John Naylor I have watched all three Hostel movies back to back in the past day. I found parts 1 and 2 were entertaining with some memorable ideas. I found this one to be lacking the depth or interest that the first two have. Even the deaths seemed a little disappointing. Some of them just looked cheap and one of the most surprising things occurred to someone who was already dead.The change of location also did not help the viewing. Slovakia was a an interesting setting. Las Vegas (the little we saw of it) just wasn't. I feel that the artificial nature of Las Vegas does mirror how much was lost from the series. The hunting club seemed devalued by the way it turned into a gambling show.There are a lot of good ideas and 'what ifs' based around both this movie and the series. I would have loved this sequel to provide something new but in the end it just did not deliver like the first two movies did. It does get better as it goes along. The third act has nearly all the best moments of the movie.This was by no means a bad movie. It just lacked execution (in more ways than one). I can see why Eli Roth decided not to do it and also why it went straight to DVD.4 stars. The last act earned 2 of those.

bowmanblue Did you like the original Hostel film? If the answer is 'yes' then did you like the sequel, Hostel Part II? If you liked that one as well, then know about Hostel Part III that it is the first in the series to be released straight to DVD. Naturally, this means that it will have less of a budget to play with and possibly less capable actors (also it was not written or directed by Eli Roth).So, knowing all, this, if you still think you can get some enjoyment out of it, give it a go. There are films that get bad reviews (and I've read some terrible ones about Hostel III), but what did people expect from a second sequel that's gone straight to DVD? I thought it was a reasonable addition to the series. Okay, the gore is lessened and a lot happens off camera and the performances aren't as polished as before, but it does what's expected. It comes across as a darker version of the Hangover as it's now set in Las Vegas after a stag night gone bad.My advice: know what you're in for before you watch. It might not be as good as the first two, but it's not as bad as some people are making out.

jonathanslater26 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.

Serdar Kaya Hostel series commenced in 2005. That first installment was unusual in more than one way. The first half of the 93-minute movie bordered soft porn. The remaining scenes were largely composed of explicit displays of sadism and cruelty. These displays were so extreme that even the biggest fans of the genre found them disturbing. Accompanying that brutality was the shocking indifference to human life and dignity, as was portrayed - among others - in the the oven scene, where a facility worker burned body parts like they were pieces of wood.Two years later, the second installment continued where the first one had left off, and revisited the chambers of torture and death. Unlike its predecessor, this second movie did not include any sex scenes. In regard to the graphic displays of sadism and corporal dismemberment, however, it was business as usual.Nevertheless, the second movie also exerted a small yet important effort to go beyond the acts of cruelty, and explore the psychological motives behind them. The changes in the behavior of the two characters after their first actual experience in the torture chamber manifested such motives to a certain degree. Also important were the scenes that displayed these two torturers' entrance to the premises, and their process of dressing up for the act. These scenes have no dialogues. The only sound viewers hear is Synećku, Synećku - a sad Slovakian love song by the band Varmužova Cimbálová Muzika. The contrast between the song and the scenes offer a touching example of what human beings are capable of doing to each other.In 2011, Part III constituted a deviation from the first two installments in a number of respects. First, the events took place in Las Vegas, Nevada, and not Slovakia. Secondly, the tortures occurred not in a crude and secluded environment but in a "decent" setting where the viewers betted on some trivia regarding the torture. Besides these peculiarities regarding the conduct of torture, the storyline was quite ordinary for the genre.How do these movies deserve to be rated on a scale of zero to ten? Despite its serious shortcomings, the first movie may deserve an eight, due to its innovative nature that took The Texas Chainsaw Massacre to a whole new level. Albeit a much better production than its predecessor, the second movie is probably a seven, since it cannot get any credit for originality. Finally, the third movie is a six.