Hostel: Part III (Video 2011) Poster

(2011 Video)

User Reviews

Review this title
129 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
The film's biggest fault is that its great ideas go largely unexplored.
lnvicta4 June 2015
Hostel is one of the most baffling horror franchises I've ever seen. For one, it's easy to lump the movies into the "torture porn" category, and that was my initial reaction after seeing the first one, but the more I think back on it, the more I appreciate what it was going for. It's an admittedly smart movie, as was Part II (which was basically Hostel with a female cast), that showed how ignorance and gullibility can lead to serious consequences.

Hostel: Part III is radically different from the first two though. First of all, it doesn't take place in Slovakia - it's in Las Vegas. It's also not nearly as heavy on gore as its predecessors. It centers around a group of friends led by a 99 cent version of Brandon Routh, and he's about to get married so his entourage decide to throw him a bachelor party in Vegas before things start going awry. What I liked about this movie is that it didn't follow the same formula as the first two parts. The torture in this entry isn't done in private quarters. Rather, it's done publicly in front of the rich clients who are able to choose the form of torture with a "wheel of death" of some sort. It's a great premise, but I would have liked to see it expounded on a bit more.

The characters are actually likable this time around. They have tangible chemistry and oddly enough the most amusing scene in the movie is when they're all together in a casino just hanging out being dudes. Mike is the comic relief of the group and has some genuinely funny lines, paired with the actor's spot on portrayal of a slimy douche whose only interest is getting lucky. Unfortunately, he doesn't get nearly enough screen time. The disabled character was an interesting idea, but like most aspects of the movie, wasn't executed to its full potential.

The movie itself has plenty of fake outs and twists that will catch you off-guard, and they don't feel thrown in for the sake of it - they're actually pretty clever and keep you invested in the story. Something that surprised me was the movie's third act. After a droning second act, things kick into high gear with an action thriller esque finale that's both exciting and interesting because you actually care and root for the main character. It's a lot of fun and a pleasant change of pace from the downbeat final acts of the first two Hostels.

Again, the biggest thing going against Hostel: Part III is the fact that it promises potential but doesn't entirely deliver. I'd put it on par with the previous entries quality-wise, with an exciting third act that elevates the film's enjoyable payoff. I'd like to see another Hostel in the future that continues in this direction but the fact that this was direct-to-video gives little hope to that notion. Regardless, if you saw the first two there's no reason not to give Part III a shot - it may surprise you.
55 out of 60 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
'The most sadistic show in town' as a laugh
chaos-rampant28 December 2011
They could've gone two ways with this. One would be to keep churning 'em with a straight face like Saw did, so presume the whole plot still matters while the tacit understanding is that you're serving us a bunch of gruesome deaths once a year and we show up because we're curious cats. The other way, what they did, was to realize that everyone is waiting for you around the corner, every critic and fan in town, so you spring on us and take the p#ss of the whole thing yourself.

How to go about this? First get a pal of Sam Raimi's to direct, who had done a pretty wacky slasher some 15 years ago about a maniac in a supermarket and knows that a tongue may be pushed so firmly in cheek it bleeds, then recast the whole thing from the dingy basements of Eastern Europe to the dazzle of Las Vegas as a show that we have paid to watch.

The idea is lifted right off the Wizard of Gore remake from '07, but remains a clever little way of addressing us from our position as viewers. We have come to watch, knowing what it's about. We can get up and leave anytime. But most of us are going to sit for the duration, enjoying or hedging our bets.

The first kill is suitably Hostel-ish. The cringe-worthy of inevitable, horrible violence that we are powerless to stop, what was dubbed 'torture porn' when the iron was still hot. It's the only kill that reminds of Hostel, deliberately so. Chalk this one blood-curdling moment as a homage to Texas Chainsaw. Soon after we're inside a car and an escort girl - who knows what it means to bare yourself for a show - is again addressing us, that it's a show we're watching, pure make-believe.

The rest is increasingly zany stuff. The slutty girl dressed in a cheerleader outfit opens up for 'cock'roaches, the shot is a vaginal shot from inside her larynx. The show turns into hand-to-hand combat, with the victim released from his clutches to beat his torturer black and blue. Elsewhere a bodyguard equipped with a shotgun has apparently run straight into an axe. Another one can apparently survive multiple stabbings just so he can die a more gruesome death moments later.

