Customer Reviews

HOSTEL PART III

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(8)
3 star:		(11)
2 star:		(6)
1 star:		(15)

 

 

Honestly, I wasn't expecting much from this movie... direct to DVD, the biggest "star" in it was Kip Pardue, not even a production credit from Eli Roth... but I had no idea it would be so aggressively stupid and just plain insulting to the intelligence of its audience. Hostel was popular not just due to its gore, but because it played on American fears of that dark and alien place that is eastern europe, as well as themes of xeno and homophobia. In short, it was torture porn that was smarter than it had any right to be and that is why it was such a success. Then along comes Hostel II with slightly less provocative gender themes, misogyny and one of the most disturbing and graphic death scenes to grace cinema theaters in a while. Now we have Hostel III, a movie that is so distant from its predecessors that, as I stated before, it's just plain insulting to viewers.

Hostel III follows the Elite Hunting Club's continued booming business of torture and murder, this time taking us to the U.S. (mistake number one) Las Vegas (what happens there stays there, get it?) to be precise, where club members not only get to indulge in acts of carnage, but also have the option of watching and even placing bets on the dismemberment. A group of guys, lead by hasbeen Kip Pardue (you know how I know he's a hasbeen? cause he's staring in Hostel III!) out celebrating their buddy's impending wedding. While this premise sounds mildly promising, it isn't, not even a little bit. This movie fails for one main reason: it betrays its source material completely and utterly. Even with the limited budget of a direct to DVD release, one would at least expect to see some decent gore and disturbing carnage, right? Think again, instead you'll be treated to some of the most bloodless and stupidest deaths you've ever seen.

Number one: a person does not die from having their face peeled off.

Number two: hissing cockroaches do not crawl into people's mouths by the hundreds to choke them to death.

Number three: why on earth is there an unrated version of this? I didn't see anything that was disturbing or horrific enough to even warrent a hard R rating. I'll tell you why, it's a sales gimmick.

It's crap like this that is so insulting, to think that this garbage's makers believed that they could piggy back off of decent horror films like Hostel and Hostel II, and try to sell audiences cheap toilet paper like this is just a slap in the face. The worst SAW movie is leaps and bounds better than Hostel III, which is a truly sad and accurate statement. I actually feel dumber for having watched this movie. Save yourself some angst and a few brain cells and skip this movie. Rewatch the first two instead.

"Place your bets" When a group of friends decide to have their bachelor party in Vegas they get more then the expected. For those that have seen the other two in the series you will pretty much know what to expect from this one. This one did have a different aspect to it that made it a little more twisted. An eBay type auction is set up with a picture of the person and the bidders are allowed to to it over their phones. Instead of doing the killing in a old warehouse this one is in a sophisticated room with glass where people can sit and watch (and order food and drinks). While the "Dr." is working people are allowed to place bets on different aspects of the "performance" such as how long until the victim brings up his kids. While this is about the same level of gore as the other two this one is a little more disturbing based on the fact that the killings were more like a reality show then for "fun". I will say that even though this is a different crew then the others it is not a huge drop off in quality. Overall, if you liked the others you will like this one. I give it a B.

What kills me (pun intended) about this new HOSTEL sequel is all the positive feed back I keep hearing about it. Considering the other two HOSTEL films weren't too popular with the critics, I'm surprised this third entry even exists in the first place! Yet, here they are. Way more positive reviews for this movie than I expected. The reason why this "kills" me is because HOSTEL III isn't a very good sequel. It's far from a bad film, but it sure as heck isn't better than the original two movies. My advice? If you're reading a positive review on this site (four or five stars), take your expectations down a notch. It's really not that good. Whatever those other people saw that led them to write five star reviews, I must have missed it by a long shot. HOSTEL III gets a lot of things wrong, while getting a few things (very few) right in the process. We'll touch on all of those issues later in my review. For right now, I want to put a little perspective behind the series as a whole.

When the original HOSTEL came out in 2005, I was mesmerized by it. It came out during a wonderful time for modern Horror, something I considered to be quite significant in the mid 2000's. Growing up in the 1980's, I was exposed to a lot of classic Horror and "Slasher" movies. I was practically raised on FRIDAY THE 13TH, DAY OF THE DEAD, HELLRAISER, A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET and countless other Horror films. I would watch these movies with my Brother and close friends almost every weekend. Cycling through the numerous sequels and weird genre off shoots. Anything from HALLOWEEN to CITY OF THE WALKING DEAD was game for us. It didn't matter what time period the films were made, we just wanted to watch Horror in general! So by the time the 1980's ended, the world of Horror seemed to be changing on the whole. The goretastic 80's was fizzling out with the "direct to video" business (FULL MOON films anyone? How about the random HELLRAISER sequels?), all of which giving way to the SCREAM era clones of the mid to late 90's. The world of Horror was due for a change in direction by the early 2000's, and it seemed like everyone wanted to get the genre back to it's bloody roots of the late 70's and early 80's!

