hostel 1+ 2

The first one, although not a particularly good film, was a great idea for a horror film. The second one didn't add anything new and was just gratuitous violence - and was therefore a big disappointment (imo)
 
I have not seen it in two years so it probably is quite far fetched too if I had another look,however as I remember it was left much more to the imagination about how the torture ring operated making it more believable.
With the sequel you find out that they operate 24/7,from the same location (after somebody had escaped!).
Using techonology the way clients did in the sequel (the guy at work especially) would have been crazy because they were effectively linking themselves to a major murder network that was run so shoddily interpol would have cracked it in weeks :D

I remember the sequel having many more plot holes than that but it's been a year since I watched it and like I say,2 years since I saw the original.
 
We don't know what security was in place. I should think there was a lot of encryption, anonymous relayers, servers in diverse countries, servers running on hacked Windows PCs owned by unknowing virus victims, etc. Perhaps the phone app has a dual use for bidding on EBay auctions, and so is not incriminating in itself.

Interpol doesn't really do investigations, it's mostly a mechanism for exchanging information. The films make it very clear that the local police are involved with the club. It is operating in a very poor country, and bringing in huge amounts of money, which gives them a lot of protection. There wasn't really a need to change location.

Also, they are preying on foreigners rather than locals. Especially the hated Americans. Mostly the locals don't interfere because they don't really care. (Interestingly, in the second film one does care and tries to help a girl, and she rebuRAB him.) The clients themselves have every reason to be discrete. That tattoo would be very incriminating.

Ultimately it is fiction, of course. However, we can see similarities to how child porn is spread on the internet (at least in popular imagination), and to how ordinary Germans behaved while the Nazis were persecuting the Jews et al.

Arguably the least plausible aspects are those done for dramatic reasons. It'd be simpler to just grab all 3 victims as soon as they arrived at the hostel, with no need to stretch it out over days grabbing one at a time giving the others a chance to catch on. No need for the girls, either; just say there are girls and the boys will turn up, and more or less have to stay a night before going home disappointed.
 
If you are interested in the mechanics then it is worth also watching My Little Eye for a different take:
Although it mentions a client's website, the enterprise is very small scale, and I think it could be a private hobby of a single rich guy, with perhaps a few of trusted colleagues to spread the cost.
 
The second one was just gratuitous violence with a silly ending, but it gave many people what they want - to see people being kidnapped, cruelly tortured and murdered in inventive ways. Some people would have loved it. I thought it was boring and like I've said, the ending was rushed and a bit daft.
 
One of the funniest bits in film history was when...

Beth threw Stuart's genitals to the dog, which then gobbled them up "MISCHKA NIET!!"

Very funny
 
brangdon
Good comments ,
I agree I wouldnt be surprised if they are Hostel type clubs operating in ex soviet bloc Eastern Europe or South America , Thailand ..!
 
I saw Hostel on C5 the other night and found it very original. Eerie and uncomfortable from the off. Some say the first hour is like a porn film, but I wouldn't agree. The nudity isn't arousing really. In fact, it's the reverse. It's a very uncomfortable film to watch. And while it tests the human psyche for any trace of instinctive murderous lust, it's comforting at the end when you are rooting for the escapee. You really want the villains to die. It's only then that you can even imagine yourself with a chainsaw in hand, or blowtorching someone's eye out. Eli Roth and Tarrantino ARE irresponsible in making/endorsing these films. There are people who will sadly enjoy the gore for the wrong reasons. But it's like the old Alf Garnett argument. Were people laughing at him, or laughing with him?
I downloaded Hostel II and watched three quarters of it. Maybe not a film that should have been made really. There were questions left unanswered by Hostel, but I have to admit I switched the second one off. I've seen some sick sh*t on the net, yet I found it impossible to keep looking at Hostel II.
 
I like the first, it's great. It's got it's tongue firmly in cheek and I like all the trashy euro music and naked girls in the first half of the movie, playing up to the American view of Eastern Europe.

The second film is ok, basically just Hostel with girls but the bath scene is bloody great and it does expand a little on the whole business side of things.

Both films are far better than any entry into the crappy Saw franchise, at least these films (especially the first) know not to take themselves too seriously.
 
Saw and Hostel are different kinRAB of film. Hostel is largely a splatter movie; the eye scene for example is simple gross-out. Saw is more of a psychological thriller. It's not about someone foot being cut off, it's about someone being put into the situation where they have to cut there own foot off. Jigsaw's games are mental torture where Elite Hunting is about physical torture.

I agree the first half of Hostel is artistically stronger, but then for me it degenerates completely. It stops taking itself seriously because it has no-where to go. Perhaps the most interesting and chilling scenes are those with the other client, that involve no gore, but explore the attitudes of the clients a little. I prefer the second film partly because it expanRAB on that aspect (and I don't think you can really criticise it without seeing it all).
One of the ideas I like from Hostel 1 is that the boys see themselves as the exploiters. They are travelling to a poor country where they think their American dollars will buy them girls. "If you have money, you can have anything you want." They fully endorse that view. The twist is that other people have more money then they, and the perpetrators become the victims.

The twist in Hostel 2 is similar but opposite. The girls are initially presented as victims, who are travelling to visit a health spar and not exploiting anyone. But there are hints through-out that one of them is rich, and at the end she becomes a signed-up member of the club and the tables are turned again. I don't think this was rushed or daft, except insofar as the whole premise is daft.
 
I agree with this. I watch a lot of movies and my chief complaint is that many fail to leave an impression on me or make me feel involved. I found Hostel to be uncomfortable (and, as a result, incredibly effective) in that I was rooting for Paxton to enact gruesome revenge.

I've yet to watch it a second time, simply because the experience wasn't all that pleasant.

I'm surprised that people think that Part 2 is the harder one to watch, though. I thought the first one was far more gruesome, the second verging into black comedy by the end.
 
Both films have a satirical edge which is unusual in the so-called "torture porn" genre.

Eli Roth is definitely having his cake and eating it though as many fans of his work are definitely "hard of thinking" if their internet outbursts are anything to go by.
 
For all the hype, not to mention the right-wing tabloid hysteria, they're both a bit crap on the gore front. Part II has the more imaginitive nastiness but in both films, it's surprising just how inept and unconvincing the effects actually are, especially with today's technology and SFX capabilities.
 
Watched the first Hostel film a couple of years ago and thought it was ok, nothing special. I had more fun listening to my ex ranting about how the film made her home country look bad and despite being set in Slovakia, no one spoke Slovak in the film - everyone spoke Czech.

Never got round to Hostel 2, I might give it a view one day, although I have heard it's more or less the same as the original.
 
Its quite difficult for me to describe exactly why I thought the first Hostel film was a big pile of plop. I think the only word I can use is "amateurish".

Amateurish in the way that it seemed the storyline was written by a bunch of boozed-up 19 year olRAB down the pub. "Oooh lets have some tits, and gore and that guy can have his head drilled and wouldn't it be really cool if some geezer, right, had his eye hanging out of his head, right, and then it exploded right, and then, etc. etc."
 
Not to mention the fact that the makers confused Slovakia with Bosnia with all that talk of war.

Although Roth has claimed later that was a deliberate mickey take lampooning Americans poor sense of geography.
 
Back
Top