Vous voulez voir cette page en français ? Cliquez ici.

CDN$ 10.29 + CDN$ 3.49 shipping
In Stock. Sold by importcds__

Sign in to turn on 1-Click ordering.
More Buying Choices
dodax-online Add to Cart
CDN$ 11.40
nagiry Add to Cart
CDN$ 11.40
Paperbacksh... Add to Cart
CDN$ 11.49
Have one to sell? Sell yours here

Hostel 2 (Blu-ray Disc, 2007)

3.8 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (4 customer reviews)
Price: CDN$ 10.29
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
In Stock.
Ships from and sold by importcds__.
Today Only: 24 Complete Series for $124.99
Today only: 24: The Complete Series with Live Another Day is at a one day special price. Offer valid on September 30th, 2014, applies only to purchases of products sold by Amazon.ca, and does not apply to products sold by third-party merchants and other sellers through the Amazon.ca site. Learn more
Join Amazon Student in Canada

Frequently Bought Together

Hostel 2 (Blu-ray Disc, 2007) + Hostel (Director's Cut) [Blu-ray] (Bilingual)
Price For Both: CDN$ 28.28

These items are shipped from and sold by different sellers.

What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?

Product Details

Customer Reviews

3.8 out of 5 stars
3.8 out of 5 stars
Most helpful customer reviews
Format:Blu-ray|Verified Purchase
I thought the first Hostel was heading into over-used settings and thematics, but this one surprised me quite a bit by taking us "behind the scenes", if you will, of who decides what happens and to whom. It's quite unsettling, much like the first one, in terms of gore and horror, but this time, instead of following a trio of guys who only come in for screwing anything that has a skirt, we're treated with a lovely trio of ladies who are about to enter Hell, making their future sufferings all the more unbearable.

Although the first movie featured quite a nice video, the sequel feels a few inches under it. Some of the darker scenes really have a hard time showing textures and details, but otherwise, it's as bad as it's likely to get. The sound is very adequate and gives a nice chilly and creepy atmosphere when needed. As for the special features, while the first one featured slightly more, this one's doing a pretty good job.

All in all, if you have only one Hostel movie to watch, I would strongly suggest this one for its visceral tone, it's more mature take on the subject and Eli Roth's great direction for a strong cast.
Was this review helpful to you?
2 of 4 people found the following review helpful
By Lawrance M. Bernabo HALL OF FAME TOP 500 REVIEWER
I went to go see "Hostel: Part II" in the theater because I was interested in seeing what it would be like to watch one of these torture/horror films in a situation where you cannot push the pause or stop button on your remote. I had only seen "Hostel," "Wolf Creek," and other examples of this particularly grizzly little splatter flick genre at home and I do not think the experience is ever as intense. The only horror films I have seen in theaters in recent years have been the "Saw" trilogy, and as bloody and gory as those get they are really not the same genre as what you have with this film. However, it turns out my little experiment was doomed to failure because Eli Roth's sequel is certainly not "worse" than the original in terms of the scenes of torture and killing, which should be a major disappointment to fans of the first because there is nothing here to rival it.

This perception is colored somewhat by the fact that in addition to things being more gruesome in the original there was the underlying question of what the hell was going on that added to the horror. That element is removed in the sequel because we know immediately when the "recruiter" for the hostel shows up to lure the victims to their respective fates. This time instead of three guys it is three gals: Beth (Lauren German, "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre") is the good girl, Whiteny (Bijou Phillips, "Havoc") is the bad girl, and Lorna (Heather Matarazzo, "Welcome to the Dollhouse" is the weird girl. They start off in Rome but quickly make their way to Slovakia.
Read more ›
Was this review helpful to you?
0 of 1 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars Eli Roth delivers another shocker Oct. 27 2007
This movie picks up where the original story left off and expands on the fictional kill-for-profit industry in Slovakia. This time, the backpackers are women instead of guys. Another interesting new twist is that we get to follow closely the stories of the rich American businessmen who pay to torture and kill these victims. If you're looking for more of the gore and torture so prevalent in the first film you will not be dissapointed. But where Hostel falls short of attaining the heights of the classic original, is that this time we know from the first frame what's going on and roughly what will happen next whereas the original had a mysterious plot that unfolded in shocking manner. Definitely to be watched if you liked the first film, just don't expect this one to be quite as good.
Was this review helpful to you?
1 of 2 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars best movie ever,,,!!!!! Sept. 6 2013
Format:Blu-ray|Verified Purchase
this is the best movie ever!!! i got the dvd on time and in excellent condition! this is a must watch
Was this review helpful to you?
Most Helpful Customer Reviews on Amazon.com (beta)
Amazon.com: 3.3 out of 5 stars  169 reviews
8 of 9 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars ok movie, the killer characters were interesting. SPOILER Alert June 7 2010
By Roberto Pang - Published on Amazon.com
I enjoyed this movie, it was a bit more interesting the first one. I was disappointed that Jay Hernandez gets killed right away, but it also it makes sense since no witnesses/survivors can be left or else the whole operation is at risk.