It's dumb, preposterous stuff, but to a degree at least designed to be so. You can tell they were going for satire here meant to take the p#ss of their own torture show but were really lazy and uninspired about it, after all the guy is only Sam Raimi's pal. You can imagine a grimacing Bruce Campbell with the lawnmower whizzing above his head in the finale.

The only way the original Hostel had any power, is if you took the show serious enough to be offended. The only way this can, is if you don't. And no, this doesn't mean it's okay to watch with your 8 year old brother.
34 out of 47 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Hostel Part III - Prepare for a letdown
paulknoop14 December 2011
Hostel 3 has absolutely no reference to Eli Roth. That's the first hint you get that this probably isn't exactly the sequel you are hoping for.

The movie sets about the same story that was featured in the previous 2 parts only this time uses actors and actresses who aren't exactly gifted. I've seen my fair share of horror, good and bad, and this definitely qualifies as a bad movie.

The acting is poor, the story a quick rehash of the stuff we've already seen and once the gore hits its actually uninspired and with a total lack of anxiety for us as viewers.

You'd be better off looking at "A Lonely Place To Die" or "Kill List". Im sorry for everyone involved, but in short: avoid!
28 out of 42 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Not as bad as people would make you believe!
djkbee4 February 2012
Let me start by saying I'm a huge fan of Hostel 1 & 2 along with the Saw franchise etc. OK so i first saw Hostel 3 available in my local Tesco store on DVD. I couldn't believe my eyes... another Hostel film?! Why hadn't i even heard about this. Being an avid IMDb user i immediately looked it up when i got home and was gutted to see so many bad reviews about it. I was instantly put off and thought "ok i won't bother with this one." Hearing Eli Roth had not directed it either was a major blow to me and i instantly forgot about it. A few days later i came across a Hostel DVD box set of all 3 movies for a tenner. I was gob smacked seeing that 3 had only just recently come out and was £13 in my local Tesco store! I snapped up the box set off of Amazon and thought well at least iv'e got all 3 of them for a tenner and one day i might watch part 3.

When the box set arrived i still didn't check out part 3 due to the bad reviews i have heard and the amount of slating going on about it. It was a week later on a boring rainy afternoon that i thought what the hell let's see how bad this really is. I said to myself i'll watch half hour and if it really is that awful i will turn it off and never go there again.

Hostel 3 in my opinion given the chance will keep you watching beyond the half hour point. The movie opens up with a twist fairly near the start that i didn't see coming for such an "awful" movie. I actually really enjoyed the first half hour and didn't think about turning it off. The first say 45mins of the film is all leading up to that big first kill... i expected a kill a lot sooner but never the less the story and build up kept me hooked.

The first kill was Hostel worthy without a doubt.... I've seen this first kill get slated on other reviews saying it was unrealistic or not gory enough etc I disagree and think it would meet the needs of those looking for that Hostel style kill.... i say no more about that.

My gripe is with Hostel 3 is that i wish Eli Roth had directed it... if he had taken this idea on and executed it his way then i wouldn't have found the 2nd half of the film as disappointing as i did. I loved the first half of the movie and the first kill but it seemed to go a bit downhill from there. The second kill was weak in my opinion and it's the twists and turns in the movie's second half that kept me interested rather then the kills. I gave this movie an honest 6 but i did enjoy it. It's hard when your competing against the first 2 Hostels but i certainly think it deserves more then 5 for the effort. The storyline is engaging, there's twists and turns you wont see coming and there's a gory kill (the first one). I think the ending along with the second half of the movie was a let down gore wise and after all this is what Hostel is supposed to be about... imaginative gory kills. But don't completely write it off as i did. It's deffo worth a watch if your a Hostel fan. ;0
19 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Good idea/poor execution
Cartman-1326 February 2012
I had low expectations for this, and after watching it, I really just think they should have put more effort & money into it.

You won't see the gore that was in the first 2 movies, mostly just splattering blood, but the story and change of scenery was a nice twist.

The lower budget is evident. I thought the acting was fine except for a couple over-the-top performances. The first half set up was good, but the second half just seemed rushed. Maybe they were running out of money.

I thought they should have expanded on the new Las Vegas Hunting Club set up a lot more. Was it purely for betting purposes? Were the Hunters paid to perform or were they paying to kill as in the first movies?

