Hostel: Part III

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.

Hostel: Part III was released a few years after the torture sub-genre lost its popularity with audiences. Many people blamed Hostel: Part II (which bombed) but the truth is that the torture craze (much like the self-referential slasher craze before it) was dying off. It could only sustain for so long. Which makes me wonder why the filmmakers wanted to make a third film. The absence of Eli Roth's masterful direction is definitely to the movie's detriment. This second sequel is far less gruesome than the others. Though it has some interesting ideas (the "murder casino" comes to mind) and a couple of pretty cool twists, the novelty of the first two movies has worn off. It just comes across as unnecessary.