Another cruel, horrid and sick movie by the 21st century psycho.
The plot takes place somewhere in Slovakia. We meet three female American art students, who are visiting Europe to practice their artistic abilities. They try to stick together and don't react on the odd hostile behavior that Europeans have towards the American society. When they are traveling by train, a group of aggressive teenage boys attack them. Luckily, a mysterious woman saves them and offers a shelter in one of the Slovakian hostels. Everything seems to be going fine. The girls tend to be more socialite, go to parties, visit spa resorts and meet new people. Feeling cheerful and free, they don't know that this is an arranged deathtrap and that luck is not on their side just now.
While creating "Hostel 2", it looked like Eli Roth made a little research before entering the set. Probably, the director wanted to make the second part more reliable. It seems a little awkward, because the first part resulted with giving Roth a ban to go through the Slovakian borders. The movie was criticized by blackening the nation's name not only through a grotesque caricature of children but also the natives' artificial hospitality. In the second ‘Hostel', to my surprise, the image is still the same and sometimes even more repulsive. The idea of innocent children is being again contrasted with the youngster gangs, who are even more unscrupulous and corrupted then earlier. Roth also injects the Slovakian folk music and festivity traditions in the background to create a more reliable picture of the natives' sly behavior. It looks as if the director was on a good way to become European's public enemy no. 1.
What actually makes "Hostel 2" so terrifying? If we compare it to the first part, we will indicate that the scheme is identical. Even the number of potential victims is the same. Still, the production gained more epic and blockbuster elements. Since the budget has risen, Roth's imagination was put into real life. He made those things that he wasn't able to do earlier. That's why the terror radiates from the more creative and sicker tortures, which concerns bloodbaths, the results of rotweillers' anger or a really painful castration. The atmosphere of danger is represented by multiplying the litres of blood and the number of spattered guts on the wall. Is this the only way to scare people today? Are you really sure Mr. Roth?
On the other hand, the plot is not a one hundred percent guide called "How To Kill a Screaming White American Girl in 100 Ways" (although it is the major source of it). If we concentrate more, we would notice that Eli Roth is trying to be another Quentin Tarantino. In the starting credits there is a sign saying: "Tarantino presents:", but his collaboration here is limited to proposing the main idea of the movie and financing its production (as it was in the first part). Roth extended a motif of two American males, who won the license to kill and are spending time together visiting bars, going to parties or jogging during which they have conversations resembling those from "Pulp Fiction" or "Jackie Brown". These elements have been used to evolve black humour and stereotype American millionaires as vulgar and spoiled. Well done Mr. Roth! You've learned from the best.
The era of the 70's horror movies has been interpreted as a reaction of the post-war trauma in the American society. The era of hostel-like production could be the reaction of the immense hidden fear of the 9/11 effects, but it would be a naive explanation for the director. After watching "Hostel 2", we see that Eli Roth's distorted image of reality is trying to be convincing. He labels Europeans as appalling and Americans as these poor lost sheep, who filled with fear, innocence and immature approach could be easily slaughtered. Comparison to the WTC tragedy is acceptable and natural, but overflowing it with illogical violence it's totally unacceptable. Maybe the US audience is buying this - I'm not.