The first kill had potential, but it felt unfinished... The second kill made no sense at all. The third one screamed for a higher budget...

Someone once said that they don't understand why they are remaking great movies, what they should be doing is remaking not so good movies. This is a candidate for the latter.
13 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
So close, yet so far...
KylePeppers27 December 2011
Hostel: Part III could be so named for the three main points that set it apart from its predecessors.

One: the departure from Slovakia to Vegas. Ultimately, this turns out to be a good decision. Bringing the chaos closer to home (for us Americans) adds an effective layer of chill and gives us something fresh and new to work with, as opposed to churning out what could have been basically a remake of the original film. At times the nostalgia of the foreign setting was missed, but ultimately I accept it as a wise choice.

Two: Roth is out, Spiegel is in. The change in direction is noticed heavily, and in the end I was disappointed and left wishing Eli Roth had never given up the reigns.

Three: Straight to DVD. This, also, was a change that was noticed for all the wrong reasons.

The film kicks off with a highly interesting opening scene with a twist in which our expectations are squashed and it is established that we are working with a totally new style of villain. We see that the Elite Hunting Club has progressed into something much more advanced than just a pay-to-kill deal, and while a little over-the-top, I enjoyed the new additions to the game. During the climax we are fed table-turning twist that had my heart pumping with excitement. Sadly, however, here is where my praise ends.

The torture scenes are terrible. They are all bad ideas executed very poorly. Furthermore, they are over within seconds and contain almost no gore compared to the first two (an OBVIOUS reference to the lack of budget). The cinematography is dead on arrival. Don't expect the dark and gritty look that is required for this type of film, but instead look forward to distracting brightness and elegance. And finally, the acting (spare one or two) is the worst of the series.

Overall, I give it a painfully mediocre rating of 5/10. I do, however, definitely recommend you to see it if you liked the first two. Just go into it with low expectations so you will not be let down, and look out for the unique routes the story takes instead of the torture sequences. These fresh twists and turns are bittersweet, though, because it showcases the fact that the film could have been a big success had the necessary efforts been put into it. Hostel: Part III will forever be known to me as the little film that could... but didn't.
30 out of 48 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Rothless, Toothless, Meaningless
gregsrants26 December 2011
Gone is director Eli Roth, the desolate European location and a major theatrical release, but that didn't stop Sony Pictures from developing a third entry in the semi-successful but uber-popular Hostel series.

Ingeniously titled Hostel Part III, the terror comes to America with a setting in none other than Sin City itself – Las Vegas, where a group of guys get together for a bachelor party only to have their week-end fun interrupted by events of torture and extreme misfortune at the hands of the Elite Hunting Club.

The 'fun' begins when one of the four bachelor party friends is abducted from an out-of-control party. He is taken to some remote yet high class facility that has state-of-the-art torture rooms equipped with classy looking tables and display walls filled with random torturing tools. Outside the room watching behind a large glass pane are a group of high class business men and women who use hi-tech betting equipment to play 'Wheel of Misfortune' – a gambling game where they can bet on everything such as what a tortured individual might yell out when at the height of their pain.

Meanwhile, the remaining friends begin a desperate search to find their missing companion. A search that will land them in the same torture room subjected to the gruesome effects of the sadistic game.

Directed by Scott Spiegel, Hostel III has no resemblance to the previous Eli Roth creations. The new setting might bring the series into a more modern world, but it was the dark, dungy backdrop of Slovakia that made Hostel that much more frighteningly believable.

Screenwriters attempted to fill Hostel III with rudimentary twists in an attempt to try and out-smart their audience, but they were generally unnecessary and hardly OMG material. Couple that with some extremely unfunny lines ("Is this a joke?" one about to be tortured man screams answered by "Oh yea, and the punchline is a killer") and characters that as wooden as an Ikea bedroom furniture set and you get the gist of this unworthy third entry.

Of course, billed as a horror film, it is the torture (or torture porn) and bloodletting that will make or break the film with franchise fans and Hostel III can't hold a candle to the two Roth installments. Even with a state-of-the-art torture facility, the kills are truly uninspired and lacking in any true 'I can't watch' scenes of extremedom (I just made that word up). And nudity? Well, let's just say that Hostel III can border on the PG-13 edge of nudism.