In my opinion, 2001 got things kick started with JEEPERS CREEPERS. It was a return to the "creature" films of the 1980's like A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET and HELLRAISER. 2002 introduced us to Eli Roth with CABIN FEVER, a film which has become a Horror fan favorite ever since it's theatrical release. 2003 brought us WRONG TURN, TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE (remake) and FREDDY vs. JASON, the latter being something I wished for since I was a kid! So it would seem that the 2000's were off to a great start in terms of modern Horror.

By the time the original HOSTEL film was released, the world of Horror never looked so good! I remember thinking to myself, "This is it! This is what modern Horror was missing for so long!" The visceral sense of dread, the unflinching gore sequences and the pulsating "old school" soundtrack done with synthesizers. It all felt like a breath of fresh air! It felt like I got some of my teenage years back. The 2000's brought us amazing Horror movies like WOLF CREEK, HIGH TENSION, SAW, HOUSE OF 1000 CORPSES, THE DEVIL'S REJECTS, GRINDHOUSE and the amazing sequel to HOSTEL.

Eventually this new Horror kick started to burn out on some of it's own fumes (it's been slim pickings in theaters from 2009 on up if you ask me) and what was once at the tail end of the late 80's and early 90's "direct to VHS" Horror scene has become the latest "direct to DVD" Horror scene today. It's the same process (most Horror resurgences go through this cycle), just a different era. I would have to say that out of all the early to mid 2000's Horror films that were released, HOSTEL and it's sequel are some of the best. They define an era.

Which is part of my problem with this latest HOSTEL sequel. It doesn't define anything. HOSTEL III feels like a movie that was left behind in the dust of the original two films. It's a "direct to DVD" movie and it shows in the production. The first two films had a "larger than life" sense to them. They were both directed by Eli Roth, something that is sorely missed with this latest sequel. It would be kinda' like if a movie studio wanted to make another KILL BILL movie, but decided on a different director and under cutting the over all budget. Not only would Tarantino fans be angry but it just wouldn't work on the whole. It would feel cheap, rushed and pointless. Thats the difference between the first two HOSTEL films and the third movie. Night and day. It's almost as if everyone involved forgot what made the Roth films work in the first place.

The biggest problem I have with this movie is the lack of style. The over all camera work is handled with a sense of sophistication but the visual perspective lacks where it needs it. While you're watching this film, you know it's a low budget affair because it just feels cheap. Considering it takes place in Las Vegas, most of the lighting is rather muddled and drab. This might have worked for the scenes of Horror and torture, but the entire movie is filmed in this dull way. After a while, you start to get the impression it's because of budget restraints. This could have been a good chance for the cinematographer to experiment with the bright colors and interesting camera angles. Yet, they don't. The Eli Roth movies were directed with a polished sense of style and understanding. They were his stories and characters after all. You could even compare his style to that of David Lynch, Dario Argento or David Cronenberg. Sometimes even Sean (FRIDAY THE 13TH) Cunningham!

Online I read that Eli Roth had wrote some of the characters in this new sequel. I don't know if it's true or not but there sure are moments that feel like his style. There are times when HOSTEL III feels right at home with the original two films, despite it's obvious budget issues. Through out the whole movie you'll see or hear something that actually works in it's favor as a sequel, but then it becomes quickly dashed away by something else that ruins it. As if moments of brilliance are bubbling and rising to the surface, only to be killed off too quickly by someone turning down the heat. Had Eli Roth actually directed this sequel, I get the feeling it might have turned out a lot better than it did. Considering HOSTEL II failed at the box office (in terms of sales), I'm willing to bet the film studio is the one who is responsible for this movie taking the cheap way out. They just didn't want to give it the production it deserved because part 2 didn't line their pockets. So riding on reputation alone, the movie studio is lugging out the "Hostel" name, slapping a part 3 next to it, and hoping for a quick buck.

Plot wise, things are simple. Yet, they're told in a confusing manner. Our main characters are a group of guys (some more likeable than others) who are heading to Las Vegas for a bachelor party. When they finally get there, the night kick starts fast in their hotel with gambling, women and drinking. Eventually they meet a couple of girls who want to take them to a club party "off the strip." Need less to say (and to anyone who has seen these movies) things don't go as planned for our main characters. Friends end up missing, people wake up the next day confused, and a general sense of dread begins to follow our "hero's." It's too bad this movie stumbles so much. With the right care HOSTEL III might have worked.

