Text © Richard Gary / Indie Horror Films, 2016
Images from the Internet
The Hospital 2
Written, produced and directed by Jim O’Rear
and Daniel Emery Taylor
Deviant
Pictures / itn distribution / MVD Visual
120
minutes, 2015
In full
confession mode, I have not seen the first The
Hospital (2013), so I am going to be reviewing this mostly as a standalone.
I did see one of the directors’ earlier works, Camp Massacre (2014; aka Fat
Chance, reviewed HERE), which was
occasionally problematic, but on the whole a lot of fun. I have high hopes for
this one. Okay, that being said, now for the viewing.
* * *
Okay, I’m
about a third of the way in. You may ask why I’m doing this in segments? Well,
the film is two hours long, and with all that’s going on, honestly, I need to
watch it in segments.
 |
| Betsy Rue |
The
prologue is apparently the ending of the first film. Two characters escaped the
carnage, Skye (Betsy Rue replacing Robyn Shute) and Beth (Constance Medrano),
and if you’ve seen Friday the 13th
Part II (1981) or Halloween 2 (1981)
and Halloween H20: 20 Years Later (1998),
you can guess that at some point worlds are going to recollide.
This one
picks up five years later (even though there’s only two years between films).The
hospital in question this time isn’t some abandoned place, it’s a modern
facility for treating women who have been abused. In this case, however, it’s
run by Alan (co-director O’Rear), from the first film, and a new character, his
daughter Samantha (Megan Emerick). They use the patients as victims to load up
to a Black Net sex‘n’snuff show, which sets up a few stylized pieces for
activities of torment, resulting in sexual force and death. That is, when they aren’t
busy with their own joint copulations. Yeah, you read that right.
Doing his
own thing is Alan’s accomplice, Stanley (co-director Taylor), who has normally
liked necrophilia, but is coming around to a bit of warmth in his victims. This
story seems like it was springboarded from the amoral collective of House of a Thousand Corpses (2003) / The Devil’s Rejects (2005). While the earlier
Hospital had more of a mystic element
with ghosts and demons, but here it’s all human monsters.
 |
| Jim O\Rear |
So as you
can see, this film is a bit of a nihilistic endeavor, without as much of the
humor of Camp Massacre. There are a
number of issues I’m having already, and here is just one of them: the way I
imagine the writing session going is that the co-writers had a list of things
that would piss people off, and then put a check next to them as they are
included. Previous reviews I’ve read of Hospital
(trying to catch up a bit on the previous plot) discussed how misogynistic the
direction of the story is, and I agree. Men are done away with pretty quickly,
but the women’s pain – in the form of torture and rape – play all the way out. Even
if they don’t show a lot of the action (i.e., torture), which is blocked by
either a body part, or is happening just below the camera frame, it’s the uni-direction
of gender that I found the most disturbing.
There is a
lot of torture porn out there now, from the detailed (such as both the Japanese
and American Guinea Pig series, A Serbian Film, the Hostel and Saw
franchises, etc.) to the less so (pick most slasher films), but most of them
deal with both men and women being abused. Here, it’s purely females who get
the truly nasty stuff thrown at them (or in them), with one exception.
 |
| Daniel Emery Taylor |
Part of
the reason for the length of the film, which seems kind of excessive at two
hours, is that it can be looked at as actually Parts 2 and 3, and there are two
overlapping but different storylines. The first half is mainly the family
shenanigans, and the other is picking up the pieces from the first film. The
time is nearly evenly split in half, with the second being more personal than …1000 Corpses. A family comes under attack by our troupe of
snuffers, including Debbie Rochon, who surely must be aimed towards some kind
of record of being in the most films. Usually she does cameos (or extended
ones), but it’s always best when she gets to play at least a semi-central
character, to show off her acting chops (and she’s got ‘em, boy; if I may
digress, check out my review of her directorial debut HERE). This is also her first topless scene I’ve seen in quite a long time (love the
Anarchy A tat on her shoulder!),
though, to be fair, O’Rear takes it a step further with an erect penis. It’s
good to be the ki – I mean, director!
One of the
interesting points for me is the sheer and literal weight of many of the cast,
and their lack of inhibitions to nudity. I’m not a chubby chaser, but as a
culture where skinny is not considered thin enough, it’s great that the casting
included more post-fast-food-world
realistic sized humans rather than only media-inspired “beauty.” Kudos for
that.
 |
| Megan Emerick |
The
problem with the length isn’t that the film drags, because most the pacing is fine
with some bits that can definitely be excised (such as the entire preacher
scene, which has no story advancement), but rather that it’s overload until the
point of it being too much. Well, for many, I’m sure it’s already excessive,
but for the fan or those of us who review this stuff, it becomes a level of
impatience for a conclusion, whether the villains get away with it or are all
or partly blown away (I’m not saying which is occurs here). I’ve talked before
about the tedium of having people walk through a house, usually with just a
flashlight, avoiding a ghost or killer, and the scene lasts too long to keep
the tension. That’s what I’m positing here.
Hopefully
here is a hypothetical question: you’re locked in a room, and you know someone
is going to kill you. Slowly and painfully. Do you sit down and sweat it out,
or search the room for a weapon of any kind?
Just askin’.
I would
like to add that there are also quite a few positives about the film. For example,
for what it is, most of the acting is decent. The shining stars are the two
directors, though. Sure, most of Taylor’s character is smoldering anger, but
O’Rear really seems natural, like he’s embracing the part, which is possibly
the scariest thing about this. The other end of it is real-life reality show
psychic investigator (and crew member) Scott Tepperman, who play a fictional
version of himself, and is the comedy relief, though the biggest laugh is at
his acting drunk here; I don’t know what his show is like as I’ve never seen
it).
Despite
the occasional oops! moments, such as
one victim breathing (twice!) after
she has been killed, the film looks pretty decent. Lots of nudity and the gore
is plentiful, even if you never really see any direct object touch flesh, and
it definitely has its icky moments, mostly involving body fluids and a drilldo.
After the
trailer, first up in the extras is a 23-minute, five-part Video Diary. There’s
nothing deep or meaningful, but it was quite a bit of fun, showing the
backstage antics of the crew who seem to genuinely get along. And, of course,
off-script Rochon is as always a hoot, thanks to her sharp improv film
experience. When a release is particularly gruesome and the cast gels,
sometimes getting some steam off is a joy to watch. A new part was based on
approximately every two days of the 10-day shoot.
Next up is
a 6:34-minute Blooper and Outtakes Reel, which is typical, but because of the
way the cast interacts, it comes across as enjoyable, rather than just them
saying the missed line damn it! Rue
especially comes across as proving that she’s game for the action. Last up is
the 13-minute “Kentworthy Featurette,” a more serious, historical piece by
O’Rear about the century-and-a-half old haunted Hall which fills in for the
film’s Home for Abused Women, in Marion, Alabama. A tour of the place is given
by its owner and her friend, which is dry but interesting, despite the cheesy
music.
The film’s
finale is actually quite satisfying, surprisingly enough. Whether this is the
end or beginning of the franchise is difficult to say, but I’m hoping that
these guys go back to some comedy horror rather than nasties for nastiness sake,
because they tend to be a bit more fun to watch. Would I recommend this? That depends
on the genre of the person, rather than a general yes or no. Will I watch this
again? It would probably be safe to say fat
chance.
No comments:
Post a Comment