In March 2014, a UK branch of the supermarket chain Tesco took it upon themselves to remove The Hospital from sale after receiving a customer complaint (see here). Surprisingly, the film - which the BBFC classified as only being suitable for viewers over the age of 18 - was 'too graphic and violent for a family store' according to the article linked above. Aside from anyone who a) read the DVD box, b) understands the certification system, or c) can read plainly printed consumer advice, who could have anticipated that The Hospital was not wholesome family fun?
Flippancy aside, now that I have seen the film, I share the view that sales of The Hospital should be severely restricted. The content is "extreme"... as in extremely tedious. This life-draining atrocity ought to be restricted to bargain bins where it can remain hidden under the hundreds of other cheap horror films that one could spend time watching instead. The filmmakers have tried to tap into numerous trends in contemporary horror, but the resultant plot is a confused mess of found-footage motifs, supernatural events, torture porn elements, and hints of snuff. Imagine Death Tunnel with some offscreen rape, DeathTube with ghosts, or 7th Hunt featuring an Oliver Hardy impersonator who plays the role of "sex-criminal janitor". Now lower your expectations: rather than watching this unholy chimera, imagine that the plot is being vaguely relayed to you by an amnesiac who has Ben Stein's voice and Ed Milliband's charisma. That is how it feels trying to sit through The Hospital. The plot-based "rap" that accompanies the title sequence is easily the best part of the film, but only insofar as it is bad enough to be funny (unlike the rest of the movie).
If any of this sounds appealing or remotely entertaining, it is not. Consider yourself warned. Given a choice between being admitted to a real hospital or enduring The Hospital again, I'd pick the former: it is a "no-brainer", just like the film itself.