Hostel: Part II

Posted by H. Stewart (hstewart@filmschoolrejects.com) on June 13, 2007

There might be a point to Hostel II, the follow-up to Eli Roth’s now classic entry into the “torture porn” genre, but Roth underplays it so often at the expense of violence and exposition that it can be hard to spot. Horror movies, in general, can be the best measure of a society’s fears and concerns (although whether or not the frightless Hostel films should be called “horror” movies is open to debate); Roth surely knows this, but he doesn’t really seem to care. The first Hostel film was a gross and gory jubilee that at times paraded itself as an examination of post-9/11 anxiety, an acknowledgement that, as Scott Tobias writes, “bad behavior overseas could result in a little blowback”; it also approached a critique of masculine aggression in which men who treated women as meat were treated as meat in return. Well, those readings work at least up to a point, and that’s Roth’s problem; he’s no fool, but he’s more than happy to succumb to a fool’s delights, trying to delicately balance the crowd-pleasing carnage with informed commentary in a manner that is sure to please neither camp.

Though I suppose Hostel II should feature enough climactic violence to satisfy the jones of any pimply teen—particularly one with a DVD and a fast-forward button, as the bulk of the violence is to be found in the finale. Opening immediately where the first film ended, just like Halloween II (or, going back a bit, The Bride of Frankenstein), we find a bloodied Jay Hernandez unconscious on a train. It proceeds to do away with him, the first film’s sole survivor, just like in Friday the 13th Part II. (This is an incredibly self-aware sequel of Kevin Williamson proportions, though subtler, without being so loud about it.) That out of the way, Roth cuts to three American girls studying in Italy, each representing a familiar archetype—the freak, Lorna (Welcome to the Dollhouse’s Heather Matarazzo, a marvelously cast misfit); the bitch, Whitney (Bijou Phillips); and the sweetheart, Beth (Lauren German). Guessing in which order they’ll be killed shouldn’t be too difficult, nor should hypothesizing as to which will be the Jamie Lee Curtis left standing.

They are thoroughly shallow and irritating characters; is it less a consequence of careless writing than a reflection of American character, and the perception of its citizens abroad? The girls decide to take a trip to Prague, but en route a sexy Italian model tells them about the wonders of Slovakia, civilization’s final frontier; she even knows a cool place to stay! Hey, thanks! Of course this turns out to be the eponymous hostel, and all in all a bad idea. “So few safe places left in Europe,” bemoans the Italian bitingly, and it’s especially true for women; after all, woman is the nigger of the world, and on the Eurorail the Americanettes are seen as nothing but fuckable (and drugable) meat by the Eurotrash. But Hostel II has more up its sleeve than a simple rehashing of the first film, despite the fact that the girl’s scenes often feel that way, by focusing on two of the (American) killers (Roger Bart and Richard Burgi) who will, later, be the ones murdering Whitney and Beth. To Americans, women are just butcherable meat.

Roth examines their crises of conscience, both before and after the acts. “Do you think we’re sick?” Bart asks Burgi, who replies with a resoundingly enthusiastic, “fuck no!” The two killers-to-be are like a neo-Leopold and Loeb, except in the modern world they pay can big bucks in an internet auction—a montage featuring a humorous overview of the international rich and homicidal—for the thrill of the kill and a bit of legal protection. There’s nothing money can’t buy! Hostel II is not, like the first film, a parable of American vincibility, but rather could easily be read as a struggle between feminism and (masculine) capitalism; and of course, as always, the latter is the victor.

But that reading only works if you cut out the peripheral fluff, such as a lesbio-erotic scene of blood-letting that proves allegorically problematic. Roth suffers from a lack of focus, or at least comitment, and, as in his debut Cabin Fever, by the end Hostel II has devolved into sheer farce. (Though not before a ballsy killing sequence, a crossed-legs-inducing scene of literal emasculation. How on earth did this get an R rating?) But, I suppose, at least Roth is trying, and Hostel II is mildly interesting, if ultimately spotty, on an intellectual level and perversely entertaining to those who find such things entertaining. Torture porn doesn’t get much better, or much worse.


Read more articles by H. Stewart

Related Reading:

Your Ad Here

Comment Policy: No hate speech allowed. If you must argue, please debate intelligently. Comments containing selected keywords or outbound links will be put into moderation to help prevent spam. Film School Rejects reserves the right to delete comments and ban anyone who doesn't follow the rules. We also reserve the right to modify any curse words in your comments and make you look like an idiot. Thank You!

  • The Comedian
    Well, Well. It is nice to finally read someone that has taken Hostel/Hostel II seriously enough to realize that there were some really great ideas circulating within its gory walls. I very much agree with your conclusion,

    "But that reading only works if you cut out the peripheral fluff, such as a lesbo-erotic scene of blood-letting that proves allegorically problematic. Roth suffers from a lack of focus, or at least commitment, and, as in his debut Cabin Fever, by the end Hostel II has devolved into sheer farce."

    I was not a horror fan when I first heard the whispers of Saw and Hostel. Yet, there was something about those brand of movies that compelled me to watch them. I do not see Saw and Hostel on the same playing field. Hostel, no matter this dissolving intellectuality that plagues it, is a much more fertile ground for societal improvement. Within Hostel we find our fears of the unknown foreign world (outside US) epitomized under the heating lights of 9/11 heartbreak. That is why I resonated with Hostel, it was not because I found it's blowtorches (absolutely horrifying and conjuring Open City) entertaining, it was that I found the extreme violence as a metaphor for how much hurt many different kinds of people felt from 9/11. What has troubled me is that no one I know views Hostel this way. And beyond feeling outspoken, I am frustrated with the idea makers themselves, the directors, that they do not make horror movies that use the medium that is horror to its amazing ironic potential. Consistently you have well shot horror movies (The Descent, Hills Have Eyes remake and Hostel) that lose their ability to be moral awakenings within the glee of a 6th grader setting flame to a helpless toad or burning ants with a magnifying glass. When, I see such tremendous ability, beauty even, capable from the corrective of recent adventures into horror. That is why I like the old Dawn of the Dead better than the new one, it did not lose it's message of being aware how aimless senseless consumerism can be, because the original did not try to look cool, it just tried to be prophetic. And that's where I land with Hostel and subsequent horror movies, is that the genre is a poignant canvas for moral guidance, but I have not come across someone who is making movies and realizes what I realize about horror.

    Thanks for your thoughts.
  • The Comedian
    Oh and add High Tension (Haute Tension) to the list after Hills Have Eyes remake.
blog comments powered by Disqus