MovieChat Forums > Hostel (2006) Discussion > Only one in the series worth watching

Only one in the series worth watching

posted 8 years ago by paulg-67221
7 replies | jump to latest

WARNING: SPOILERS FOR ALL THREE MOVIES

Is it just me or did anyone else think the first one was the only worth watching? It's not an example of top notch film quality but I found the end satisfying (the alternate ending with the kidnapping is stupid) and I ended up rooting for Paxton (not because he's likeable but because I hated the bad guys so much).

The second one, I didn't care for, it ran off with the concept but I liked in the first movie you didn't know how big the Elite Hunting Group was or how they operated. I also didn't care for any of the characters (speaking of which, there should have been more focus on the characters rather than the concept). I didn't like the fact they killed off the main character from the first one in the first 10 minutes, they may as well not bothered with him if they were going to kill him off so soon and that the they were focusing on different characters for the bulk of the film. The end was not satisfying, she just bought her way out then quickly chopped off some lady's head. In Hostel, it worked because you saw the character escape which was a lot more tense than "I got money, let me out". Also, when he killed the Dutchman at the end, you saw the anger unleash. And don't get me started on the penis cutting scene in this movie, it looked so fake and stupid.

As for the third one, it's a low-quality direct-to-dvd sequel. A rule of thumb is that if a sequel is direct-to-dvd whereas the previous film(s) got a theatrical release, expect a drop in quality. It's like the filmmakers of this one didn't understand the concept of Hostel (you traveled to Slovakia, paid to torture and kill someone). The gambling didn't fit (it fit the location but not the series). And the everything is misdirection, e.g. made it look like the main character got kidnapped but it's really his friend, got annoying, it's ok once or twice in a movie but there were so many moments like that, there's no tension, well I didn't care anyway. The ending was even more stupid than 2. Say what you want about Eli Roth but from what I've seen (Cabin Fever and Hostel 1 + 2) he's a competent director.

Hostel: 6/10
Hostel 2: 4/10
Hostel 3: 2/10

I'd just like to know if anyone else agrees or even if you disagree feel free to leave your thoughts about the movies.

[–] OldFriendOfTheChristys 7 years ago

I actually prefer II for a couple of reasons – one, because it demonstrates (to a greater degree than its predecessor) that you never really know a person, what’s in his core. In this film, a man, despite everything that’s gone on before, loses his nerve; the other unlocks a dark place he didn’t even known existed. The other reason is because it shows that the entire operation is about one thing and one thing only: money. Some businesses manufacture hangers. Others build commercial properties. Elite Hunting serves up murder. They’re all the same in that they’re governed by the almighty dollar.

[–] paulg-67221 7 years ago

If you prefer II that's fine. For me the main reason I prefer I over II is that II became more about the Elite Hunting Group rather than the characters. Horror sequels tend to suffer from this sort of problem. Like Saw became more about Jigsaw from Saw II onwards rather than the characters in the traps.

[–] Wadsy91 7 years ago

I thought the first one was the best, as it was clever, frightening and enjoyable. I would rate Hostel III above II for many reasons, such as it being a standalone movie that does extremely well in terms of it's plot, some great acting and memorable scenes (like the fight between the two brothers, then the final scene).

Hostel II to me is just mediocre. It's nowhere near as good as the first film, killing Paxton was a mistake, the whole Elite thing was over the top and women torture and the way it was done was too much. I like it, but the first and third are superior for me.

[–] paulg-67221 7 years ago

Is there such a thing as over the top for Hostel? Well not for violence anyway.

As for the woman torture being too much, what about the men who are tortured in the films? They don't get off easy either in those movies.

The only good thing I can think about Hostel III being stand alone is that I can separate it from the first one, something I can't do for Hostel II.

