MovieChat Forums > Hostel: Part II (2007) Discussion > Paxton Character (SPOILER)

Paxton Character (SPOILER)


Great Thrillers, both 1 and 2.

But I can't stand that he decides to kill Paxton.
That was a major let down.

Paxton's character is a great movie hero - a regular Joe placed in the worse possible predicaments who manages to not only survive, but finds the courage to go back into the jaws of hell to rescue the Asian girl, kills creeps along the way, and even exacts vengeance, in the 1st degree, on the wannabe surgeon at the train station.
He transforms from a naive-party guy into this warrior-survivor with honor and morality intact, which makes him a very compelling person.
Also judging by the themes in this movie, many of the paying-sadists, are trying to gain the type of 'life experience' which can only be earned by difficult situations which you arrive at organically, and ultimately triumph over, like Paxton did.
Why kill a character like this?


reply

I agree. While people often point to Hostel as a movie that's nothing but mindless violence, Paxton's character truly elevates the movie to something else. However, Hostel 2 really doesn't have anything redeeming about it. The hero of Hostel 2 is just a rich girl who buys her way out of her situation. Additionally, Hostel 2 kind of ruins Hostel because now I will have a hard time watching Hostel knowing what Paxton's fate is.

reply

Definitely...I too can't enjoy either two the same way knowing the outcome for Paxton.

And you are right that the way they wrote Paxton's character elevates Hostel into something more than a cheesy gore flick.

reply

Agree. Was a very Alien 3 type thing they did. They didn't need to wrap that guy up at all, or could have had him in a mental institution. After all he went through in the first film we don't even get to see his death, he just appears headless. Also ruins the Director's Cut ending.

reply

[deleted]

THIS

reply

The character was killed for one simple reason, to get the reaction that you just displayed. If only bad people were killed in horror films, it wouldn't really be horrifying, now would it?

"Hey, careful, man, there's a beverage here!" - The Dude

reply

Bad people weren't the only ones to die in Hostel, I haven't even seen either movie fully and I know that most of the body count is full of the "good guys".

Lois & Clark 4EVER!!!
DC can SUCK IT!!!!

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

It killed the movie! Did he really think the authorities are in on it? Why didn't he go to the press then?

reply

The difference between Ripley's death in "Alien 3" and Paxton in "Hostel 2" is that Ripley got a pretty good send off. If they have to die, make it epic.

Paxton's death was so freaking lazy that it's hard not to be pissed off. I hate how these directors think they're fans of horror films but make the same mistakes that pissed us off in the past.

my reviews of martial arts and horror films
http://freewebs.com/martialhorror



reply

Most of you are missing the point. Many rich and very powerful people were involved in this, he was scared to death for his life.

That's why he was in hiding. They knew that he knew too much.

He had a feeling they would track him down, the last scene we see of him is being upset that his girlfriend told his sister that they were at the grandmother's house. Clearly the phones were tapped.

Look at all the "witnesses" who died after JFK was killed.

reply

It is believable that an organization which the members are rich and the company benefits off of killing others would go to great lengths to conceal knowledge of their doings getting out and becoming public, but I too agree it was a mistake to kill Paxton. The best part about the first movie was how much his character changed throughout the course of the movie. He starts out as the simple minded jockish jerk with only one goal in mind. I definitely expected him to be the first to be slayed. I was very surprised he ended up not only being the hero but prevailing in the end. I took great pleasure in watching him get revenge, especially on the wannabe surgeon. He went to such great lengths to escape and even tried to rescue the asian girl. Then, he has a small reprise role in this movie and it doesn't even show his death? They definitely did drop the ball on that one..

Nuff' said.

reply

All your doing is describing how great you thought he was in the original. What then would you liked to have seen him do in the second part? The same thing? It had already been done.

reply

Then why not also kill his gf, who clearly knew everything also? They killed him and let her sleep peacefully? Makes absolutely NO sense. It was just done for shock value and nothing else.

reply

The difference between Ripley's death in "Alien 3" and Paxton in "Hostel 2" is that Ripley got a pretty good send off. If they have to die, make it epic.

Paxton's death was so freaking lazy that it's hard not to be pissed off. I hate how these directors think they're fans of horror films but make the same mistakes that pissed us off in the past.


Great points. 

"I'm the ultimate badass,you do NOT wanna f-ck wit me!"Hudson,Aliens😬

reply

I cannot see why Paxton was even in this movie, if it had been based on him then Eli Roth would have needed to write a new script which he obviouslt couldn't be bothered to do. Developing the Paxton character would have made for a more original sequel.
With the exception of the the very brief Paxton story at the start, the rest of Hostel II is exactly the same as Hostel but with female characters.
3 friends travelling around Western Europe.
2 very close friends and 1 who is not close to either of the other 2
Mysterious stranger advises the 3 friends to go to the Hostel in Slovakia
Friend who is not close to the other 2 goes missing first
Sex fueled friend goes next
People involved with Elite Hunting Club say that they will help the one remaining friend to find the others and then abduct them like the other 2.
Not close friend and sex fuled friend both die, the other one lives.
The surviving friend kills a member of Elite Hunting Club.
Very lazy Mr Roth, obviously writing the 'shock' scenes took up too much of your time.