With an opening scene that did nothing more than offer a chuckle to an ending that was just plain stupid, Hostel III proves that the franchise is now dead and those that have been tortured the most are us saps that paid money to soothe our curiosity with Part III.
35 out of 61 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
What a shame to "Hostel" franchise !!!
rahulsinha69-240-91397016 December 2011
I watched this movie and kept thinking WTF was wrong with the writers/editors/and even Director.... This was undeniably the worst movie out of three. Hostel franchise has carved a niche among a certain class of movie-goers and this one is definitely a Slap on all of our faces.

Ridiculous story, poor cast, awful acting, funny CGI, cheap grade torture/execution and the list is on and on.. What is "NEW" in this installment is the "camera move" during torture... It literally moves towards the "Wall" and all we can see is the blood splashing out.

C'mon, is this for real. Looks like the new director simply never watched the previous movies and literally decided to direct one for his 6-7 years old kids..

My advice: Save your penny and don't even think about renting it. You will get furious and eventually end up breaking up the DVD, which will later cost you more... ;)
56 out of 106 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Worst Hostel movie out of the three
ryan-8-58137919 February 2012
This is the first movie I've reviewed on IMDb. This movie was so awful I had to login and review it because it was that bad. This movie feels nothing like the first two movies. The first two Hostel movies felt very raw and unedited. This movie looks like it was made for 12 yr old girls. The concept was OK, not great. The acting was poor. The script was terrible as was the poor CGI and the obvious rubber knife in the middle of the movie. As another reviewer pointed out they don't show any of the actual kills in this movie like the first two, they just zoom out and show blood squirting. Lame. And what's with the no nudity? This isn't a Disney film. This is NOT a movie that any director should feel good about hanging his hat on. My 8 yr old niece could have made a better Hostel movie. If you want to have a good Hostel experience, don't watch this one.
8 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Better than part II for sure
TdSmth523 July 2012
Warning: Spoilers
In the intro we meet a creepy Ukranian couple in a hotel that stay a bit longer than they should and they run into the new guest, some innocent looking kid. But things aren't what they seem. Not long after, the couple finds itself in a cage.

Some guys organize a bachelor party for their friend in Vegas. Scott is the nice guy getting married, Carter is the smooth guy organizing the whole thing, Justin has a leg problem and has to use a crutch and Mike is the funny guy with the big mouth.

They go to a fictional stripper hotel where they run into a pair of escorts who invite them to a freaky party way off the Strip. And it sure is one hell of a party. They all end up back at their hotel the next day except for Mike, who ends up joining the Ukranian in a cage in a very secure compound. It's the upgraded Elite Hunting Club where it just isn't about someone paying to fulfill his bloody fantasies but also about an audience that bets on what goes on.

When the other 3 guys go looking for Mike, they are joined by one of the escorts who in turn is looking for her friend who spent the night with Mike. They are all caught by one of the EHC guys and will end up in the victim chair. There are a couple of twists near the end that are pretty neat.

Hostel III is a bit more polished and stylish than the first two. But it sure lacks in gore, brutality, and mean-spiritedness. It makes up for that with humor though and it does have some hilarious and memorable lines. There are some signs of a low budget but nothing distracting. Acting overall is very good. The absence of violence and gore put this movie almost more in a thriller category as all sorts of instruments of death are just presented but never used, it's the threat of it and the anticipation that make you cringe more than the actual death scene. This movie deviates from the tone set by the first two, but it's not an unwelcome change and it leaves room for improvement for the next installment that could carry the same style as this one but with more horror.
6 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
It wasn't that bad.....
supernaturaljunkiejp3 January 2012
Warning: Spoilers
It wasn't that bad but it definitely could have been far better. My expectations were very low before I saw this next installment of the Hostel movies, especially when I found out that it was going straight to DVD with no theatrical release. I also read all the horrible reviews, however, this did not stop me from purchasing this movie because let's face it the reviews for the last two movies were horrible as well.

I liked the beginning because I never would have suspected (from watching the other two movies anyways) that the American would have been the "bad guy". The rest of the movie lacked in plot and character development and did not make up for it with it's killing scenes. Now having said that, there were a couple times when I had to turn my head away, one part being when one of the characters had his face ripped off and the other being the cockroaches entering the character's mouth. There was a twist which I was pleasantly surprised with. However, the whole escape (the last 30 minutes which everyone has been saying was horrible) was poorly done and not suspenseful.