[–] kylopod 7 years ago

I haven't seen the third one, but I do agree there was a big drop in quality between the first and second. It's a little surprising because Roth directed both, and one of the commonest reasons why horror sequels fail is because the original filmmakers hand the project over to hacks who don't have a feel for the material. Here, it's like Roth lost his touch.

First of all, the acting and writing was notably weaker, and they wasted the most talented actor in the cast, Heather Matarazzo. None of the villains were anywhere near as memorable or well-played as the Dutch Businessman in the first movie. And their motivations were utterly unbelievable and contrived. If you have a frikkin torture chamber business, you're simply not going to have anyone signing up who isn't already a total psychopath. The Dutch Businessman exemplified those qualities well, in the way he shifted effortlessly from charming to creepy to deranged. In contrast, Todd and Stuart were cartoons, and in the third act the changes they and the girl make seem to happen without rhyme or reason, being simply an artifact of the movie's need for plot twists rather than emerging naturally from the characters. And their acting is really over the top.

[–] paulg-67221 7 years ago

Hostel didn't need a sequel (most films don't). I feel the same way about Saw (I prefer Saw over Hostel but the Saw sequels suck too). Both were entertaining films that left a lot to mystery: neither reveal how the villain(s) conduct their schemes. In both Saw II (and the rest of the sequels) and Hostel II, they take away the mystery by making it more about the villain(s) and exploring their methods which made the film less interesting for me.

As a consequence of exploring the villain(s), less time is given for character development so characters are less interesting.

A sequel problem is "it must bigger". Saw focuses on two characters as does Hostel (Paxton mainly) whereas the sequels of both Saw and Hostel focus on multiple characters so there's less time to develop them.

I know I keep on about character but there's no tension if you don't care for the characters. This is a script problem so that may explain why it seemed to you Eli Roth lost his touch.

As for the acting, I guess I'm kind of used to seeing bad acting in horrors, still annoying but then again I ain't expecting Oscar worthy acting. But I agree the actor who played The Dutchman did a good job.

Sorry for the long response.

[–] kylopod 7 years ago

The bottom line is that people seek different things in the horror genre. Many people go to it looking simply for raw, visceral experience, and for those fans, characters are an afterthought, because it's not about building suspense as a storytelling device but about shocking them with disgusting sights on screen. It's not emotional involvement these fans are seeking but more the physical reaction coming from the extreme and nauseating images being presented to them.

Hostel is frequently called torture porn (it's often been described as the movie that launched the subgenre), but in many ways it's a traditional horror movie, with a plot that builds slowly (there's no violence or scariness at all for at least the first half hour of a 90-minute film). And for the most part, it's relatively restrained in its gore. You can definitely see the influence of executive producer Quentin Tarantino (particularly his early films like Reservoir Dogs) in its approach to violence, where sometimes not showing something can be scarier than showing it.

The sequel was much more artless, throwing us into the violence head on, with little sense of pacing. The dream sequence is an old standby, of course (remember the beginning of Aliens?), but here it called attention to what I believe was one of the movie's biggest problems, which is that the more it explored its central premise, the more absurd it seemed. The dream was supposed to represent Paxton's paranoia, but the "reality" in the movie's universe turns out to be not one bit less insane.

And while the idea of club members who have moral doubts about what they're doing has potential, the movie never provides a convincing account of how Todd and Stuart rationalized bringing themselves into the situation in the first place. I kept thinking: these seemingly "normal" individuals have somehow convinced themselves that it is okay to torture people to death for fun. I'm aware, of course, that in the real world "normal" people have committed great atrocities (and I definitely saw the overtones of Nazi Germany in these films). But usually there's some larger cause motivating such people, and it typically involves making distinctions between classes of people. I think the first film understood that to some degree, with its themes of rich vs. non-rich, American vs. European, along with its implication that the crimes were rationalized on the grounds that the victims got what was coming to them. In the sequel, the club had about the subtlety of Bond villains.

So you may be right that horror sequels go awry in their choice to explore the villains, but here I don't think it even managed to do that very well.