I won't go into too much detail about the plot because there are a few surprising moments that I thought were pretty clever. Nothing too amazing mind you, just some small diamonds in the rough. I will say that the over all plot is kinda' "ho hum" when you think about it. The story is like a combination of the first two films only nowhere near as effective. But, where as the original HOSTEL and it's sequel had a complementing duality to them (part I : guys, part II : girls), HOSTEL III feels out of place. Most of the main characters are guys, so I guess it's back to square one? How about a mixture of the two, a group of guys and girls? It's almost as if the writers didn't know what to do with the story and just threw together some garbage about a bachelor party in Vegas. Some of the characters were pretty interesting, including one of the main villains who reminded me of the young internet tycoons of today. The social commentary (however small it may have been) became one of the strongest points in HOSTEL III if you ask me. It's too bad the director didn't dive into the psyche of the main villain a little more. There could have been some great social commentary about "young money" and how greed and evil are ageless. Nope. He just becomes another faceless "bad guy" in the end.

Gore wise, somehow this sequel misses the mark in that area too. Things get off to a great start with someone getting their face cut off (which was actually very well done) but then everything after it seemed weak in comparison. The other HOSTEL movies made you squirm and flinch during the gory sequences. HOSTEL III maybe has two moments of true Horror revulsion and a whole bunch of "filler" deaths in between. Maybe the lack of budget had something to do with this but it sure brought the film down a peg or two. Gore Hounds, only check it out if you were a fan of the original two HOSTEL films. Curiosity got the best of me.

On top of the lack of blood shed, there's a lot of bad CGI special effects and strange camera work that makes it hard to understand whats going on during the action scenes. One silly moment has two of the main characters fighting in a locked room in front of an audience. The camera work switches to this strange "ghosting" like style that really cheapens the over all movie. Not only is the scene ridiculous in the first place (there's a lot of moments like that) but the sudden change in lens and imaging styles becomes obvious. These "camera tricks" are used to cover up short comings. Maybe the action was fake and slow between the characters without them. If that's the case then those scenes should have been replaced with something a little more respectable. Drop the ridiculous fight scene and add in moments of Horror and tension. How about a gory death or two?

Over all I was kinda' disappointed with this latest HOSTEL film. Eli Roth is really missed here. He's an amazing director and his films deserve better than this. The first two movies in this series had style, class and respect for Horror fans. There were cameos from Takashi Miike (ICHI THE KILLER) and Ruggero Deodato (CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST), which added a sense of subliminal understanding for the Horror genre as a whole. Eli Roth knows what he's doing. HOSTEL III doesn't have any cameos, or anything else that made the other films so great for that matter.

The movie studio should have gone with a better director like Ti West for this sequel. He directed CABIN FEVER 2 : SPRING FEVER, which wasn't a bad sequel at all. Maybe he could have given this low budget affair the sense of sophistication it so desperately needed. In the end, HOSTEL III will be forgotten over time. Which is something I'm sure every director tries to avoid in their career. Nobody wants to ruin a series or make a bad movie. HOSTEL III isn't a 100% failure. Some parts actually work, but it doesn't push the envelope. It just has the misfortune of being a sequel to some of the best Horror films of the 2000's era. It would be very hard to top the original two HOSTEL movies in the first place!

If they do make another sequel (please dont), hopefully they get a better director next time. Someone with a sense of style and who doesn't hold back any punches. But then again, maybe they'll learn from this mistake and leave well enough alone. Sadly, with all the positive reviews online and word of mouth in Horror circles, HOSTEL IV could be an actuality.

Here's to letting sleeping dogs lie!

Over and out.

This isn't a great movie, but it really doesn't deserve 1 star ratings. I think people had their expectations way too high for a direct to dvd 3rd in the series film that is working without the original creator. The story follows the Hunting Club now operating in Vegas. A group of buddies having a bachelor party stumble into the path of the club and things get going. I thought the movie kept to the spirit of the original two movies and tried to add a few red herrings to keep thing interesting. The acting was okay and the story was okay. The gore was hit and miss. There was certainly a good amount of kills, but the special effects were lacking and the deaths were not all that creative or gory. The film is labeled Unrated because it was not rating by the mpaa, not because of an overabundance of gore, nudity or swearing. As a fan of the first two movies, I thought this one was okay.

I liked this movie better than the second installment, although not nearly as good as the first one. The action now goes to Vegas with a bachelor party of four guys. The franchise has come to America. The movie consists of basically the same stuff, torture, killing, and scantily clad/ nude girls. What makes this one different is the excessive amount of twists the story takes. It constantly leads you in one direction and BAM! Did not see that coming.

If you like your snuff films with pretty women serving drinks, wagering and a few twists, this is it.
Hey I just got a great idea for Hangover III.

F-bomb, nudity.

