I doubt anyone here cares, but is anyone seeing Hostel II?

[quote name='d00k']Just got back.

I've never been so dissapointed in a movie before. It sucked.[/quote]What was the big surprise ending, dammit?
 
[quote name='VanillaGorilla']What was the big surprise ending, dammit?[/quote]
There really wasn't one. Besides the whole
castration
thing. The only thing surprising about that movie was how badly it sucked.
 
[quote name='d00k']There really wasn't one. Besides the whole
castration
thing. The only thing surprising about that movie was how badly it sucked.[/QUOTE]


I see 28 weeks later in your avatar, are you saying that movie was better? Because it sure as hell wasn't. I thought the beginning of the story of Hostel 2 was stupid, but it got better afterwards. IMO, Hostel 2 is way better than that piece of shit movie 28 weeks later.
 
[quote name='d00k']28 Weeks Later shits on Hostel 2. Just my opinion though. You don't have to agree.[/quote]

I have to agree with you. I really don't understand why so many people like Saw and Hostel.
 
[quote name='coolcolt']I have to agree with you. I really don't understand why so many people like Saw and Hostel.[/quote]

Well, don't get me wrong, I loved the first Hostel. I'm also a big Saw fan, (not so much with the third though). But Hostel 2 was downright terrible.
 
- The first torture scene was stupid. It was like something out of a vampire movie. It wasn't realistic at all, it just really bothered me.
- Paxton's death was rediculous.
- What the hell was with the heads in the closet? It made no sense at all.
- Aside from the first one, there really wasn't a solid torture scene in the whole movie.
- They made the torture business seem waaaay too big. It was much scarier in the first movie where it seemed to be something that was only going on in that creepy little town.
- I hated the part where the girl cuts the other girl's head off with an axe and the kids play soccer with it. Just seemed really stupid to me.

It just seems like he wasn't taking this movie seriously at all. It was like the whole movie was one big joke.

But that's just my opinion.
 
Hated the first movie, a great example shock for the sake of shock but a piss poor example of a movie. So I won't be seeing 2 at all obviously. Besides I can't go to see a film where the director can't sell any tickets or DVDs without plastering another director's name (whom I don't like either really) all over the commercials in fashion to make him look like he directed it.
 
[quote name='d00k']
- The first torture scene was stupid. It was like something out of a vampire movie. It wasn't realistic at all, it just really bothered me.
- Paxton's death was rediculous.
- What the hell was with the heads in the closet? It made no sense at all.
- Aside from the first one, there really wasn't a solid torture scene in the whole movie.
- They made the torture business seem waaaay too big. It was much scarier in the first movie where it seemed to be something that was only going on in that creepy little town.
- I hated the part where the girl cuts the other girl's head off with an axe and the kids play soccer with it. Just seemed really stupid to me.

It just seems like he wasn't taking this movie seriously at all. It was like the whole movie was one big joke.

But that's just my opinion.[/quote]

I thought that the characters in part 2 were much more likeable than the ones in the first one, which made it harder when they got taken to the factory. I didn't dig any of the characters in the first one. They all seemed like assholes.

The thing is, I don't think Roth tried to outdo part 1 in terms of the brutality and mayhem, but instead tried to tell the better story. Yeah, there's no part in the story, where the level of cruelty approaches the first one,
but I mean if you found yourself being sold to the highest bidden to be killed and you had the money, don't you think you would try and buy your way out?
, and I think the tortue business really is that big.

Roth was originally doing a documentary and the murder business and he was told to back off lest he be killed himself, and so he made Hostel instead.

The heads were for people who escaped
 
i felt mixed about the movie...yea it was gory enough to mess with my head a little after the movie, but there were some WTF moments as well

what was with the dude shooting that one little kid? i dont get it...

i thought some of the parts were just downright hilarious too

my favorite part was when the dude is getting head and his device starts beeping to let him know his victim is waiting...and he pushes the woman off him haha..he's like "bitch get off me" and shoves her ass off his dick...funny shit
 
[quote name='Zen Davis']I thought that the characters in part 2 were much more likeable than the ones in the first one, which made it harder when they got taken to the factory. I didn't dig any of the characters in the first one. They all seemed like assholes. [/quote]
Really? I loved everybody in the first movie. I felt bad for every last one of them when they were being tortured. The people in the second one kind of annoyed me. I only felt bad for the first girl, even though her death was rediculous.

[quote name='Zen Davis']
The heads were for people who escaped
[/quote]
I knew that, I just thought it was really stupid.

By the way, did you notice that one of them was Eli Roth's head?
 
