Reviews

It's obvious from the subject matter that some people will tell you this is brilliantly-paced horror, while others will recommend it be cast into the pit of doom and never watched. Fact is, if you liked the first Hostel film you are likely to have an urge to watch this follow-up, which no amount of bad reviews is going to dissuade you from doing.

In terms of pure and simple entertainment value I wouldn't really fault Hostel 2 that much. It does what it's meant to. It's fairly well-constructed, the script runs without major disaster, and while you'll know most of what's coming a mile off there are a few character twists that leave you feeling not totally short-changed. The gore is well-controlled and pays homage to a million predecessors like any good ride with Tarrantino's endorsement should. Sound track and atmosphere are OK as well.

But if you're hoping this instalment is going to actually add anything to the first film then I'd lower your expectations. Hostel 1 provided an obvious franchise and this is prudently cashing in on a ready-made audience. There is no deeper revelation, just a different set of commodities and clients. Business is business. The mystery and subsequent dawning truth of the first film provided most of its substance. I'm not sure where you'll find substance in the second outing.

But if you hear someone saying something clichéd like, "I'll never get those two hours back," it's worth considering they probably wasted 2 hours previously with Hostel 1 - and probably waste a lot of their time in fact. Again, if you liked the first film, or you're interested in brushing up on rudimentary horror film technique, or you just want to get your week's quota of entertaining gore (don't we all?)... then forget the reviews and see what you think. Of course, if you haven't seen the first film and none of the other criteria apply, then get the first train out of Slovakia my friend...

At a risk of sounding slightly sacrilegious, on first viewing I'm kind of inclined to put this right up on a par with 'Shaun of the Dead'. Now, given I view Simon Pegg as an unquestionable comedy genius, I realise this is a rather big claim. And to what extent you agree with that last statement may be a good preliminary gauge of whether 'Fido' will appeal to you.

In a way the comedy picks up where 'Shaun' left off, except we're back in the original 1950s Living Dead-era stereotypical middle-American small town. The Zombie Wars are over and zombies themselves are becoming more well-adjusted, useful members of the community. This, so we're informed at the outset, is largely thanks to the scientific advances made by the good people at Zomcom - a nice play on romantic comedy perhaps?

The beauty of the film lies in its dead-pan depiction of a respectable neighbourhood maintaining core values while making a place for zombies and the special hazards they pose. The charm and balance with which it does this is near enough perfect. Themes you might expect from a more mainstream kitsch comedy come through - the veneer of good clean living, keeping up appearances, repressed emotion, muddled parental values, social decorum and the plight of the alienated individual.

It's a story told with happy heart and wide appeal that is brought to life vividly by the film's all-round strong cast. It's one of those works where it really shows through that everyone involved got a kick out of taking part. It's also fun imagining what Billy Connelly learning his script must have been like...

So in conclusion, it is probable you will appreciate the humour of this film unless your father tried to eat you.

This film is beautiful, intricate, fun - all at the same time. It hits the mind and pulls the heart strings on so many levels - while still managing to make a whole cinema audience laugh loudly, frequently and unreservedly. Michel Gondry has created something really wonderful here, the kind of film worth seeing again and again.

The Science of Sleep is trying to do something quite different to Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, but there's definitely something of the same feel. Certainly the level of exquisite artistry is comparable, but maybe it's also the amount of care and sincerity that has been invested in the inner lives of the film's characters.

This director/writer never sells anyone short, say, by using a character or situation just as a plot or artistic device. Instead the characters' growth and flow of ideas are what build the story, always treated with a touch that is loyal and genuine. You begin to feel loyal to them yourself, to have a sense of them as very real people in whose ultimate well-being you have a very involving stake.

That's all I really need say about the film, though I'd point out that the few negative comments I've seen below really weren't worth reading. Reservations I can understand (as everyone's different, right?) but these naysayers are clearly emotionally, intellectually and artistically stunted. Most likely they can't comprehend a work that doesn't fit their prescribed and limited framework for film appreciation - the sort which demands that progression be made through exactly the crude plot and character devisings which this film avoids. In fact, I don't think the Science of Sleep even studiously avoids them - it is simply a mile above such considerations. The film works on every level - and if you're even halfway to normal with your own emotional development you'll get what's good about this.