Hostel: Part II.

"The blood is plentiful, the shock value is extreme, and the performances (particularly Roger Bart as the more conflicted of the two American clients) are pitch-perfect," blogs Matt Dentler. "So many horror sequels are a waste of our time. Hostel: Part II, on the other hand, actually adds to the overall experience and becomes a worthy, and at times superior, companion piece."

But David Poland is repulsed - by one scene in particular. "And at that moment, for me, this was no longer just about a stupid, masturbatory, poorly directed shit piece of horror porn. Eli Roth became a little less human to me.... Shame on the LA Times for allowing him to ramble on about how there is a political subtext to his work. Utter bullshit."

Updated through 6/11.

"I know there are some readers who will think me old-school and fuddy-duddyish for asking this, but is there anything that viewers won't stand for?" asks Jeffrey Wells.

"What fascinates me about the film is its marketing campaign, which brazenly uses disturbing images of torture, nudity and depravity to attract attention for the film," writes the LAT's Patrick Goldstein.

Talks with Roth: Peter Sobczynski at Hollywood Bitchslap, Erik Davis for Cinematical, Michael Guillén (Evening Class; parts 1 and 2), Cheryl Eddy in the San Francisco Bay Guardian, Rob Nelson in the City Pages and Carson Barker in the Austin Chronicle.

Vaguely related: "The Ties That Bind" at Monkey Fluids.

Online viewing tip. "Just about every aspect of this film is superior to the first across the board. And it really shows how Eli has continued to mature as an artist," writes Harry Knowles at Ain't It Cool News. "That said... I really felt Eli deserved to be beaten within an inch of his life by people that know how to do it... So for your pleasure, we present the humiliation of Eli Roth..."

Updates: "[W]hen no less an expert than Quentin Tarantino puts his name on your movie and dubs you 'the future of horror,' who's to be shocked when the entertainment press just blindly jumps on board and offers up no considered resistance to the idea?" asks Dennis Cozzalio. "Personally - and I'm speaking as a moviegoer, a critic and a fan of the horror genre - Roth's own idea of what a horror movie should be seems a bit too limited for one who's supposed to be the genre's future."

The Boston Globe's Ty Burr hints that Wesley Morris's review for tomorrow's paper won't be a rave: "On some level, that's what Roth's counting on: Mainstream outrage that will raise him up as a hero to the hardcore horror fringe."

Updates, 6/8: "Benefiting from a higher budget, Eli Roth's follow-up to his generally odious Hostel may sport glossier production values, but its driving motivation - to push the boundaries of exploitative nastiness - remains just as low," writes Laura Kern in the New York Times.

"I loathed the first Hostel," writes John Constantine for Nerve. "It wasn't that it was offensive or too extreme. It was just brutish. Which isn't to say that Part II isn't brutish. There's just a great deal more to support the brutishness.... Hostel: Part II isn't redeemed. It is still stupid and mean; a ten year-old boy is shot in the face for no particular reason. But it's hard not to be impressed by Roth's skill and craft."

For the Telegraph, Jeremy Kay talks with Roth, too. And James Mottram for the Independent.

"'Are you ready for some fucked-up shit?' was how Eli Roth introduced NYC's press screening of Hostel: Part II, and that more or less says it all," notes Nick Schager at Slant. "[W]hat's stunning about Roth's sequel is that its sole creative impetus is to deliver as much button-pushing gruesomeness as it can."

"It's too goofy to disturb, too silly to scare, closer in spirit (if not in skill) to the cartoon yucks of Evil Dead II than the transgressive classics it so desperately tries to trump," writes Nathan Lee for the Voice. "The most disturbing thing about this implausibly R-rated spectacle is what it says about the double standard of the MPAA. Apparently, you can linger over a cock in close-up so long as it's being cut in half by a pair of scissors."

"Hostel: Part II is pretty much what you expect - some cheap thrills and clever gags from the new golden boy and a couple of toes put briefly over the line before being yanked back," writes Ryan Stewart at Cinematical. "And horror fans will really get a kick out of the cannibal who shows up for a cameo."

The storm hasn't quite moved on yet, but David Poland has begun clean-up operations, wrapping loose threads and perhaps spinning a few new ones, too.

Update, 6/9: "Speaking from a strictly objective perspective, the movie is an admirably tight piece of construction," blogs Premiere's Glenn Kenny. "Writer/director Eli Roth is, as Christopher Lee once confided to me apropos Jess Franco, 'not an untalented man.' Which isn't to say he's not full of shit."

Updates, 6/11: Michael Cieply in the NYT: "Moviegoers put a nail in the coffin of a dying horror boom this weekend, as Hostel: Part II opened to just $8.8 million in ticket sales, far behind the crime caper Ocean's Thirteen in a three-day period of relatively soft box office performance."

"What bothers me the most about Hostel: Part II is that employs the same bullshit tactic that BFF/producer Quentin Tarantino applied in Death Proof, namely that it's perfectly excusable to subject your female characters to all sorts of torture and violence as long as at least one of them gets to perform an equally putrid act of revenge in the end," writes Filmbrain. "It's a twisted idea of female empowerment that is as offensive as it is disingenuous. Yet unlike Tarantino, who is clearly in love with his characters, Roth seems to harbor a vile, nasty, misogynist streak towards his female creations, particularly Heather Matarazzo's Lorna."

Posted by dwhudson at June 7, 2007 12:39 AM