This one sucked, hard. It just never seemed to be taken too seriously as d00k said already. That and not a single good torture scene, wtf!?
 
i saw it
The part where lorna was getting cut was nasty the chick was bathing in her blood :puke:
I liked the fact they dug a lil deeper into the elite hunting organization.
The bidding part was dumb.
paxton getting killed was dumb, but other than that the movie was kinda good.
 
[quote name='d00k']Really? I loved everybody in the first movie. I felt bad for every last one of them when they were being tortured. The people in the second one kind of annoyed me. I only felt bad for the first girl, even though her death was rediculous.


I knew that, I just thought it was really stupid.

By the way, did you notice that one of them was Eli Roth's head?
[/quote] yeah i did but you had to look really fast
The First killer is named after a historic serial killer she was rumored to kill young women in the same method that the first girl in the movie was killed
 
[quote name='swetooth9']i felt mixed about the movie...yea it was gory enough to mess with my head a little after the movie, but there were some WTF moments as well

what was with the dude shooting that one little kid? i dont get it...

i thought some of the parts were just downright hilarious too

my favorite part was when the dude is getting head and his device starts beeping to let him know his victim is waiting...and he pushes the woman off him haha..he's like "bitch get off me" and shoves her ass off his dick...funny shit
[/quote]
The bubblegum gang had to give a person for beating the girl up
 
I think it's kind of sick that people will pay $9 to see an hour and a half of cruelty and torture with no plot whatsoever and enjoy it.

I thought the movie was fucked up and walked out.

(Comming from someone who enjoyed Grindhouse, that is saying something)
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']I think it's kind of sick that people will pay $9 to see an hour and a half of cruelty and torture with no plot whatsoever and enjoy it. [/quote]
Actually, I only paid $8.50 to see an hour and a half of cruelty and torture with no plot whatsoever.


Just for the record...
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']I think it's kind of sick that people will pay $9 to see an hour and a half of cruelty and torture with no plot whatsoever and enjoy it.

I thought the movie was fucked up and walked out.

(Comming from someone who enjoyed Grindhouse, that is saying something)[/quote]
See.

That makes you look dumb. There was like 5 minutes of actual combined violence in the film.

Paxton was like 5 seconds. Girl 01 was 3 minutes. Girl 02 was like 5 seconds of violence. Final scene was like 20 seconds. Foot scene was 1 minute. Guy in elevator was off screen.

Don't review films you haven't seen.

I think the main thing Hostel fans are probably upset about was that it wasn't violent enough, am I right D00k?
 
[quote name='Zen Davis']See.

That makes you look dumb. There was like 5 minutes of actual combined violence in the film.

Paxton was like 5 seconds. Girl 01 was 3 minutes. Girl 02 was like 5 seconds of violence. Final scene was like 20 seconds. Foot scene was 1 minute. Guy in elevator was off screen.

Don't review films you haven't seen.

I think the main thing Hostel fans are probably upset about was that it wasn't violent enough, am I right D00k?[/QUOTE]
I think you need to learn that some people just aren't going to enjoy your beloved, hyper-violent toilet bowl of a film. Get over it.
 
[quote name='Zen Davis']
I think the main thing Hostel fans are probably upset about was that it wasn't violent enough, am I right D00k?[/quote]
I was mostly upset that the movie wasn't taking itself seriously like the first one was. But yes, what little violence there was very stupid.

I was also upset that it didn't have nearly as much story as it claimed it would.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla'](Comming from someone who enjoyed Grindhouse, that is saying something)[/QUOTE]
Not really. Your opinions aren't valid.
 
[quote name='Zen Davis']Roth was originally doing a documentary and the murder business and he was told to back off lest he be killed himself, and so he made Hostel instead.[/QUOTE]
Hahahahaha, you actually believe that shit? I've never seen anything about it myself, but if Roth said that in an interview of something, then it's obvious that he's just making up that tripe about shooting "a documentary" as a publicity stunt to get people to see his movie.

Anyways, Zen, I agree with Kirin Lemon in that you need to chill out and stop trying to convince everyone of how great this Hostel garbage is. I really hate, and am more or less disgusted by the "torture porn" movies of the last half-decade or so, and I usually like "extreme" movies (huge Grindhouse, Evil Dead, etc fan). I won't stomp anyone's right to watch or enjoy them of course, but my 2 cents basically boils down to these movies being garbage, for garbage minds.
 
[quote name='CoffeeEdge']Hahahahaha, you actually believe that shit? I've never seen anything about it myself, but if Roth said that in an interview of something, then it's obvious that he's just making up that tripe about shooting "a documentary" as a publicity stunt to get people to see his movie.

