel, hostile.
I wanted to make a movie that would work on two levels, Roth says, "If you were going out on a date and you wanted a movie with blood and guts, you'd be totally satisfied. But if you watch movies like I do and you want to see them over and over because there are more levels and you can see different things going on, then the film has that too. Just like the dialogue with the guys in the first half making fun of the hookers and then they become like a commodity later."
In Hostel II , one of the clever moves Roth makes is to focus on the mundane business aspects of the murder-for-money business. The use of the Internet to market the product, and the way people log on and bid as they are eating breakfast with their families or sitting at a high level board meetingall this gives the film a sick, savvy satiric edge. The guys who buy into this murder vacation are doing it so that they will gain an edge in attitude at work. They figure that killing someone will change them, and people will sense a danger about them. They talk about their torture plans as if it were part of a business self-help program. It's like something they'd write off on an expense report since it was intended to boost their effectiveness on the job. This isn't mindless horror, this is horror that plays off of our violent and capitalistic culture. Plus the ruthlessness with which the murder-for-money executives keep their contracts proves bleakly amusing.
Italian director Ruggero Deodato has a cameo in Hostel II
Roth is also smart in how he constructs the film. He delivers a quick jolt of violence right off the top, just to unsettle viewers. Then he engages in a slow build up with a couple fake scares before embarking on an extended and brutal torture. This torture scene goes on for far longer than is comfortable and makes us worried that there's still worse to come. That's the perfect agitated state to keep the audience in. But then Roth gives the gore a different spin. The following torture scenes are shorter. There's even a humorous moment when a man goes in to kill someone and Roth cuts to the surveillance monitor where we assume well see the gruesome deed. But instead a fat security guard walks in front of the screen and blocks our view. So Roth has in fact cheated us out of seeing the kill, yet we know it happened. So Roth's horror is not all about showing the most graphic violence but rather about toying with viewer expectations.
Roth also takes a moment to play yet again on the mundane business aspects of this grisly profession by showing the folks in charge trying to make a little extra money selling some damaged goods for a discounted price. Roth also delivers some inside humor for horror fans. Take for example, the fact that one of the high-paying clients is cannibalizing his victim and the man playing the client is none other than Italian horrormeister Ruggero Deodato whos famous for Cannibal Holocaust.
Hostel II (rated R for or sadistic scenes of torture and bloody violence, terror, nudity, sexual content, language and some drug content) is yet another sick and twisted bit of nasty from Eli Roth. His film is definitely not for everyone but it should satisfy horror fans that want more than just a gorefest.
Companion viewing: Hostel, Cabin Fever, Grindhouse , Cannibal Holocaust
Mary
June 12, 2007 at 07:11 PM
I loved it! One of the best horror movies in years. Certainly better than the first. The scene with Heather M. where she's hanging by her ankles and this woman attacks her with a sickle has totally traumatized me. I'm 49 years old and have seen everything! Worth seeing twice if you are an avid horror fan, not just alot of slashing either!
-----
Beth Accomando
June 13, 2007 at 08:19 AM
Mary,
Thanks for the comment. I think women are now starting to make up a larger share of the horror audience, and it will be interesting to see how that might change the genre. I'm glad you agree and appreciate that the film is more than a slash fest.
paulski
June 13, 2007 at 10:32 AM
Whilst far from perfect, I have to say I enjoyed Part II. The emphasis on - as Roth and Tarantino put it - "the minutia" of the Elite Hunting organisation was fascinating, and the beefed-up security at the factory made perfect sense. And yeah, Heather's death scene was seriously unsettling but almost beautifully filmed in a weird sort of way. A worthy addition to the horror genre.
Beth Accomando
June 14, 2007 at 08:01 AM
I agree. I think that "minutia" is what made this one better than the first.
Maven
June 17, 2007 at 08:34 AM
Beth, you're a stupid, vile, illiterate twit. All I can say is: thank goodness "Hostel 2" is tanking so hard, because it means the decent people of the world still out-number sociopathic torture-porn fans like you.
Charles
June 18, 2007 at 02:55 AM
"Roth is not youre run of the mill schlock horror director"
Correct, he's YOUR run of the mill schlock horror director.
You're = you are.
Your = belonging to you.
Hostel was OK, but I'm not really bothered about part II considering the bad reviews it's getting from most other critics.
Beth Accomando
June 20, 2007 at 07:15 AM
Yikes! Don't tell my son about this. I've been grilling him about proofreading his English papers and look what I did.
Thanks Charles--for both the correction and the comment.
As for Maven--too bad you're (Charles make sure that's the correct usage) just interested in posting an insult and not an argument. Just out of curiosity, did you actually see the film or are you condemning it without even viewing it? As for it tanking--well it didn't do as well as Hostel but it has already made back its costs and it will do well on DVD.
