ShangLuda Admirable film.

Cleveronix A different way of telling a story

filippaberry84 I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Deanna There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

Michael Ledo For some reason this movie picks up where the last one leaves off. Then all of a sudden we have all new characters, as if the first movie didn't matter. In the first feature we had a slow build up to the torture scene with plenty of gratuitous nudity. We actually got to know the characters and didn't know exactly what was going to happen. In part 2, we know what is going to happen and who is going to get it and we also know everyone is in on it.Edwige Fenech as the art class teacher was a classic addition. She is infamous for her European school teacher movies. The movie has a twist, but that really doesn't help it. It certainly doesn't nearly live up to the first feature.F-bomb, nudity (Vera Jordanova, Heather Matarazzo,)

Paul Magne Haakonsen It was quite nice to find that this was actually a direct continuation of the first "Hostel" movie.But then again Eli Roth veers fast from that and returns to the formula that was used in the first movie. Which actually leads me to think that this movie was essentially just a re-make of the first movie just with a female cast ensemble instead. And with other torture scenes, of course, but otherwise it was essentially the same. And that felt like a cold dead fish to the face at the hands of director Eli Roth."Hostel: Part II" is fairly entertaining and somewhat visceral if you haven't seen the first movie. And if not, then you will certainly be entertained by part II. However, if you have already seen part I, then there is not much for you to enjoy in part II. With part I already seen, then you simply just switch to autopilot and cruise through this without any stimulus.I will say that the cast in "Hostel: Part II" were certainly doing adequate jobs with their given roles and characters. And again, if you haven't seen part I, this becomes all the more enjoyable.While there certainly were some gory and gruesome torture scenes in "Hostel: Part II" then it hardly made up for what it was lacking in originality. And that ultimately lead to this being little more than a mediocre re-make of the first movie.

TonyMontana96 (Originally seen a few years ago) Eli Roth's Hostel Part 2 is the most inhumane, pointless, cruel film I have ever seen, it just displays suffering, cruelty and torture. I don't even want to write about this film, it's the worst film I have ever seen, I have seen plenty of awful films but none were more mean spirited than this piece of filth, it's the most reprehensible, ugly thing I have ever sat though. There's even one scene where a young girl is hanged up and cut open, so blood can pour over this sick whore's face and body who has paid for her. I am lost with words on this one, This is the worst, most vile film I have ever seen and the worst film ever made. 0/10

Leofwine_draca I absolutely adored the first HOSTEL film so when I heard about the sequel coming out, I knew I had to go and see it at the cinema. Sadly, HOSTEL: PART II is an essentially lacklustre follow up, a film that for the majority of the running time simply reprises the characters, locations, and storyline from the first film without adding much in the way of new stuff to the brew. The twist here is that the protagonists are all females, but sadly the central casting leaves something to be desired. Jay Hernandez, who played the hero, Paxton, in the first movie returns here for a short appearance – and I hate what they did with his character, considering how great he was in the original – and his performance reminds you just how sympathetic a character he was.There aren't really any sympathetic characters here. Of the three main girls, two are stereotypes, with Bijou Phillips acting abominably as the bimbo type. Meanwhile, Heather Matarazzo is a stock nerdy girl, all big teeth and speaking intellectually, and her character quickly grates. Matarazzo goes way over the top and is only really convincing in her inevitable torture sequence. The final girl of the three is also the heroine, as played by Lauren German. German is very attractive but her character is far too tough and never really feels to be in much danger.Here, director Eli Roth decides to blow the lid off the whole kidnap-and-torture plot, showing us how the business works through a plot strand which follows two American businessman from their initial bidding over their mobile phones to their turns as torturers. I was in two minds about this. The idea of following the torturers rather than the tortured allows for some fresh material, and certainly these two guys breathe some life into the production; it helps that both Roger Bart and Richard Burgi are very good actors here. But much of the suspense in the original film was derived from the mystery surrounding the shady goings-on and, of course, there's none of that here. Instead it's all very clinical and many scenes are played for a laugh, which lessens the impact of the horror, although there is one very good twist involving these guys.At the end of the day this is a graphic horror film that revolves around the torture sequences. Here, they're bigger and gorier than before, mixing plenty of dark humour into the brew to keep things moving along (watch for the circular saw scene if you don't believe me). The first is undoubtedly the worst and hardest to watch, a lengthy bloodbath involving a scythe and sickle, in which a Countess Bathory-type character bathes in the blood of her victim. The torture scenes at the film's climax are pretty much lacking in excitement, especially the events surrounding Lauren German's character that are obvious in the extreme. Roth goes out of his way to target the sensitivities of his male viewers with one particular gore effect, but the result is laughable – with the inclusion of the dog – rather than wince-inducing, as the 'eye' scene was in the first. What's missing is the whole adrenaline-pumping climax that we had at the end of HOSTEL; the escape and subsequent punishment of the various baddies. Here, due to a plot twist, we get none of that, just an abrupt ending with black comedy that disappoints. Aside from one particular sequence involving Matarazzo's character, nudity is kept to a minimum this time around.Roth can't resist throwing in plenty of in-jokes and appearances from old actors into the film. Watch out for Quentin Tarantino's head on a stick, a couple of girls from the first film appearing in a photo, and other minor recurring characters. There are also roles for Edwige Fenech, screaming heroine of many a '70s giallo flick, who still looks lovely to this day; '70s Italian action star Luc Merenda, greatly aged and pretty much unrecognisable, and finally Ruggero Deodato, director of the notorious CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST, who cameos in one of the film's funniest scenes as – yep, you guessed it – a cannibal, eating Stanislav Ianevski, better known as Victor Krum in HARRY POTTER AND THE GOBLET OF FIRE. Despite these fun references, HOSTEL: PART II already feels like the series has had it's time, coming across as both tired and repetitive, a real disappointment considering the freshness and power of the first film. Let's pray they don't make a third...