Wonderful character development!

Highly Overrated But Still Good

Simple and well acted, it has tension enough to knot the stomach.

The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.

I hated the first Hostel 1 star, and this film is leagues worse in every aspect. If I could, I would gladly rate it 0. They simply dumbed the main characters down even more and gender swapped them. I thought the pornographic stuff in this first movie was excessive and irrelevant to the plot, but it was at least fun in its own way. Here they reduced any sense of eroticism to pure trashiness (there isn't a single sex scene in this or even much kissing), which begs the question, 'Why is it even in the movie at all?' Even the gore is severely downplayed here with almost all of the action taking place off screen or being shoddily done.One of the few good points of the first film was the believability in the kidnapping and general functioning of a kill club. Now it's somehow an international criminal syndicate with it's dark tendrils in the recesses and pockets of every corner of society (cue the evil laugh). If that were the case, why even bother hiding the club away? They might as well just kidnap people in broad daylight... Which they practically do in this film. I guess drugging people and spiriting them away was too easy, because they forcefully kidnap and restrain each victim here. And then they auction them off. So much for the anonymity. So much easier to torture people when you know their names. So much easier to hide your activities when you leave a paper trail...The kill club worked in the first movie. They didn't show any sort of organizational hierarchy, only goons and scouters. Each client showed up, paid a lump sum in cash, and were presented with a body and a shed's worth of tools. This kept victims expendable. If you promise a specific person, then you have to maintain the merchandise. The rooms were smaller and grittier. It felt almost like a dungeon, but here it feels more like Dracula's cathedral. Not to mention the clients themselves were interesting in the first, but here they aren't compelling at all. It's always disappointing when an artist crafts something, and then destroys a piece of it you thought they understood perfectly in a sequel.I had to force myself to sit through this abortion, watching it in three parts. I mean, seriously, how is the intro even longer and blander? How is there even less action overall? I guess we're putting on kid gloves for the girls because we're supposed to be extra horrified. Anything you thought was done well in the first was lost in translation, and all of it's flaws were amplified tenfold. Don't even bother.

(Originally seen a few years ago) Eli Roth's Hostel Part 2 is the most inhumane, pointless, cruel film I have ever seen, it just displays suffering, cruelty and torture. I don't even want to write about this film, it's the worst film I have ever seen, I have seen plenty of awful films but none were more mean spirited than this piece of filth, it's the most reprehensible, ugly thing I have ever sat though. There's even one scene where a young girl is hanged up and cut open, so blood can pour over this sick whore's face and body who has paid for her. I am lost with words on this one, This is the worst, most vile film I have ever seen and the worst film ever made. 0/10

While Hostel: Part II is very much alike to the first one, there's one main difference. After the first movie people know what is going on. People know what's going on in Hostel and who is torturing the others and all that. So that's why Hostel: Part II has a chance to explore the people killing more than the previous movie, that tried to keep that a mystery for as long as possible. The second movie introduces us to two possible killers and we follow them as we follow the girls we know are going to experience what the guys in the first movie experienced. And while Hostel films are pure horror, it's interesting to see the two possible killers and their personalities - and see the development in the characters. That shows some true writing skills from Eli Roth.Another thing was that the three main characters were female in this film. This offers a lot more plot devices for the story. Now I was worried that the female characters would be the kind of typical horror movie girls, but something about how they were written reminds me of Death Proof. While the genres are different both Eli Roth and Quentin Tarantino have proved they can write very interesting women.Also if the viewer has seen the first Hostel movie, the second one isn't as thrilling, because you already know how the system works. Of course there's still the violence and torture that create the horror, but the thrill is gone because you already know. And while you still may be excited to see if the characters are going to survive, it's too easy. Who survives is following the pattern. But the "how" is much more interesting in Hostel: Part II than the first one. Otherwise Hostel: Part II is pretty similar to the first one, and it's hard to not to repeat myself apart from those three key differences that I just pointed out. But the thing is, of course it's similar. I didn't expect it to be different in a major way. Still, Hostel: Part II is just as interesting, even if some of the mystery is gone. While the themes and patterns are similar, there are so many new details that make this one worth watching if you have seen the first Hostel movie.

Very entertaining. Sick and insane, it appeals to the people who can watch people scream and endure perverse torture as though they were watching the original A Nightmare on Elm Street. Like the first movie, a large portion of Hostel Part II is devoted to character development and lead-up. But, as a sequel should, it also brings some new ideas forth. The most obvious change, aside from the three main characters (victims), who are now women-- if that makes a difference--there are two other characters who take the spotlight (one in particular). These characters are the men who have paid to kill the three girls. So we see this movie from the perspectives of the victims and the culprits, which is an interesting feature. We also see some different ways people who have 'bought' a victim choose to carry out their fantasies. They really can do ANYTHING they want with their victim. Pretty nasty stuff. I was able to enjoy this more after having viewed Part I, since I was better prepared for a campier experience. I'm not particularly squeamish, and nothing in this movie really grossed me out more than my nerves anticipated it would. Not to mislead you, though: this is still a very bloody film with a twisted concept. Gorier than the original (in fact, almost all of the violent scenes in the original are shown again to catch everyone up in the intro), though perhaps a bit less serious. Not a bad experience, though it's quite a silly film. Once more, plenty of entertainment value if you're into it.