Too polished...not gritty like the 1st
Everything that made the first part great, is severely lacking in the sequel.
shareEverything that made the first part great, is severely lacking in the sequel.
shareAgreed. The first one is really creepy; the second is lacklustre.
shareAgeed, 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.
Actually, they couldn't BE more different. Hostel 1 was about people traveling abroad, and being tortured by an unknown entity(until the reveal at the end). In part II, we already know who's doing the killing and why, so the entire movie is about the business side of said entity. The reason most people complain about the sequel is BECAUSE it's not exactly like Hostel. Eli Roth cared enough to create an ACTUAL sequel to his first, hit film, rather than just rehashing the same ideas, and putting different characters in the same situation, like almost every other horror sequel ever produced.
"Nothing says "OBEY ME" like a severed head on a fence post."
Actually that isn't exactly true. In the first film the sex-fueled friend (Paxton) is the one who survives, not the one who is killed. In the second film it is the other way around.
shareSame thing happened with The Collector and The Collection.
shareYou mean soft core boring porn?
shareRoth (or the producers/studio) made a big mistake by deciding the film should be so damn ugly visually, unlike the first film's classic realistic look all the more effective for it. Viewers ought to be given an option of how to watch it, all films should really; non-graded original camera photography (you get a taste of that in the DVD extras before most of the added limited fake colors). This is important to film fans and their enjoyment of films so studios should listen, dammit. In short; get their act together and get back to realism with watchable products in real cinematic tradition. This crap is just silly. The industry's post-production uniform color craze was really bad around this time (and still is), here it really hurt the film's effects making them almost impossible to see because this tinkering seemed more important to the filmmakers resulting in the f/x being lost in the smeary mess. The film is nowhere near as good as the first film, but enough is enough with the post nonsense correcting this would certainly go a long way in one's opinion of it.
shareThis film lacked the raw gritty edge of the original. Like a lot of sequels it's far too predictable and hence a lot less effective for that reason alone.
I've been chasing grace/ But grace ain't easy to find