This movie is unlike the other two Hostel movies in that people are not paying to kill the person it is just some creepy guy doing it and the "customers" are betting on how (what instrument) it will be done. I also did not know there were any Hostels in Vegas, but I could be mistaken.

Anyways, watch at your own risk but it isn't as bad as people are saying but it is not nearly as good as the first two.
8 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Good way to ruin the Hostel franchise
Smells_Like_Cheese10 January 2012
Warning: Spoilers
In the beginning of the decade a new form of the horror genre came along that critics named "torture porn", mainly starting with Saw but then new comer Eli Roth came into the picture and brought in one of the biggest horror movies "Hostel". Everyone was freaking out over it's bloodbath and wondering how far film could go when it came to limits on the gore factor. Though in my opinion Hostel has horrible characters and poor writing but was extremely creative and had a very good idea. Part 2 was an even better film and it's one of my top 10 favorite horror movies. So naturally someone who was inspired by Hostel and did their own twist on it. However I have to admit my curiosity is just too strong to resist to see if this would be a fun film, I'm such a gore hound at times. But sadly this film does fall into the clichés and horrible character writing as well and for a direct to DVD movie, this doesn't even give you the fun buckets of gore it could have had. I've seen much gorier and scarier films than this one.

Scott and his fiancé Amy are out in front of their home, and Carter, Scott's friend pulls up. Scott leaves Amy to go with Carter to Vegas for Scott's bachelor party. Once in Vegas, Scott and Carter meet up with Mike and Justin, two of their buddies. The four go to a nightclub, where they end up meeting Kendra and Nikki, two escorts. Kendra and Nikki tell the four men about a "freaky" party they could go to. Scott awakens in the morning in his hotel room with Carter and Justin. The three wonder where Mike is, and try calling his phone, but get his voice mail. Meanwhile, Mike awakens in a cell of his own and starts freaking out. He finds out that he's at a club where the rich pay to see people tortured and killed. His friends are not far from learning their fate as well.

To the film's credit, I liked the film's beginning "gotcha" scene. Where this young seemingly naive American guy walks into a room with the tough looking foreigners who are offering him a drink and you're like "here we go again" but instead he is the villain and fools them! Where the first two Hostels took place in a different country and the people who lived there were so angry saying how Hostel would shy Americans away from visiting their country, I think to justify it they just had to have it take place in America this time. Though Los Vegas is shot poorly as you can tell they just shot clips of the strip and then the sets their own are clearly a sound stage instead of on location. The actors, with the exception of Kip Pardue and Thomas Kretschmann, were just awful. The character of Michael I was begging to be killed off the first minute I saw him the way he was talking about his family back home. Then when the main character escapes and is running through the torture chamber, he finds all the victim's items in a room with the cell phones that are still on! Who thought that was a good idea? If you're going to torture and kill people, wouldn't you want to make sure that you're 100% safe from not getting caught? The ending makes no sense and is only to satisfy the audience to make them feel like it's still the good guys win over all. Hostel 3 did need Eli Roth's touch as this was his baby, say what you want about the guy being a lousy writer, but at least he knows how to still scare an audience and make them cringe.

11 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Really surprised! I'm not even a fan of the first 2 movies, loved this!
Mariem-design28 January 2013
I was pleasantly surprised watching this film, as it started out I thought it was going to be the same old cliché, hard-looking Ukranian man with a knife, innocent American student on his travels. From there it took a twist and it had me on the edge of my seat. This movie was different from the rest of the Hostel movies, I felt like the emphasis was on the gore on the first two movies and coming from a special effects makeup artist, the effects weren't even that good or realistic. Hostel 3 focuses on a storyline, it goes into depth about what the club is, who it's members are, it's not shock value anymore, it shows the sadistic side of some human beings. Absolutely fantastic! Strong plot, nice twists, great special effects, highly recommended especially over the first two movies!
7 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Better than I expected, but....
brianshoebridge111 June 2013
...not really very good. The opening scene got my hopes up for this movie but it never really gets going. The change from desolate post-Soviet landscape to Vegas doesn't work at all. Eastern Europe (or maybe Asia/Africa/Middle East) would have provided a more suitable backdrop to this movie.

