With just over a week to go until UB40 kicks off their SA tour, we bring you some interesting facts about their opening band, Grassy Spark

Angelina Jolie was reportedly questioned by the FBI for four hours over the Brad Pitt private plane incident

Hostel: Part II

2007-09-21 13:58
What it’s about:

Beth (Lauren German), Whitney (Bijou Phillips), and Lorna (Heather Matarazzo) are studying art in Rome, when they are invited to the titular Slovakian hostel by model Axelle (Vera Jordanova). Soon they are detained, and they become aware of the horrifying fate that awaits them. Hostel: Part II also tracks the progress of two prospective hostel clients, Todd (Richard Burgi) and Stuart (Roger Bart), who may have bitten off more than they can chew.

What we thought of it:

Right off the bat, here it is: Eli Roth is vastly overrated, and is merely coasting along on a wave of clichéd post modern crap purely by virtue of his association with Quentin Tarantino. I thought the first Hostel movie was wince inducing. The high tone created by the excellent torture scenes was brought down by soap opera-level acting and frat boy humour, as well as the stupid conclusion. So what of Hostel: Part II?

On its own terms, Hostel: Part II is nice little horror movie, with flaws aplenty, but enough gory violence to satisfy most fans. Compared to gutless lightweights like The Reaping, Pulse, and Reeker, it even comes across as adventurous and a bit edgy. A few scenes raise a chuckle, and it’s slightly more frivolous all round.

The biggest problem is that it is basically the same plot as the first film, apart from the subplot with Todd and Stuart, which - although funny at times - is quite laboured. Since we know what is coming, all the signposting along the way makes the next surprise blatantly obvious. Twists and surprises are mostly rendered impotent, so it sinks to the sadism and gore to entertain.

The torture set pieces are once again the most lovingly constructed parts of the film and shine compared to the rest, as if Eli Roth were asleep during the filming of everything except the violence. As a horror fan, I must admit that I took some guilty pleasure in all the gore and bloodletting, although compared to the bleak tone and sheer nastiness of the equivalent scenes in the first movie, they are pretty easy to laugh off. (One particularly detailed death looks as though it was plucked straight out of a Cradle of Filth or Marilyn Manson music video.)

Despite being somewhat entertained by the over-the-top gore, the plot of Hostel: Part II is just too stupid, unlikely, and frankly lazy, to really get into. It ends up being more of a teenage horror than genuinely disturbing. If you’re impressed by it, do yourself a favour, and check out Wolf Creek, Bloodsucking Freaks, or Salo, for something truly nasty.

As many other recent horror outings have been so dismal and thrill-free, I can recommend it to fans, but it’s doubtful many other people will enjoy it.

- Ivan Sadler
More unlucky backpackers are lured to the torture trap hostel, while a pair of businessmen plan a getaway which entails making use of the murderous services on offer.


Jack Reacher: Never Go Back

2016-10-14 07:38

Cyber PIMP 2007-07-16 08:23 AM
I Agree.... Why in da hell are these peeps doing sequels, look at SAW. When does it stop, we all know whats goin to happen in this movie. Please dont go watch this,this sucks just as bad as GRIND HOUSE(New Tarantino production). Rather watch Shrek 3 , its much scarier...........
CS 2007-07-16 08:43 AM
I disagree lol, you guys expect to much. it's a horror-gross out flick. "the torture scenes were once again the most lovingly constructed" well duh, thats what the movie is about. I think if you're the kind of person whos not into that, it's unfair to write a review saying it would be bad movie for everyone, and the same can be said for most of the other movies you also review (and crucify) on here. Personally, i enjoy about 9 out of every 10 movies get ripped off by you guys on this page. Every movie is not a piece of "art", some of them just need to be accepted for what they are, and thus enjoyed for the same reason.
Psymon 2007-07-16 10:21 AM
ummm ok... CS: You're spot on the money here. When the makers were filming this movie, the LAST thing on their mind was "Will this win an Oscar?" This is a "Blood Guts, mayhem GORE and More blood and guts film" Not The titanic nor is it Ben-Hur(1959)... If you guys are looking for a film to Crucify... rather have a squizz at THE Return - With Sarah Michelle Gellar. Watched it this weekend, and well the only thing that should have been returned was my money that was wasted on such a pointless and confusing film. I think S.M.G should stick to TV and slaying vampires! :)

Recent Reviews

Jack Reacher: Never Go Back

2016-10-14 07:38

Just another typical Tom Cruise action film, with nothing to get too excited about. The film is loaded with action-film stereotypes and cheesy one-liners. Read More »
Add your review

Hands of Stone

2016-10-14 07:38

Hands of Stone is a bland, unlikable portrayal of a real-life boxer that struggles to hit the highs of Rocky IV let alone Raging Bull or the original Rocky. Mark this one down as “for boxing fanatics only”. Read More »
Add your review

There are new stories on the homepage. Click here to see them.