What really put a new light in the movie were the two male characters who are new to the club. There we get to see two different characters at play, one who is eager to taste evil and one who has to be dragged into the situation. The one who is eager has fantasies of how killing somebody will make him gain a characteristic that will intimidate others, a characteristic that does not need to be mentioned yet perceptible. What he fails to consider is that the characteristic that he years for, might not come from killing an innocent and defenseless victim, or killing without need or killing out of curiosity. The other clients of the club are truly evil, they indulge in their dark pastime as the goal, for pleasure, and that is how and why they can kill not only without remorse but with pure pleasure. At the end I did feel sorry for him, very little effort was needed (even a simple matter of just sit and wait) to complete his contract and he would have survived.

For Stuart, the character who has to be dragged into the situation, on the other hand, he does not want to be "that guy" yet slowly but surely when presented with the proper opportunities and motivations, he turns out to embrace the darkness and evil. Stuart's repressions and frustrations come to surface and he will project them into anybody who is in front of him. His transformation from the hesitant/undecided guy is extreme and very convincing. This also left me thinking about his friend, maybe his friend couldn't transform because he did not have any repressions or frustration. Being a wealthy and physically attractive man who probably got his way most of the time, there was probably very little to brew evil feelings.

The transformation to evil is also extreme for the surviving girl, Beth, who turn herself into a ruthless killer, too. But at least she did have a very good reason for that. Payback is a bitch, indeed.

I guess it was good for Stuart to embrace evil, the audience had to abandon any sympathy for this character for the ending to work. There was really no way out of that room without somebody murdered and had Stuart remain his old self and tried to save the girl, they both would have died.

Probably what I have mentioned was not the main idea of such a movie, but it was interesting to me.
7 of 8 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars Not as Terrible as People Say But Fails to Live Up to its Potential Jan. 20 2008
By Tsuyoshi - Published on Amazon.com
"Hostel Part 2" picks up the thread where the original left off. After this effective opening chapter, director Eli Roth starts telling the horrifying tales again, about three American college students in Slovakia. For the sequel Roth changes the gender of the students to female (Lauren German, Heather Matarazzo and Bijou Phillips) and also includes the sub-plots of "buyers" or sadistic tormentors played by Roger Bart and Richard Burgi.

Not much can be said about the thin plot originally inspired by urban legends. "Hostel Part 2" like its predecessor takes it granted that legends are true. As a consequence all we have to do is to wait for the tortures to begin, and end. The sequel provides the gruesome tortures and slow deaths and is full of blood and screams. The extremely graphic film, however, is hardly called scary because it has no nuance or subtlety suggesting the horrors that are to arrive.

In fact the film does not attempt to hide the fact that terrible fates await the characters. There is no sense of suspense; what we don't know is the way how these unsuspecting students are tortured. But maybe two "Hostel" films are supposed to be like that. Roth is quite good at making the bloody torture scenes and the dark interior sets are impressive. The photography showing the countryside is also very good, beautiful and creepy at the same time.

There is another thing Eli Roth is good at and that is the casting. The main cast is very good (and they are all talented), but here I'm talking about the cameos. Ruggero Deodato, director of "Cannibal Holocaust" briefly appears, doing something I shouldn't mention. Milan Knazko (who was really Minister for Culture of the Slovak Republic) appears as "Sacha." To watch cameos and references to other films would be pretty amusing to me because they are virtually the list of the people Roth idolizes. Was there Quentin Tarantino? Yes, watch the TV closely.