I saw this on Fios on demand and it blatantly gave away the main twist 'not that it wasn't expected' but to have it written in the program description was messy.
This movie had weak kills and the gambling aspect of the plot was not shown much at all.
Just when I started to get into the movie I looked at the time and there was only 18 minutes left.Time management wasn't handled well at all.The effects were very average and for a Hostel film there were very few.
I will say that those last 18 minutes were really really good which just made me think why couldn't they have put more effort into the rest of the movie?
All in all I give it 2 and a half stars for the first hour and 4 stars for the last 30 minutes.

Sure, Eli Roth has nothing to do with this film, and that had me very skeptical from the time I heard another sequel was being made, and Roth had absolutely no involvement in it at all.
It seemed like "Hostel 3" was just going to be another sequel made for money. One that was only made to cash in on the success of it's predecessors, had nothing to do with the "Hostel" world us fans grew to love, and would just have the famous name slapped onto it to help sell the movie.
With all that said, and now have actually seen the film, I can say it's none of that. The film is different from Eli Roth's "Hostel", and "Hostel 2", but that's to be expected when someone else takes over on a project.
The game has changed in this film. Instead of taking place in Slovakia, it takes place right here in America. Vegas to be exact. As you know: What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas....
As apposed to people all over bidding on people to kill, like a twisted/psychotic version of eBay, Hostel 3 is a gambling game. People betting on how, and when the victims will meet their demise.
This film isn't as dark as the previous installments, but it's not the crappy film I thought it was going to be.
This is definitely a film I support!

I give it 8 and a half out of 10 stars.

Why all the hate? What was everyone expecting when sitting down of Hostel Part III? An Oscar worthy film with many tears and moving moments? No. It's a horror movie, of the 21st century torture/revenge variety. For what it was, this film turned out fantastic! People don't like that Eli Roth didn't put his touches on this one, but you know what? It's time to move on from what he did. It's time to hand over the baton that we all knew would be passed sooner or later. Who did he give it to? Some new guy who would ruin the film franchise? Some up and coming pretentious twit? No way. He gave it to Scott Spiegel, long time Sam Raimi Collaborator, producer of Hostel I and II, and DIRECTOR OF INTRUDER! One of the best slasher films of all time! Everyone needs to calm down and see this film for what it really is: a cult following aimed horror film. Will the fans of Twilight or Avatar applaud this effort? Maybe not. Will the art crowd or, dramatic theater actors rejoice in Hostel III? Well it would be a step in the right direction surely! But this film isn't appealing to them, nor is it trying to. This is a horror film, for cult horror film fans, pure and simple, and in that respect, it did more than it's fair share.

The `Hostel' films are movies that I kinda wish were never made. They touch on death, pain, and solitude in ways you'd rather not think about - on situations you'd really rather not ever find yourself in. However, they're so disturbing in their themes and setpieces that it's kinda like a bad car wreck - you can't help but watch.

The first Hostel film was a masterpiece in my opinion - it brilliantly set itself up like a typical mid-2000s teen sex flick, replete with oodles of sex with sensual pop music playing in the backdrop and such, before plunging into the hopeless abyss of pain, misery, solitude, and death, all in a creepy foreign land rife with corruption and lacking law and order.

The second film was average with exception to the excellent character study of the two clients, and this third entry comes off as a pretty typical "numbered sequel"; the characters are pretty paper-thin, some of the setpieces seem recycled, the editing and pacing is super-fast, etc, and these are GREAT things in my opinion for this type of movie. These characteristics define typical horror sequels, and people complaining about them are watching the wrong movie. This wasn't meant to win any awards, but to be a quick trashy watch.

Three buddies go to Las Vegas for a pre-marriage bachelor party for their buddy who is getting married the next week. It isn't long before familiar things start to happen, and our valiant heroes are enticed by two escorts to a party far off the strip, where things start to go wrong as one can predict. Most of the violence and disturbance-facotr in this entry is, as some early reviews said, tamer than the prior two entries, with the exception of one particularly nasty torture/death early on which seems to have been cut down seriously from what it could have been., and seems almost out of place compared with the rest of the setpieces.

I don't know why I watch these movies - these are things I don't want to think about, and are really negative and depressing. But hell it's the horror genre. A decent entry in the series and a good "numbered-sequel type" horror film in general.

P.S. My favorite character in this movie has to be the (Ukranian?) guy who's in the prisoner cage for most of the movie. He gets some awesome scenes near the end and is a total badass.

Bum, Boobs and Breasts added with Blood, Brutality and Bitches is no replacement to a terrible script, horrible acting skills and an absolutely mindless story-line. I wish someone would have told director Scott Speigel (Evil Dead 2 & The Quick and the Dead) this truth. Overall, a absolutely brain dead time wasting release. Save yourself some pain - Give this movie to your enemy.
Overall rating - 1 out 10 (out of charity)