Hostel: Part III (2011 Video) User Reviews

The film's biggest fault is that its great ideas go largely unexplored.

[lnvicta · 6/10 · 4 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.

Hostel Part III - Prepare for a letdown

[paulknoop · 4/10 · 14 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!

So close, yet so far...

[KylePeppers · 5/10 · 27 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.

'The most sadistic show in town' as a laugh

[chaos-rampant · 28 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.

Rothless, Toothless, Meaningless

[gregsrants · 2/10 · 26 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.

www.killerreviews.com

What a shame to "Hostel" franchise !!!

[rahulsinha69-240-913970 · 1/10 · 16 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... ;)

A very tame sequel

[nowego · 4/10 · 17 December 2011]

I didn't hold out much hope for this sequel to what I thought was a pretty good movie the first time out. The second one was up there as well and I enjoyed them both. This one just didn't hit the spot and was a bit disappointing.

Unlike the first two being set in a foreign country this one is set in Las Vegas and that is, I think the first mistake. The second mistake is the lack of blood and gore and fairly tame violence up until the last 10 minutes of the movie.

There were a few twists that gave me a few enjoyable surprises. I especially liked the one in the first 6 minutes of the movie. The others while nice were not totally unexpected.

Some of the ideas were good, but I felt that the tame way in which some of the victims were killed just didn't fit with the Hostel theme that was set by the first two.

Better than I expected, but....

[PrinceBuster5 · 5/10 · 11 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.

It wasn't that bad.....

[supernaturaljunkiejp · 5/10 · 3 January 2012]

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.

Not as bad as people would make you believe!

[djkbee · 6/10 · 4 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

An affront to the Hostel original

[scrawcreations · 3/10 · 4 December 2019]

Hostel was gritty and edgy, with a fine cast and well executed. Hostel 3 however is lacking in all of these features. Cheapens the franchise.

I recommend this one for sure

[harleyjr-65778 · 8/10 · 26 June 2019]

Exspect the unexpected in hostel 3, if you haven't seen the other ones it's fine but i highly recommend them.

Good idea/poor execution

[Cartman-13 · 6/10 · 26 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.

Good way to ruin the Hostel franchise

[Smells_Like_Cheese · 2/10 · 10 January 2012]

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.

2/10

Vegas Baby

[SnoopyStyle · 3/10 · 11 September 2015]

Ukrainian couple Victor and Anka are taken prisoners by the Elite Hunting Club. Scott is having his bachelor party leaving his fiancée Amy behind. Instead of going golfing, Carter takes him to Vegas where they meet up with Mike and Justin. Kendra and Nikki invites them to something a little freaky. After a night of partying, Mike is taken. The other guys try to find him and encounter Kendra who is also looking for missing Nikki.

It won't matter to fans whether this is good or not. The defacing is a good way to start but the bugs are kind of stupid. In general, I have a problem with moving the franchise to Vegas. Part of the appeal is clueless first world people going to third world backwaters where they get torn apart. This doesn't have that. The kills aren't as good as before. The gladiatorial combat also takes away from the message of the franchise where money can buy anything.

Worst Hostel movie out of the three

[ryan-8-581379 · 1/10 · 19 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.

Hostel?

[pedrohmelo · 1/10 · 14 December 2011]

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.

Crap.

Decent third Hostel film, better than I expected.

[poolandrews · 5/10 · 14 October 2012]

Hostel: Part III starts as four friends drive into Las Vegas for a bachelor party, Scott (Brian Hallisay) is to marry Amy (Kelly Thiebaud) next week & Carter (Kip Pardue), Justin (John Hensley) & Mike (Skyler Stone) have decided to give him a good send off in Vegas. While in a casino they meet two escorts, Nikki (Zulay Henao) & Kendra (Sarah Habel) who invite them to party in an old warehouse. During the night Mike & Nikki leave together & no-one hears from them again. Worried the three guy's & Kendra team up to try & find out what has happened to them but they end up being abducted by the ECH, the Elite Hunting Club that stage performances in which people are tortured & murdered so rich guest's can place bet's on the outcome...