However, I couldn't like the film very much despite (or because of) these "merits." From at certain point "Hostel Part 2" starts being too self-conscious. Should we take seriously the middle-aged lady taking a shower of blood, apparent reference to Elizabeth Báthory? Should we laugh when Roger Bart's character refers to one Disney animation character he played? The third act of the film almost becomes slapstick with gores.

"Hostel Part 2" with the structure that has been getting more and more repetitious since the original has surprisingly less scares than you expect, being emotionally detached from the viewers, almost cynical in its tone in describing the characters (good or bad, killing or killed) and their behaviors. The film is content with doing what it does, often disregarding the audiences who want to be scared or (if I may use the word) entertained.
7 of 9 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars What Has Happened To Us? Oct. 10 2013
By Mr. Mambo - Published on Amazon.com
I only watched a few minutes of this movie; it was on TV and I came upon it. Because of that, I cannot give a totally fair review, but I do have a comment or two. A few years ago, a first "Hostel" was made, which I avoided--and it must have done well at the box office, so here we have a sequel, or continuation. I see that there is also a "Hostel III", so....who knows how long this will go on? After all, they are up to about #6 for "Saw", correct?).

We give the people want they want, but if this is what they want, what does that say about them?

I am a grandfather, I'm not a prude or religious fanatic, and I've seen thousands and thousands of movies in my time. And I appreciate a good horror film, one which frightens me and surprises me (the two go hand-in-hand). I am sure that I am much older than the average person who 'likes' "Hostel" and its ilk, and so that probably has a lot to do with it. I thought the first "Halloween" was a damn good and very frightening horror film, because it was smart, subtle and suspenseful, and did not rely upon buckets of gore in a misguided attempt to frighten us. The original "Night of the Living Dead" was pretty gory, and the opposite of subtle, but the nightmarish, crude, high contrast B/W images helped tone it down, and the whole premise and execution of the film was extremely frightening. I believe that less talented filmmakers saw the success of those two landmarks of the horror genre, tried to cash in it, but took the easy way out, and upped the gore/violence quotient, in lieu of story or dialogue or restraint or mood. Thus we had the Nightmare on Elm Streets, the even more inferior Friday the 13th's, and the interminable remakes of the Texas Chainsaw Massacres.

The entire premise of "Hostel II" is extremely disturbing: there are wealthy but very sick and twisted people who put up thousands of dollars in online bidding wars, with the winner having the right to torture and kill a particular young girl. These girls are innocent tourists who've happened to check into the wrong "hostel". Passport photos are surreptitiously scanned and sent worldwide to a host of these rich freaks, men and women alike, and the bidding escalates. We are 'treated' to the girls' kidnapping and torture and very few punches are pulled. Call me crazy, but haven't we crossed a line here? To me this is very dangerous territory, for many reasons.

First of all, it suggests that, if you have enough money, you can literally buy anyone and do anything to them you want. And secondly, the truly scary thing is that there probably ARE real monsters in the world who might be interested in doing this to people.

But really, and most importantly, how can anyone be 'entertained' by this? Scenes of torture? Are you kidding me? Why would anyone want to watch this stuff? I did not last until the end, so maybe some of the creeps do get their just desserts, which would help things, I guess. But even so, I don't want to wade through all this monstrous and disgusting behavior just to see some creep get wasted.

Somewhere we've gone off the rails. To me films like these are a kind of violent, sadistic pornography. Used to be that good old sex and nudity would do it for us, but now we seem to want to watch the girls get carved up too, the more blood the better! Porn is a 'progressive' thing; what floats your boat today quickly becomes pedestrian, and you need to amp things up. It reminds one of ancient Rome, where the wealthier they got, the more jaded and depraved they became. By the end the patricians were digging scenes of people getting torn apart by lions. Eventually the Empire rotted away from within. Is that happening to us? Again, I am not a conservative Republican or religious fanatic! I'm just asking.

Hitchcock's "Psycho" really crossed some lines when it came out in 1960. For one thing, we'd never had a main character get killed only twenty minutes or so into the film! But among the many things that made this film a classic is the restrained and artful editing of that ground-breaking, legendary shower scene. To be fair, the heavy hand of the censorship board kept Hitch in check--he would have loved to show more blood and more skin--but we don't need to see any more! We know what is happening. BECAUSE we don't see that much makes it all the more frightening to us. Less IS more!

It's an interesting concept that should be revisited.

