I seem to be the only person I know that likes Hostel. It has a really bad first act or so, with a lot of lame attempts at humor, but I think it really picks up as it goes along, and that it is effectively disturbing and even gets a little exciting. But all my friends seem to think it’s trash.
So, I don’t think any of them will really give part 2 a shot, but it’s actually an improvement over the original. It has a really pointless and poorly executed opening 5 or 10 minutes, but after that it’s all uphill.
What is up with this beginning, though? Was it some sort of homage to Friday the 13th Part 2? We spend a few minutes with the survivor from the first movie, and then he is unceremoniously killed offscreen. And it has nothing to do with the rest of the movie, except you do get to see his severed head nearer to the end. I think maybe Eli Roth wanted to work with Jay Hernandez again, and could not figure out a real way to work him into the story.
Anyway, after that the movie really starts, and it’s sort of like the first movie but without all the jokey, frat-boy Eurotrip bullshit. It strikes a much more grim tone from early on, and only sprinkles in the dark humor on occasion.
The main plot is basically a rehashed version of part one, with 3 American college students going to the Hostel, getting abducted, tortured, etc, only more skillfully done. But the first great change that Roth makes is to add a subplot about the torturers.
We meet two American business men who have paid to torture and kill the main characters. And what’s kind of cool is that Roth seems to be making one of them out to be sympathetic. Making him seem human, and uncertain of his actions. And for this type of movie, I think they do a good job of fleshing these two villains out, which adds a level of psychological horror absent in the original. When we end up in the torture chambers this time, and now we know the victims and the killers; it adds a new dynamic. Especially the way some characters make some unexpected twists.
The other thing I really like about part 2 is that I think it directly addresses complaints people have about this type of film, the supposed “torture porn” genre. The idea that the filmmaker employs excessive violence that we are to enjoy.
But I think anyone who watches the movie realizes that the violence is meant to be disturbing, not fun. We sympathize with the victims, want them to escape, etc. Only this time Roth plays with expectations. I think he tries to lull these critics in. He has these two killer characters, makes one of them almost likable. Starts building up to the murders, making it feel like it’s going to be a big payoff. Almost like he’s whispering in our ears “You’re right. I am a sicko. I do mean for you to enjoy the torturing and killing. Yeah, come on. Let’s watch this blonde girl get murdered. It’ll be fun.” But then when he finally reaches what feels like the big payoff, he doesn’t show the murder happen. “Of course you’re not supposed to enjoy this, asshole! Did you really think I meant for this part of the movie to be fun?”
But he doesn’t stop there, because he knows that movie violence CAN be fun… when it happens to the bad guys. So the last chunk of the movie is filled with all sorts of graphic, over the top violence directed at the villains. And then we get to hoot and holler and laugh and enjoy the violence.
That wasn’t as coherent as I would have liked but maybe I’ll fix it later.
No comments:
Post a Comment