At least this 3rd in the series didn't just increase the footage of graphic torture-porn - it was more subdued than I expected. But I can't help feeling this, like the US of A setting, was more to do with getting a wider release at a lower classification than artistic taste & restraint.

A solid B movie.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A pretty dismal film
jonathanruano30 March 2013
Warning: Spoilers
The first Hostel pretty much laid out the entire plot for all the other Hostels: a few guys go out for a good time, but are quickly ensnared by the notorious "Hound" network, which subjects them to all kinds of unspeakable torture.

So the question is this: does Hostel Part III have anything new to contribute to the ongoing and rather tedious Hostel saga? The answer is absolutely nothing. The characters in the third Hostel are even less likable than the ones in the first Hostel, with the result that we are not concerned about their personal safety. Since there are no compelling human stories to hold this film together, there is an absence of any true suspense. We are more horrified by the gratuitous gore and violence and relatively unconcerned about the people who are subjected to this violence.

This segue leads to the film's second problem: the camera lingers on the torture scenes for much longer than is appropriate. I got the distinct impression that this movie was tailor made for psychopaths, sadists, fans of the BDSM clubs, and any other lowlifes you care to name. If your date admits to liking this sort of crap, my advice is to end your relationship with that person now and never see him or her again.

There are just a couple of things I like in this film, but those virtues are hardly the result of any good film making. The vindictive and nasty banter than goes on between the pretty boy Scott (Brian Hallisay) and the friend who betrayed him is unintentionally funny. They yell at each other a lot, but it sounds so insincere that it seems more humorous than dramatic. I also like Sarah Harbel's performance as Kendra, which successfully combines a sultriness with an implied air of malevolence. The sole purpose of Kendra is to convince us that she is somehow connected to the "Hound" network. Unfortunately, Harbel is given little to say or do and one wonders whether "Hostel Part III" would have been a more interesting film (keep in mind it is just skipping along rock bottom ) if it focused more on Sarah Harbel than the other characters. But aside from these two elements, the latest Hostel is a pretty horrible film. 2.5/10
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
pedrohmelo14 December 2011
Warning: Spoilers
First of all, this movie don't have anything in common with the previous two on the franchise, doesn't even have a hostel.

No gore at all, it lacks creativity on the deaths.

Lame acting.

The other two movies focuses on American tourists who go to Europe in an isolated city where all the killing happens, and the person who pays is the same person who kills.

This movie is more like a darker version of The Hangover. Some friends go to Las Vegas for a bachelor party and then things go wrong. American people in America.

The killing is not made by the members, they only watch while some creepy guy kills the victims.

So, what's the point? No hostel, no Europe, no gore, no acting.