Directed by Scott Spiegel this is a direct to video sequel to Hostel (2005) & Hostel: Part II (2007), while not as good as either of those in my opinion Hostel: Part III is much better than I expected it be although it's far from a classic. I was expecting a lifeless rehash that offered nothing new while being considerably worse in every department but to my surprise Hostel: Part III tries to play against expectation & introduce a few new elements to the basic formula. The opening scene in particular when the script deliberately plays against audience expectation & has the two Eastern European's become the victims rather than the villains was quite clever & did a reasonable job of convincing me that Hostel: Part III might be a decent film in it's own right that will try to offer something different, there's some good if rather far fetched plot twist's which certainly shake things up a bit & while not everything works I would prefer that to a simple rehash. The script isn't perfect, although the neat concept of a paying audience betting on victim reactions & how long they will live is welcome it's never anything more than a throwaway idea that gets very little screen time, I am not sure what the creepy acting taxi guy is about, the torture & kill scenes are disappointing tame & forgettable while the silly double twist ending is maybe taking things a little bit too far. Ay just under 90 minutes it's short enough, it never really drags or gets sidetracked with subplots so there's not much dead time & it's a perfectly watchable horror sequel that doesn't stray too far from the originals while offering one or two new aspects.

The film looks really good as well, there's some cool & quirky shots like the camera placed inside a woman's mouth as lots of Cocroaches crawl in & shots from inside a blender & behind the skin of a guy's face as it's peeled off his skull. The biggest disappointment about Hostel: Part III is probably the lack of really good gore, the scene in which some surgeon slices a guy's face off is nasty but the rest of the kills are strangely forgettable & bland. A guy is shot with arrow's, someone is electrocuted, someone choke's on Cockroaches, a guy has his arm cut off, people are stabbed with knives & axe's & that's about it. It's almost forty minutes before the first drop of blood is seen, I was hoping for a little bit more actually. From changing the location to some remote Eastern European country to the glitz & Glamour of Las Vegas has it's drawbacks, while in the previous two Hostel films the American victims were isolated in a foreign country not being able to speak the language or know how to get help & are essentially lost & alone it's surprising that the EHC could operate so openly in a major city with it's police force & security cameras everywhere.

With a supposed budget of about $6,000,000 it's easy to see why Hostel: Part III looks so good & much better than most direct to video horror, even the CGI of the building being blown up at the end is quite good. There's plenty of colour among the neon lit streets of Las Vegas, there's some nudity as well. Filmed mainly in Detroit in Michigan. The acting is alright, it's nothing amazing but it serves it's purpose.

Hostel: Part III is better than I expected & a decent time waster if your into horror films, the only negative is the lack of any real gory set-pieces but the at times clever script that tries to be different & introduce twist's & turns balances it out a bit, a straight down the middle five out of ten from me.

Just in time for the holidays... how convenient !!

[thetimemeddler · 1/10 · 14 December 2011]

Going to keep this one short, as this movie deserves no better. This is like the PG-13 version of 'Hostel' All the things we like about 'Hostel' are no where to be found in this film. Very little gore, and its all off camera. Nothing has been added to the hostel story arc, other then the fact that they now brought the story to the US. Which was a bad mistake in my opinion, they should has left it in Europe. There is no character development whatsoever. The acting is bland at best. There is better special effects on prime-time television commercials. It pretty much seems to me that this was only made as a quick cash grab to cash in from the people that like this kind of series, at the time of year when most people have a little money to spend. Do yourself a favour and pick up the unrated version of the original on blue-ray instead, and stay far away from this corporate garbage as you can.

Better than part II for sure

[TdSmth5 · 7/10 · 23 July 2012]

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.

Hostel "light"; for the slightly more squeamish

[Coventry · 3/10 · 19 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.

Good sheit

[funkyfresh91 · 8/10 · 12 March 2013]

I appreciate what some narrow-minded gore snobs are saying about this entry's clever use of subtlety in favor over the excessive, graphic violence and gore that sometimes kills suspense and lends nothing to most sequels. Instead, this Hostel entry breaks the mold with well-timed gags, fake-outs, misdirection, and legitimate suspense. I can honestly say I didn't expect one thing that happened in the movie from the beginning. Every sharp turn kept the plot more interesting and the action more intense, and that more of the action took place outside the torture room was much more satisfying in my opinion. The gore and violence in the torture scenes and around Vegas is more than sufficient, and wickedly satisfying compared to the other, more disturbing and nasty torture sequences of the former films. There seemed to be an overall homage to "what would really happen in 'The Hangover'" that played out perfectly. I liked the characters, who were basically believable and surprisingly well acted. I like how the director played on the audience's stereotypes at certain times, and I would be very interested in seeing more of this production crew.

The House does not Always Win

[claudio_carvalho · 7/10 · 23 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")

Doesn't deserve the Hostel name

[aqos-1 · 1/10 · 14 December 2011]

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!"

Pretty much as expected

[scarlettimogen · 5/10 · 2 February 2021]

The twist in the first scene was excellent. The rest of it was disgusting but if you're going to watch Histek, what do you expect