"Hostel II" manages not only to be one of the most horrifically appalling films ever created, but it manages to be offensive in the process. Continuing with the horrid tradition he established in the first disaster, Eli Roth depicts children as mindless animals who love death (possibly passing on some of his own problems...). In fact, they even seem to like the idea of dying themselves (and playing soccer with severed heads). Roth also retains the misogyny that was proudly presented and advertised in the first film. Of course, like the first, "Hostel: Part II" intends to appeal to fans of violent horror films; however, it only labels those fans as dupes who appreciate grisly violence without any hint of a feasible plot. In this sequel, Roth depends on animals to serve some of the horror. Sadly, the result is far from scary; scenes that feature a cat licking a headless corpse or dogs literally tearing someone apart are not only improbable and unrealistic, but ridiculous. In fact, "unrealistic" and "ridiculous," along with "pathetic," provide enough of a summary for this abhorrence masquerading as a film.
"Hostel II" manages not only to be one of the most horrifically appalling films ever created, but it manages to be offensive in the process. Continuing with the horrid tradition he established in the first disaster, Eli Roth depicts children as mindless animals who love death (possibly passing on some of his own problems...). In fact, they even seem to like the idea of dying themselves (and playing soccer with severed heads). Roth also retains the misogyny that was proudly presented and advertised in the first film. Of course, like the first, "Hostel: Part II" intends to appeal to fans of violent horror films; however, it only labels those fans as dupes who appreciate grisly violence without any hint of a feasible plot. In this sequel, Roth depends on animals to serve some of the horror. Sadly, the result is far from scary; scenes that feature a cat licking a headless corpse or dogs literally tearing someone apart are not only improbable and unrealistic, but ridiculous. In fact, "unrealistic" and "ridiculous," along with "pathetic," provide enough of a summary for this abhorrence masquerading as a film.
I barely even noticed the short little moments you mentioned. (probably because they were so insignificant and unimprotant). My problem with this movie is more related to the plot and main character's, not the movie's depiction of children and animals. The plot was mediocre at best, I felt no real connections with the characters, ans instead of being scary, it was usually just gross. I didn't see the first one, but I don't think I needed to. My friend said the only part of Part II that has to do with Part I was the first 5 or 10 minutes.
Posts: 610 | Location: Oregon | Registered: 18 October 2005
Yeah it's like the most disgusting, insignifiant, boring, stupid thing i've seen since that guy i saw put one of his fingers in his nose and throw the little green ball on someone else......
Not suprised to read your thoughts, I've simply avoided it because I figured it would be going downhill.
Another franchise wrote off,I see this becoming as laughable as Saw....both started off good...but sometimes it should be left at that and not try to merely cash in on the shock / media factor.