11 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The Ultimate Movie Review! -
Tss507813 July 2012
It took three films, but finally the new Hostel film initiated a marketable franchise. The first two films were about a bunch of travelers who got kidnapped and killed by millionaires, who were part of some human hunting club, but they didn't go any further than that. Finally, in Hostel III, we see inside the elite hunting club and learn it's purpose. Also unlike the first two films, this Hostel has a plot, that's interesting and apathetic. Featured in Hostel III is Kip Pardue, a veteran b-movie actor, and newcomer Brian Hallisay. They were humorous, likable, and perfect for this type of film. After two insane gorefests, Hostel finally grew up and learned to combine the shocking violence with a good story, and a likable cast. This was the by far the best Hostel film so far and one of the best horror movies I've seen all year. If you like horror, don't miss this one. Even if you didn't like the first two films, give this one a shot!
7 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Hostel "light"; for the slightly more squeamish
Coventry19 January 2012
A universally acknowledged and practiced, albeit unwritten, rule in horror states that sequels are always supposed to be nastier, more brutal and more relentless than its predecessor(s). If this rule was applicable to the infamous "Hostel" series, it normally would have meant that number three was one of the sickest, most depraved things ever shot on film. But Eli Roth can comfortably sleep on both his ears, as his original two installments are FAR more disgusting and shocking than the overall weak and pitiable third effort. This is a straight-to-video release with obvious budgetary restrictions, but there are a few other aspects contributing to the fact this isn't a very successful sequel. The one thing which made Roth's movies unique was the authentically raw and uncanny East-European filming locations. The poor suckers in "Hostel I & II" were young enthusiast students that ended up in the grimmest areas of "dubious" countries like Czech Republic and Slovakia, subsequently to be captured by heavily scarred Slavic beefcakes with whom they couldn't communicate at all. Their actual purpose was to serve as living & bleeding toys for rich businessmen who paid fortunes in order to submit their victims to the cruelest and most agonizing torture games. For "Hostel III", the torture playground has moved towards Fabulou$ La$ Vega$, which is pretty much the least scary place on the planet if you ask me, and the torturing gimmick has been processed into the daily gambling activities. When four pals head to Vegas to celebrate Scott's bachelor party, they wake up the next day noticing that one of them didn't make it back to the hostel. He was last seen with one of the hired escort girls, so they don't immediately panic, but when searching for him they get sucked into a dangerous spiral of kidnapping, illegal gambling and painful loss ratios. The lack of gore in "Hostel III" is almost astounding! Some of the deaths are literally bloodless and even the "gorier" ones are never truly upsetting or remotely shocking. Several of the scenes in Roth's films made you cringe and nearly even experience the pain. Director Scott Spiegel, in a distant past responsible for the excellent late 80's slasher "Intruder", admirably attempts to compensate for the gore-shortage through sub plots and story twists, but (a) this isn't what the die-hard fans of the franchise were waiting for, and (b) even the plot twists are predictable and unsurprising. The performances are mediocre, with the exception of Kip Pardue who's truly insufferable. The only real positive thing I can say about the cast is that Zulay Henao (escort chick #2) is very cute. "Hostel III" is just a plain weak film, better skipped by the avid fans of parts one and two.
6 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Absolutely brilliant !
chrishayes73710 February 2012
Hostel 3 is one of the best horror's Iv'e seen in quite awhile , it was suspenseful , gory , action packed with a few twists in to boot . Don't believe the haters they are just sad people who can't enjoy movies - if you are a fan of this type of movie then you must like it cause I've seen a lot of these types of movies & Hostel 3 stands out as one of the best . The movie is set in Las Vagas which works really well for a Hostel movie & is a very very good direct to video movie & better than a lot of horrors released in cinema . Don't be fooled by the low rating on this site as I'm convinced users give this sort of movie 1 star & have actually never seen the movie or any like it as they are hating losers like all the rest of you who give Hostel 3 low marks ! .
8 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An Sad Expression of Emotional & Mental Illness, Despicable
eddiez6129 September 2012
Imagine people making bets of who can more savagely sexually violate your child and you begin to get a sense of how shockingly sick is the premise, and the people responsible for conceiving this ridiculous crap. You understand how disturbing my analogy is, don't you, that there exists human beings in the world who have premeditated the production of this valueless, worthless bit of cultural excrement? There should be laws here prohibiting this sort of careless, demented stupidity, but those laws would only make this sort of depraved reckless behavior that much more appealing to its emotionally crippled, mentally malfunctioning fans. The first "movie" in this series should have triggered a SWAT team response to the producers' homes to liberate the abducted sex slaves in their basements. Hmmmph.
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Doesn't deserve the Hostel name
aqos-114 December 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Apparently the makers of this movie did no research on what a hostel is, nor did they watch the first two Hostel movies. The whole idea of the movies is that there is a hostel where foreigners share a space for a low price. The object of the club is to pay to kill someone in a manner of your choice. This movie took place in Las Vegas and there were actually only two people that stayed at the "hostel." Also, the victims were well separated, not kept in cells facing one another. Not even really secure cells, thee doors were metal pipes covered with hurricane fencing. As an avid horror movie watcher, I was able to predict each of their plot "twists" long before they came. At the end of the movie, the fiancé has an urn that is supposed to contain the remains of her beloved that went to Vegas to celebrate his final days as a single man. As an unmarried couple, she would not have a right to his remains. I know it sounds trivial, but by the end of this predictable, non-horrific movie, it was just the kind of annoyance that put me over the edge and made me hate the movie. The writers also overlooked what might actually kill someone, healing time of wounds and how the club and murder scene tied in as one place. Poor script...after all but 2 of the known captives are killed... "Kill the prisoners! Kill ALL of them!"
6 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The House does not Always Win
claudio_carvalho23 December 2011
A couple of days before his wedding with Amy (Kelly Thiebaud), Scott (Brian Hallisay) attends a bachelor party in Las Vegas with his friends Justin (John Hensley), Mike (Skyler Stone) and Carter (Kip Pardue). They go to a Strip Club, where they meet the escorts Nikki (Zulay Henao) and Angela (Jeanette Manderachia) that invite the four friends to go to a private party in the outskirts of Las Vegas.