Tracy
July 04, 2007 at 04:35 PM
Hi Beth
I really enjoyed your (hey PC Charles, spelling police - take note!) review I thought it was well written (despite the two idiots who thought otherwise!). I am off to see Hostel 2 tonight with my mum and best friend as we all loved Hostel 1. If that makes us sociopathic and sick then so be it!! Obviously Maven got lost on the way to the Shrek III review - what a loser!
Will let you know if the film lived up to your (I so want to spell it "you're" just for the hell of it!) review but I'm sure I won't be disappointed!!
Tracy
July 06, 2007 at 09:23 AM
Great film. As good as the first, liked the fact the story was a bit more in depth. Well worth a watch.
Heba
October 27, 2007 at 03:13 PM
I don`t know. I both hated and loved Hostel 1. I hated the idea of torturing people for fun or for money, the soft porn and the graphic scenes of violence. But I loved the originality of the idea, the strong sympathy and fear the movie provoked, and the relief for the idea that it is all just a movie. I guess I am gonna watch Hostel 2.
Beth Accomando
October 27, 2007 at 04:49 PM
Well that's what horror is all about, pushing boundaries, unsettling your sense of security and then allowing you an out because it's just a movie. There's something about getting scared within the safety of a movie theater that is very tempting. In some ways, I think Hostel II is a better made film so check it out.
Mister_Sinatra
November 04, 2007 at 01:48 AM
There are some comments here that are correct. Hostel part 2 may be a soft-porn-slasher film, but Roth intended it for a specific audience. I'm a person that lives an ordinary life (I'm no critic), but I find the ideas, the use of filters, and the odd post-modern film noir-esque use of cinematography to be absolutely breathtaking. The scene in the tub was, without a doubt, shocking...What was incredible to me is that type of torture went on in ancient egypt. Although I don't believe eli's target was historical signigicance, i thought it was well done. What would have been horrible is if he botched that scene...ie: not showing the pseudo-sexual foreplay with the scythe. That is what distinguises Roth from the group. Horror is not about reviews and critics...it is about a personal sick feeling...it's about people being able to be at one with the own machocisim whilst saying..."that was sick, I can't believe I watched that." Bravo, Mr. Roth. Bravo.
Jerry
January 07, 2009 at 04:50 AM
I have an argument rather than an insult, but I have made this argument to many people who are fans of this sort of thing in the past and received the same kind of insults back that some of your readers above addressed to Maven. Here's my arguement. I am sure you won't respond to it in a logical or respectful way because no one has in about 20 years of my making it. Anyway, silly me, here goes again.
In the last 35 years of so there have been hundreds of 'works of art' (mostly film, but some books, like World According to Garp or plays like Betty's Summer Vacation or, now, even television shows like that biker show on FX) that graphically depict the sexual mutilation of a male. In most of those 'works of art', two other things are true of the work, as well: 1.) that the audience is asked to laugh at or respond positively to this violence and 2.) that we are asked to understand that the male victim 'deserved what he got'. Both of those things are true of Hostel II, as you yourself must admit based on your review ("the cathartic last reel").
I am not aware, in those 35 years or so,of a SINGLE work of art that graphically depicts the sexual mutilation of a female, asks the audience to on any level appreciate it, and suggests, throught the narrative, that the victim 'deserved what she got'. That is a gross discrepancy that OUGHT to cause humane people of either gender some pause, wouldn't you think?
If that isn't enough to cause your fairness meter to go off, consider then the thousands and thousands of images that have been created in our media/art/culture over that same period that depict the slightly less depraved image of a male being sexually assaulted (kicked, kneed, punched, etc), and again with the final result that the audience is clearly expected to laugh, and to understand that he 'got what was coming to him.' Again, I tell you that I have never once seen such a work of art where the genders are reversed - where we are told in a work of art that a woman has done something so horrific that she 'deserves' to be sexually assaulted, and that we should laugh at her pain. Never once have I seen that.
So my question for you is, what do you think 35 years of having that message driven home has done to young boys and young men, like perhaps your own son? And what do you think it does to them when they are told by women like you that watching such images is cathartic? Isn't this creating a kind of emotional pogrom (I do not think that is too strong a word). The world of filled with evil people of both genders, but our art is teling us, clear as a bell, that only one gender is capable of real evil - which is another way of saying that one gender is worthless. I would seriously like an answer, but I've been trying to get one for years from people who support things like this and have never come close to getting a serious answer, let alone a mea culpa.
Beth Accomando from San Diego
January 07, 2009 at 06:07 PM
Well a few things... I haven't been pondering this issue as long as you and don't have as many examples as I'd like but here goes...
First of all my comments in the review refer specifically to the films not to a catalog of films depicting violence to men. And in this film the violence was cathartic because the man who is finally victimized did deserve what he got and it is satisfying to see a young woman who has for decades been the victim in horror films strike back. So I stand by what I said in the context of this film and I don't think this film is dangerous specifically to boys and young men. I do think the violence in the film is extreme and is not appropriate for young audiences in any way.