Free to those that can afford it, very expensive to those that can't.

reply

they should of had paxton die towards the end of the movie. maybe he helps out beth but somehow they get separated and this time paxton has no way out. I don't know, I'm just mumbling but it would've been better if they killed his character later in the movie or as some have said don't have him in it at all.

reply

"Sex fueled friend goes next"

That's not what happened in the original. The sex fueled friends SURVIVED and became the hero in the first Hostel.

reply

Yeah, that's why Paxton worked and Beth didn't. I think it would have worked better if Whitney made it out instead.

reply

It would have been cheaper and more predictable to have Paxton be the protagonist again. It's the usual path of sequels.

No one seems to have mentioned Friday the 13th Part II. Could it be an homage to that?

And ask yourselves if Paxton is as heroic and morally pure as you think. He did the exact same thing to the torturers as they did--that was the whole point of the end of Part I, where he cuts the Dutch businessman's fingers off, just like Paxton's had been, and cuts his throat, just like Josh's had been cut. At that point he becomes the torturer. But then again, if you have no problem with people carrying out revenge, I probably won't convince you. Do you agree with the whole "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" philosophy?

And in Part II, he hasn't changed. Same old Paxton, out for himself. He doesn't tell anyone about his experience because he's afraid people in power are in on it. Great, so it's heroic to let people in power kidnap and torture people? If he was truly heroic he would have gone forward with his story, consequences be damned. Oh, and he has a girlfriend? If he was that paranoid, he should have sworn off all attachments.

I'm glad they killed Paxton off. Was and always would be a ****.

reply

[deleted]

Agreed with most of the comments. I also thought of Halloween 5 when they killed Rachel who was the heroine of part 4 as something similar. I believe one of the executive producers even regretted killing her off after the film was finished.

reply

Friday the 13th Part 2 is where this stupid thread started.

reply

No, killing him at the beginning of the sequel is cheaper than having him as the protagonist again.

reply

Paxton went back to save the Asian girl in Part 1 which put his own life in danger. That is very heroic. And if someone tortured one of my best friends to death, you're damn right that I would have done to the Dutch businessman what Paxton did. The Dutch businessman totally deserved what Paxton did to him. The first five books of the Bible all explicitly advocate the death penalty, and it is common sense. The only valid argument against the death penalty is that sometimes you execute the wrong person, i.e. an innocent person. But Paxton was clearly 100 percent sure that the Dutch businessman had in fact tortured his friend to death.

As for Part 2, it isn't clear how much Paxton has changed because he is only in it for a couple minutes if you don't count his dream. The fact that he is apprehensive about going to the authorities because he is afraid that they might be in on it doesn't make him selfish, but rather prudent. And maybe he would have gone to the authorities and/or the media eventually had he lived.

reply

The fact that he went back to help the Asian girl does show he has some redeeming qualities. So he's not totally selfish. He was so shocked by the cruelty he encountered that it sort of snapped him into some moral sense. But you have to admit, for most of the movie, he is portrayed as a kind of sexist, egotistical, brainless frat boy. A reflection of certain Americans' attitudes toward other countries and foreigners--that they're there for our taking and exploitation, which the film strongly suggests in the first half. And that image gets reflected back in a distorted, exaggerated way by the Elite Hunting Club.

And when Paxton takes vengeance in almost the exact same way as the torturers, this seems again to draw an implied parallel between him and "the bad guys." Not literally, like they're on the same level, and of course we're supposed to root for Paxton like any other character in a movie taking vengeance against an antagonist.

But many other movies, as I feel like Hostel/Hostel II does, also imply vengeance has a certain psychological toll, because it also brings up the question of what the difference is between the one who violently kills for pleasure and the one who violently kills for payback. (Of course, certain action movies, like Dirty Harry and the Death Wish series, don't do this; but usually horror implies the blurring of that psychological boundary.) Taking someone's life into your own hands--where the individual is the judge, jury, and executioner--is a terrifying prospect because it basically means you're working basically within your own standards and have given up any sense of communal justice, legal or divine. So personal vengeance is a lot different than Old Testament law (which most modern people don't follow strictly, even most Jews, let alone Christians), which follows a strict number of regulations and requires an assembly of people (not just some lone wolf striking down criminals/evildoers), or being convicted and sentenced to death in the criminal justice system, which again involves multiple people and various people putting checks and balances on each other (and even this system is very imperfect and corrupt).

Plus, movies like Hostel also bring up the hard fact that revenge doesn't necessarily fix things, make the pain go away, or make you any morally superior, all of which I think can be implied in Paxton's short reappearance, granted in a very brief way. But given the continuities with the first film, it makes sense to me.

Anyway, if you put aside your politics for a minute and look to the actual film(s), you might pick up on some of the points I'm highlighting. You of course might interpret things differently, but try to look at it more from the angle of what the actual scenes are conveying rather than the ethics of whether the death penalty is right or wrong.

"every time godzilla loses to mothra I die a little bit more"--Godzillaswrath

reply

Paxton got killed off because Elite Hunting are run by the rich and powerful and have the connections that they can find anyone and have them killed. And yes they have connections in the authorities and likely the press (though even if they didn't Paxton couldn't prove anything that happened so its unlikely the press would believe him).

I thought his death was fitting because it showed the incredible power of Elite Hunting and to have him live would take away from that.

Hostel 2 is not the same as Hostel 1 at all. The audience knows the secret from the beginning, the original protagonist lives unlike Josh who was killed early before Paxton took over, Paxtons fate was uncertain at the end of the film whereas Beth was definitely going to survive at the end of this one and we were shown how the organisation works and the motivations of the customers. The way they were kidnapped was also completely different.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]