Anyways, Zen, I agree with Kirin Lemon in that you need to chill out and stop trying to convince everyone of how great this Hostel garbage is. I really hate, and am more or less disgusted by the "torture porn" movies of the last half-decade or so, and I usually like "extreme" movies (huge Grindhouse, Evil Dead, etc fan). I won't stomp anyone's right to watch or enjoy them of course, but my 2 cents basically boils down to these movies being garbage, for garbage minds.[/quote]
I'm not stomping people for not watching it. I'm stomping them for saying this was 'torture porn'.

Hostel 2 was not 'torture porn', as evidenced by D00k's post. It probably had less violence than any other R rated horror film released so far this year. On top of that, all the violence was more cliched and mundane than 'extreme'.

I will guarantee that if anyone watched Hostel 2 simply for the violence, they would walk saying that the film was extremely TAME.

That's all. The first one was extreme. Part 2 was much more watered down on the 'torture' perspective.

Scream had more violence than Hostel 2.

Regarding Roth himself, I believe he heard something about the business of killing and was told to back away. You can ignore it if you want. I choose to believe it. There are a lot of fucked up people out there.
 
[quote name='Zen Davis']I'm not stomping people for not watching it. I'm stomping them for saying this was 'torture porn'.

Hostel 2 was not 'torture porn', as evidenced by D00k's post. It probably had less violence than any other R rated horror film released so far this year. On top of that, all the violence was more cliched and mundane than 'extreme'.

I will guarantee that if anyone watched Hostel 2 simply for the violence, they would walk saying that the film was extremely TAME.

That's all. The first one was extreme. Part 2 was much more watered down on the 'torture' perspective.

Scream had more violence than Hostel 2.

Regarding Roth himself, I believe he heard something about the business of killing and was told to back away. You can ignore it if you want. I choose to believe it. There are a lot of fucked up people out there.[/quote]


I don't think that Scream had more violence than Hostel 2.
 
[quote name='Zen Davis']Scream had more violence than Hostel 2.[/QUOTE]

Okay, so, all screen violence is equal? Is that what you're saying? Yeah, all violence is bad, blah blah blah, but I can't imagine that you're denying that there are different degrees of screen violence.
 
[quote name='CoffeeEdge']Okay, so, all screen violence is equal? Is that what you're saying? Yeah, all violence is bad, blah blah blah, but I can't imagine that you're denying that there are different degrees of screen violence.[/quote]

I'm saying the original Scream was more fucked up than Hostel 2.
 
[quote name='Zen Davis']I'm not stomping people for not watching it. I'm stomping them for saying this was 'torture porn'.

Hostel 2 was not 'torture porn', as evidenced by D00k's post. It probably had less violence than any other R rated horror film released so far this year. On top of that, all the violence was more cliched and mundane than 'extreme'.[/quote]

the first one was the same way. my dad has a collection of hundreds of horror films that my friends and i would delve into every weekend, so hostel seemed like it'd be our kind of thing. a few of us went to see it and could not believe all the hype it was getting. we were actually expecting "torture porn" and got "frat boy: the movie." there was hardly any gore, and what was there was generally underwhelming or absolutely stupid (the shocking reveal of that idiotic looking eye prosthetic at the end comes to mind). the film felt like it was an hour and twenty minutes of watching obnoxious morons running around, and five minutes of really tame violence. i assumed the only reason people found it shocking was because the ads told them to. if they hadn't played commercials all the time talking about the violence, no one would have paid it any attention. the second movie sounds like it plays out roughly the same, so the people getting all up in arms about the film are more than likely just bandwagon jumpers who fell for the marketing campaign and don't have a clue what they're talking about.
 
how much more gory can a movie get than hostel? i dont watch many horror/torture films but that stuff (hostel 1 and 2) is pretty damn sick...if there are any other scenes from other movies that are more gross than the ones in this film, which are they and in which movies? i'm just curious since i'm a horror film noob
 
[quote name='Shmitty']the second movie sounds like it plays out roughly the same, so the people getting all up in arms about the film are more than likely just bandwagon jumpers who fell for the marketing campaign and don't have a clue what they're talking about.[/quote]

winner!
 
The first Hostel was shocking because of the context in which the violence was being presented. If there was a horror movie where a monster cut off some guys hand, that wouldn't be shocking because it's just some movie monster. Hostel seemed real, because stuff like that really happens.

But what I find aggrevating is that people classify Hostel under the same catagory as they would classify shit like "See No Evil", simply because they think it's violent. Hostel wasn't that violent, it was just intense, which means people are giving it a bad rap for doing what a horror movie is supposed to do: be intense.

BTW I found a Wiki page of the killer whom the first torture scene is based off of:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Báthory
 
[quote name='Kirin Lemon']Loser.[/quote]
My, my, my.

Ignorance will get you nowhere. We've pretty much told you why you're wrong and yet all you do is pretend no to hear us and go 'Nah nah nah'.
 
[quote name='Zen Davis']My, my, my.

