Is being scared the same thing as saying, "That looks really painful and I hope it never happens to me?"

I don't think so. And that's the whole problem both "Hostel" (2005) and "Hostel: Part II" (2007). There's nothing genuinely scary about them. No suspense, or mystery, or subtlety-- all essential elements in the horror genre. (Stand these movies next to, say, "The Shining" or the "Blair Witch Project" and you will see what the "Hostel" series is lacking.)

What they DO offer is plenty of gore, and lots of torture. Both films rehash the exact same story, with the sole exception being that the the batch of torture victims are men in the first film, and women in the second.

Naturally, the original "Hostel" is better. It's direction stands out thanks to Eli Roth, who knows his way around a camera. The sound effects are atmospheric and quite well done. The opening credits-- which depict dripping blood, soap suds, and the cleaning of metal tools-- combine sound and image with masterful technique. The credits alone would have made a genuinely great short film. Too bad it all goes downhill from there.

"Hostel: Part II" is just plain ridiculous. It tries to top the gore-factor of its predecessor, and in the process goes way, way overboard. Much of it is borderline comedic. The last scene features children playing soccer with a severed head. They kick it around in the woods, at night no less.