On the next morning, Scott, Mike and Carter realize that Mike, who is married with two children, is missing. Sooner they find that Nikki is also missing and they join to Angela to seek out the couple. They are abducted by a group of men and they discover that they will be submitted to sadistic tortures to satisfy the members of the Elite Hunting Club. Further, they find a surprising member of the club among the sick gamblers.

"Hostel: Part III" is a straight-to-video sequel of this franchise. I am not a fan of this genre of film, but I like this franchise and "Hostel: Part III" is another good film. The deaths are insane, but funny; the twist with the revelation of the hidden member of the Elite Hunting Club is really unexpected; and the conclusion is great. The unknown Kelly Thiebaud is really a very beautiful woman. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "O Albergue – Parte III" ("The Hostel – Part III")
6 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Read this for an honest personal review.
jonathanslater2630 May 2014
This movie is different to the previous two Hostel movies, very different. It may not of been directed by Eli Roth, however do not let that distract you from what I found a great film. I must admit the start of the film is misleading, however I soon got over that and continued watching and waiting for the gore that the 18 certificate promised. At times, if you have seen the first two films, you may be thinking 'oh here we go'. However, you would be mistaken. Frustratingly yet very teasingly Hostel 3 keeps you waiting and wondering, until you just know it's time for more blood. People have discredited this film because 'the deaths weren't good enough', I believe that is a ludicrous accusation as the heavy twists and turns are enough to literally get you out of your seat (well at least it did for me). As the film came to close I began shouting and laughing with sheer amazement as to how a film could grab me and entice me as much as this 88 minutes thriller did. There are a few small things that don't quite fully clear themselves up, but as far as 88 minutes of pure sadistic enjoyment go, Hostel 3 is exactly what I was looking for.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Hostel Part III - A Movie Viewers Review
lilmandecicco16 March 2012
Hostel Part III is the third installment in the Hostel series. The only difference with this movie compared to the last two is that Eli Roth did not direct this one.

However, I found that this installment of the gory series was the best so far. The acting wasn't the greatest, of course straight to DVD movies acting is never the best.

The best part about this one was the fact that it had a solid story with a compelling and complicated plot that kept you guessing about what would happen next from beginning to end.

Yes, it is not as gory as the other two, but there is still a fair amount of blood and gore for it to be called Hostel.

It starts out within the first ten minutes a whole hell of a lot of twists and turns and it keeps doing it until the very end.

No, this movie is not perfect. To be fairly honest, a Hostel movie will never be perfect, but they are getting there so be patient and for now enjoy the bloody gore.

This installment is set in Las Vegas where it is Scotts bachelor party. Carter is hosting it, Justin is the one where everyone watching this movie will feel bad for him because he has polio, and Mike is the party animal.

Overall - I give this movie a 7.5/10. Story - 6.5 Blood and Gore - 0.5 Having a fun time during the movie - 0.5

= 7.5/10
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The worst Hostel ever
Skino47318 January 2012
I wish i could say simply "the worst hostel ever". This film is actually one of the worst films i'd ever seen. There can't even be a comparison between this movie and it's predecessors, this is by far a film poorly written, poorly directed, just made out for a specific type of viewer which i doubt can even satisfy. The film begins normally and the maker's thought that they could make some twists on who to blame as the bad guy so the movie could avoid clichés. Unfortunately, those twists last are directed so "cheaply" that my reaction was an actual face palm every time this film though it was being clever. None of the characters is a unique, interesting kind of person. The good guys behavior is one hundred percent predictable, some people that are presented as the bad guys are more than ridiculous and the villains don't really convince themselves to be so mean, even in the worst time when they seem to enjoy a face cut. The acting in this film is so bad, i had to stop watching and stare at the wall sometimes. But what's even worse is the direction. This film reminds me of some cheap 80's horror movie who's director is some failed writer who decided to try his luck on the big screen. In conclusion, this film should not have been made at all. All i hope is they don't make another one because honestly, after this it will take hard work to bring the franchise to the horror level of the original picture.
6 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews

Recently Viewed