Film Review: Hostel: Part II

Director Eli Roth’s Hostel was a low budgetdo the outlandish and ultimate things with his best
wonderkind in which audiences were assaulted andfriend Todd, has reservations about what they
shocked yet not repulsed by the sheer villainy ofare planning to do when they get to Slovokia.
everyone in the film. There was little in the wayBeth, although also open to the ultimate
of likable characters which was okay since theypossibilities, is nowhere near as outgoing or
came off as more flawed thus more human thancarefree as her best friend Whitney nor as timid
most of the other “stock” charactersand introverted as Lorna. She is the happy
offered in horror films at the time. Although themedium between the two. In order to get to
film had as many detractors as admirers, the filmknow Beth you have to compare and contrast
was on par with other such controversial classicsher with her two friends, which is the same that
as I Spit On Your Grave or Last House on thecan be sad for Stuart and Todd. In a normal, less
Left and like those films Hostel was a mixedambitious genre film these supporting characters
blessing of a sophomoric film.could all be easily dismissed but Roth goes even
The same cannot be said of Roth’s sequelfurther by developing as well. Lorna goes through
Hostel: Part II which takes some of the elementsa profound character metamorphosis from the
from the first film that were right and expand ontimid closed off school girl to the open minded
them even more. This is a film that truly showsextravert mostly displayed by Whitney. Todd
how far Roth has become as a filmmaker andstarts off the hard-core killing machine until what
storyteller (kind of like Rom Zombie’s vasthe dreams the experience of killing someone for
improvement from dreaded House of 1000fun results in a life altering experience the
Corpses to The Devil’s Rejects). With Part IIopposite of what he wanted.
Roth delves more into comparing and contrastingRoth doesn’t stop at just developing great
the group of females who are about to becomecharacters, Part II also has much more elaborate
victims – Beth, Lorna, and Whitney (Laurendeath sequences and more gore that will easily
German, Heather Matarazzo, and Bijou Phillips,please any red-blooded fan. I dare anyone not to
respectfully) to that of the torturers – Toddappreciate and bask in the sheer horror and
and Stuart (Richard Burgi and Roger Bart,beauty of the Blood Countess Elizabeth Bathory
respectfully). This is no where more apparentinspired death scene. Roth has added style to the
then when Stuart and Beth inadvertently meet atproceedings, which were not on display in any of
an outdoor party in Slovakia and they discoverhis previous films (not to so that they were any
they have a lot more in common then whatless good). The production design by Robb Wilson
Stuart originally would have thought. There isKing and art direction of David Baxa (who returns
even the slight hint that had circumstances beenfrom the first film) are vast improvements over
different that these two probably could’vethe original film. In a age of inferior sequels –
been friends if nothing more.i.e. The Hills Have Eyes 2, Texas Chainsaw
Both Best and Stuart go through the mostMassacre: The Beginning, The Grudge 2, or The
profound character changes throughout the film.Ring Two, it’s good to know that Roth is one
At the beginning of the film they are both comingfilmmaker not riding the coattails of the previous
from a similar place in that Stuart, who wants tofilm.