As to your broader question, I would agree that there are not films that depict sexual violence to women in which we are meant to laugh at the violence or say she deserved it but there are films in which women get killed or beat up and we laugh or feel they deserved it (everyone cheered when Glenn Close got killed in Fatal Attraction, audiences wished Nurse Ratched had been killed in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, and on a silly level Charlie's Angels beating up Kelly Lynch and then Demi Moore).
But I think one reason why male sexual violence can be made light of in films is because men are seen as holding a position of power and women are not. Therefore it can be cathartic to see a symbol of power taken down and then taken down in a particularly brutal way. If a film wants you to really hate a villain than you do want to see him or her taken out in a satisfying manner, and with men if they were sexually abusive then you might want to see them castrated in a film.
Since women are often depicted as weaker and in a position of less power they start off as underdogs in a genre like horror (not always but as a general rule that's the case). So it's the same reason we don't often see violence against kids and the elderly be something to make jokes about (although that has been done too). When men are the ones making films they can abuse their own gender more easily and without criticism whereas if they abuse women they are likely to be called misogynistic. I'm not saying this is fair or right but it is the case.
I also think that women tend to feel that the media has abused them for so long in terms of both being victimized onscreen and being objectified in ads that many artists feel the more recent violence towards men is just a chance to "get even."
I think you have made a fair observation but I think as more women make films and more women are depicted as in positions of power and if you look further out of the mainstream, you will start to see different things.
I appreciate your comments and if I can remember any films that don't fit your mold I will return to list them. I seem to recall some from Asia and some B-movies but can't think of specific titles.
I hope you feel this is some kind of an answer and that it was made in a respectful manner.
Thanks for your thoughts and insights.
Jerry
January 10, 2009 at 08:25 AM
It is respectful, thank you. I also think it is far less than compelling for several reasons. In your first full paragraph you say "my comments in the review refer specifically to the films not to a catalog of films depicting violence to men". In the same paragraph, you say "it is satisfying to see a young woman who has for decades been the victim in horror films strike back". It sounds to me like you are willing to take "a catalog of films" in consideration if it serves your goals, but not to if it goes against them.
In the same paragraph you say "it is not appropriate for young audiences anyway." Well, I agree, but there were, I believe, about a dozen young boys involved in the making of the film, were there not? Do they not matter to you? If this were a film that engaged a dozen or so pre-teen girls in something of this nature, would you not be appalled? I would. Why not boys? Again I am left with the conclusion that on some level society doesn't believe boys to be worth as much. Also, in this era, teens and pre-teens have access to almost anything that gets made, including pornography. There is at least one website out there now that includes a real of "favorite castration scenes" and edits them all into one lovely 3 minute clip, complete with the poster's comments as to why each scene's violence is particularly interesting to her. There is no filter on the site, so far as I can tell, and nothing to stop a 12 year old from accessing it. Yes, Hostel II is one of her 10 clips.
In the next paragraph (I promise not to ramble on toooo much longer), you say "but there are films in which women get killed or beat up and we laugh or feel they deserved it ". I agree, and that stuff disturbs me too, but two quick points: 1.) everyone can get killed or beat up. Therefore we are all capable of emphathy for a victim of such violence. Only one "group" has male sex organs and therefore to show a male character's 'comeuppance' in a sexually violent manner is deliberately tying his 'badness' to his sex (i.e., the accident of his birth). 2.) Yes, there are plenty (all to many) works of art that depict violence against women and use it as a means of selling a product or elliciting dark feelings in male viewers, but there are also plenty, plenty of works of art that show men getting punished through violence. You probably couldn't count the number of such 'paybacks' in any one of Clint Eastwood's Spagetti Westerns or the Rambo film. No one ever said "men are being objectified as evil creatures to be shot on sight" and at least part of the reason for that is because occasionally women were shown getting violent retribution as well.. So, while what you point out is bad, it has (here's the magic word) BALANCE! The imagery to which I refer has NO balance and simply shouldn't be condoned by fair-minded people.
Lastly, you say that men are seen as being in a position of power. This is quite true, but also quite wrong-headed. The VAST majority of men do not have power in this world, only a few do. The rest of us are just as powerless as many women feel themselves to be. Yet, the tide of imagery related to male sexual violence is sweeping over ALL males, not just those relativel few who actually wield the power. What we all ought to be working toward is fairness or a word that seems to have disappeared from our vocabulary of late: equality. Women aren't going to achieve equality by now doing to men what they feel has been done to them for centuries (or applauding it when creeps like Roth or Tarantino take advantage of their feelings in order to sell a product), or, if they are, I would suggest to you that is an equality not worth having. I am a professional artist, by the way, and one of at least a small regard - not some nutcase (I hope!) with nothing better to do than bother you about this. I believe very strongly that my position is sound and implore you (because of your widely heard voice) and anyone reading this to consider my argument.