Ignorance will get you nowhere. We've pretty much told you why you're wrong and yet all you do is pretend no to hear us and go 'Nah nah nah'.[/QUOTE]
How have you accomplished anything? You can find any number of ways to justify your enjoyment of this retarded torture pornography for all I care, but I will continue to think you're chock-full of shit. That doesn't make me wrong at all - it just means I have an opposing viewpoint. Once again, you just need to suck it up and get over it. Not everybody is going to have the same bad taste that you do.
 
[quote name='Kirin Lemon']How have you accomplished anything? You can find any number of ways to justify your enjoyment of this retarded torture pornography for all I care, but I will continue to think you're chock-full of shit. That doesn't make me wrong at all - it just means I have an opposing viewpoint. Once again, you just need to suck it up and get over it. Not everybody is going to have the same bad taste that you do.[/quote]
I think you misunderstood bitch. I don't give a shit about what you have to say because you're obviously wrong.

Three people have come into the thread and explained to you why the violence in this film (not the original Hostel) is not as bad as you're making it out to be. If you can't comprehend that and need to cite things like, 'Well it's only my opinion', you're either as dumb as bricks, or a nagging attention whore.

Watch Switchbade Romance, Audition, Ichi the Killer, or even Visitor Q and then come back into this thread and talk. Right now, all you have is inexperience, ignorance, and the skills to nag on your side.

As for my opinion on the film, you obviously fail at reading comprehension. I said I liked the film because of the characters, not the violence. Wait! Let me make that bold for you in case your opinion didn't catch that. I liked the film because of the characters, not the violence. Hold up. Let me pick a brighter font too. I liked the film because of the characters, not the violence.

You can have the last word if you want, because you're not worth any more of my time. Yeah you have an opinion, but if it doesn't have any legitimacy, then it's worthless; which is what has happened in this case. Later.
 
I thought it sucked, and the first one was better.

The torture scenes were lame, the ending was horrible, and they really didn't need the shit with the soccer head at the end. When the little fucking kid put his shirt over his head, I stopped the movie and promptly deleted it from my hard drive.
 
the only part I enjoyed was
the girl hanging down getting cut up and that woman bathing in her blood rubbing her funbags looking into the camera
....other than that, the movie was crap.. like part 1.
 
[quote name='d00k']Hostel wasn't that violent, it was just intense, which means people are giving it a bad rap for doing what a horror movie is supposed to do: be intense.[/quote]

that was one of my problems with the first one, actually. it just seemed too sloppy to maintain any sense of dread. the wonky pacing issues and the choices they made with the characters made it hard to feel like there was ever any tension being built up. the toe scene they pimped out in the trailers comes to mind. it elicited no reaction from the theater when it finally played out, mostly because it was so poorly introduced. a completely random girl about to get her toe cut off on screen, and there was no reason to be concerned whether it even happened. then they simply imply it instead of showing it. you've got a scene with a character no one cares about not getting her toe cut off. chilling stuff. that kind of killed the mood pretty early on.

the actual main characters were just assholes, so it was hard to ever care what happened to them either. the only point in the film where i started to squirm a bit was when the only character with redeemable qualities was getting killed off, and roth even blew that scene by showing too much of what was happening. the torturer is preparing the drill and when he randomly decides to just up and go for it, my anxiety level shot through the roof. then roth shows it happening and all sense of tension deflated while i sat there thinking "man, they sure are drilling the shit out of that big piece of latex." poor practical effects, annoying characters, and a complete lack of atmosphere combined to form a terribly mediocre film. obviously thats just one mans opinion. other people seemed to enjoy it quite a bit, and i really wish i could have. it just didn't do anything for me.

to the guy asking about gorier/more fucked up movies, two words: cannibal holocaust. absolutely terrible and dated film, but some of the things they do in that movie would send the lightweights (pointing specifically at krin "i've got my thumbs in my ears, haven't seen the film, and haven't read a single post in the thread" lemon up there) complaining about how morally bankrupt hostel is into shock.
 
i liked hostel 1 and this one. To each his own
but to me this one made the whole concept seem real.
The soccer part was funny.
to the guy asking about more gorier/ more fucked up movies nothing can touch begotten
 
Oh, and by the way, where the hell was this scene? I was really looking forward to it:

photo_11.jpg
 
[quote name='d00k']Oh, and by the way, where the hell was this scene? I was really looking forward to it:

photo_11.jpg
[/quote]

Probably cut because of the MPAA, and because LG makes the majority of their money on DVD, not theaters.
 
[quote name='Zen Davis']Probably cut because of the MPAA, and because LG makes the majority of their money on DVD, not theaters.[/quote]
Damn, I might be forced to buy a DVD for it. I really hope it gets online quickly so I don't have to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top