The Worst Movie In The History Of Movies. Ever.

I've made it no secret my dislike of the works of Eli Roth. Most people would just ignore his career entirely if they didn't like him, but I keep tabs on him just out of pure hate.

I've seen all of Roth's previous "movies," so it should come as no surprise that I'd see his new opus, Hostel 2, just to see how shitty it is. (If you remember, when I saw the first one, I was pissed that I paid $3 to see it, so I made sure to see this one for free. And I'm still pissed.) And I was not disappointed. In fact, I was more than pleased, because Hostel 2 is so awful that it almost made the experience worth it, just so I can say that Roth has once again proved that he has no business being anywhere near a film set.

It might not be so bad if Roth had tried to do something original or different with this one, but it's the exact same movie. Same plot, same locale, even the same ending. The thing that's changed is that the guys from the first film are now girls (and no, this change does not lead to any "hot lesbian action"). He's also thrown in the unwelcome addition of a subplot involving two members of the Hunt Club, both played guys from Desperate Housewives. Unfortunately, both characters are so annoying that you spend most of their screentime praying for their inevitable deaths. Add it all together, and you have a movie that has less entertainment value than a snuff film, except this is fake. (In one article I read, the reviewer referred to this as "gore porn." Apparently, he's not familiar with the work of Joe D'Amato, which actually was gore porn. This is nowhere near as entertaining.)

Now, I don't want to come off like one of these people, who would rather have no sex and violence in their movies; quite the contrary, actually. One of the best movies I've seen in the past few years was The Devil's Rejects, a movie just as unrelentingly grim and violent as Hostel 2 (possibly even more so), but it at least had the decency to be well-made and entertaining. Hostel 2 is just shit.

There's something else that bothers me about this movie. When you make a violent, bloody, exploitative movie like this, the MPAA is going to cut it to shit. Roth throws a lot of blood on the screen, and still comes out with an R rating (a pretty hard R, but an R, nonetheless). I'm guessing that the movie he made did not make it to the screen uncut. As queasy as the MPAA is, I'm sure they made him cut out something. Which tells me that Roth threw everything and a Home Depot full of kitchen sinks in there, and whatever the MPAA let stick, he ran with. Here's what bothers me about this: If you look back at the history of movies like this, movies that are extremely grim and violent, and look at genre forefathers like the original Hills Have Eyes and Texas Chainsaw Massacre, they were all released unrated. They were too violent to receive a rating, but the filmmakers released them anyway. Nobody saw them, but, over the years, they built a cult following, and are beloved by genre fans. (Even Pedro Almodovar does this, and he gets nominated for tons of awards every time he puts out a movie.) Yet Roth's movie, which seems to be an homage to those old exploitation movies, gets an R. Why? Because NC-17 or unrated movies don't get 3000 screen releases, nor do they receive any advertising, and, consequently, no one goes to see them and they don't make any money. (Ah, there's the rub.) Not that this is surprising; Roth appears to be following in the footsteps of his bitch-out mentor Quentin Tarantino, who has a history of cleverly editing his movie to avoid the dreaded NC-17.

The only good thing about this movie is that, while it has turned a small profit, its continual -60% diminishing returns means it will probably be all the way out of theatres by this weekend. (There's only one theatre within 50 miles of here where it's playing.) Maybe the fact that Hostel 2 cost twice as much as Hostel 1 to produce, yet grossed less than half as much will cause the studios to reevaluated Roth's status as a "golden boy," and stop giving him money to make any more dreadful movies. Or, better yet, maybe his next movie will cost so much to make and gross so little that it bankrupts a studio, and the suits will pull the old "Michael Cimino" and toss him right out of Hollywood.

That would be the sweetest thing in the world.