Recensioni degli utenti

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.

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!

...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.

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

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... ;)

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.