To sum up, strapping people down on tables and eviscerating them,...burning them,...shocking them with electrodes,...cutting off their limbs,...flaying them and watching the blood flow is not frightening; it is disgusting, degrading, and deadening. There is a difference. Modern filmmakers and audiences seem to have forgotten this concept. And don't tell me that 'it's only a movie!, as if that tired old line is actually a legitimate excuse. If you can actually say you enjoy watching this stuff, then your soul is on its way to death, and I truly feel sorry for you.

I am more frightened by the fact that so many people choose to see movies like this, than by the movies themselves.

I worry about our future.
7 of 9 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Unbox quality is great, but the movie is terrible Jan. 6 2008
By M. Larsen - Published on Amazon.com
I have our computer hooked up with a DVI-to-HDMI cable, and the quality of Amazon Unbox is suprprisingly good. It's almost indistinguishable from DVD quality except in a few rare cases of very high-speed camera pans where it is just a little staggered. The quality of this movie is no different, and the contrast of the dark settings is outstanding on Unbox.

Unfortunately that technology is wasted on Hostel Part 2. I like Roth's film "Cabin Fever". It was a creative film with a gritty plot line and a creative use of special effects. Hostel Part 2 really boils down to nothing more than "how creative can we be about torture" and "how stupid and obvious can we make the ending". I decided to see the movie because Eli Roth's promotion of the movie when it was realeased talked about the incredible ending. I love a good twist ending ("The Prestige" was one of my favorites for good endings), but this one was way too obvious. I won't spoil it, but it's not even worth the $4 rental fee.

The attempted creative use of torture winds up losing all creativity. It is obvious that the writers and directors were trying to be clever, but all you wind up seeing is their attempted cleverness regardless of the fact that it adds nothing to the plot.

If you want a good horror movie, try the remake of Halloween, 28 Weeks Later, or even Saw 4 (not the best, but at least it has a plot...). Save your money and avoid this one.
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful
2.0 out of 5 stars not punishing enough Feb. 16 2008
By vickiewhite - Published on Amazon.com
The gore film, once a devoted worshiper I was! Seriously, is there really any need for new gore films? It seems the defining alpha-omega load was blown in the 70s and 80s then refined in Japan for almost 2 decades as many reviewers have already noted. There isn't much you can do that hasn't been done besides soften up the delivery to ensure mass distribution. I really enjoyed the first Hostel film for its story, it seemed with a bit more restraint without taking the easy way out going with over the top comedy/violence it would have made for some classic material. Sometimes you need to be dark and uncompromising. For all of their flaws and unintentional humor, Cannibal Holocaust and Men Behind The Sun were unrelenting, gory, and made you feel truly awful after seeing them. More recently, Irreversible though only containing two extremely explicit (and genuinely disturbing) scenes of violence is far more my idea of what a hellish dark trip to Europe can be. No "cute" laughs in that one, if you were disappointed in this film but liked the scenery and dark mood it was trying to evoke check that movie out. If the violence doesn't give you a headache the camera work will.

This movie is an unfortunate bore from start to finish, everything that has been done already in the first Hostel is done again, in the most uninspired way imaginable. It would have been good to see a straight film about two American businessmen who take a trip to a "murder brothel" and what happens. But here its just, urgghghg! Also Eli Roth really needs to stop lifting scenes from other movies, the execution of the street kid was taken straight from City of God only this time its far more watered down, unshocking and lame. There's not even a blood spurt, whats the point? The only reason this movie exists is because violence is now completely acceptable in mainstream film, there is a massive audience ignorant of the genre this spawned from with an interest in the darker side of cinema so why not capitalize on it? I'm not saying its an outrage just, well, there's far better films out there heavy on violence that can be taken seriously enough to have an impression on you other than a re-run through the basics of Tom Savini splatterdom.

As just a movie to watch, its boring, badly written, and horribly acted, the girl from Welcome To The Dollhouse, an amazing actress judging from that film, is reduced to a stuttering idiot who gets killed in a tribute to Elizabeth Bathory, you can actualy visualize Eli Roth's moronic thought process every step of the way down to how he cast the film. Eli Roth probably won't reach the heights of badness Wes Craven did in the 90s ruining the horror genre for a decade+ but he's certainly the kid with the Green Day shirt at the GG Allin show. Ok thats harsh, he's the kid with the Misfits shirt at The Undead show.
Search Customer Reviews
Only search this product's reviews

Look for similar items by category