baileygiannini Hostel (2005) was as terrible as watching paint dry. However, this sequel to the first film takes a new all time low. I wouldn't rewatch this movie even if you paid me. This is far more worse than the first film. It's practically the same movie again, this time with the opposite sex. Having women being the victims and tortured is way more disgusting and sick than watching the men in the first film go through it. If anyone has any brains at all, they will certainly want to do a petition to ban all Hostel films from the US. The one after this awful sequel is the only one that's okay. Hostel Part II features more body parts ripping to shreds and more full frontal nudity. Swearing is here in this film again and it doesn't let up. There's really not much else to say except, the acting is terrible, the special effects are way to gruesome, no imaginary creativitay was done while this movie was in the shooting process and it's just garbage all around. It's a film that I only keep around to remind me of my Grandma. Other than that, I would've thrown it away in the trash can outside of my house a long time ago. The storyline's boring as anything possible. I'd rather look up in the sky and see different shapes of clouds than watch this terrible garbage that was made to rip horror fans off once again. Awful directions and very poorly written was the script when Eli Roth wrote it. Cabin Fever was better than this. I'm waiting to see if Eli Roth can come up with something truly terrifying, not the same rehashed garbage that other filmmakers having been putting out for years on end. From me, this is a huge thumbs down.For an overall rating, I give Hostel Part II0 Stars. (Why the heck did I watch this terrible piece of garbage?)

Wizard-8 I wasn't exactly a big fan of the first "Hostel" movie, so it probably comes as no surprise (especially when you also consider most sequels are inferior to the original) that this first sequel failed to move me as well. Actually, there is one thing about this sequel that I thought was better that the first movie, and that was with its look. This sequel looks a lot slicker than the first movie, from the cinematography to the sets and location. However, this sequel also takes problems the first movie had and increases them. The movie is agonizingly slow at times - it takes forever for the movie to really start going. Is it worth the wait when the blood starts to fly? I would say no. While there are some gruesome moments, they are few and far between (and I saw the unrated version of the movie!) This is a real boring movie for the most part. Needless to say, after subjecting myself to the first two movies of this series, I am in no mood to check out part three.

Spencer 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.

SnoopyStyle Paxton (Jay Hernandez) is haunted by his experiences and is hiding out with his girlfriend. However the organization tracks him down and beheads him. In Rome, heiress Beth (Lauren German), Whitney (Bijou Phillips) and depressed Lorna (Heather Matarazzo) are enticed by nude model Axelle (Vera Jordanova) to go to Slovakia. Rich American friends Todd (Richard Burgi) and Stuart (Roger Bart) win the auction to kill Beth and Lorna.The rule of the horror sequel is to go bigger and more extreme. I don't think it achieves that in most respect. This time they're going with girls which does up the stakes in terms of horror. I'm always surprised by the use of guys in the original. I really like the literal blood bath. I think it's imaginative and wonderfully staged.What I don't like is getting to know the killers. They are rather bland individuals. They are not compelling although they're played by two good character actors. It's not a good way for the sequel to go bigger. The only way it would work is if Eli Roth could write some amazing dialog like Tarantino. Sadly, he's not a dialog man. After the blood bath, the movie becomes boring. The other effect of focusing more on the killer is that the girls get less time. I don't really care about these girls after awhile.There's also an over-use of the Bubble Gum Gang. The movie keeps trying to be funny. It's not campy enough to be funny in that way. It doesn't have good enough jokes to be funny in any other way. If I didn't like the blood bath so much, I might have rank this even lower.