|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Feb 15, 2018 14:34:06 GMT
I'm in awe of how some regard II the best in the franchise and hold it over I. To each their own - we all have different tastes - but I think it was highly overrated and to me - gore does not equal a good movie. Plus the acting was abysmal (the mute chick who looked like Brad Pitt). Also - I get hated on for this viewpoint - I know hardcore fanboys state the Hellraiser movies were not about Pinhead. Well guess what? He's an iconic Horror Icon. One of the best out there. And the way he went down so easily to Dr. Chanard - just kind of left a bad taste in my mouth. I appreciated the ambition of part 2, but the ideas were stretched way beyond what they could achieve on a modest budget, and you're left with a lot of shoddy looking sets and effects, and as you said, gore in the place of actual ideas. And yes.. Terrible acting. I think what people might mean when they say the movies aren't really about Pinhead is that he doesn't have to show up for a whole lot of screen time, and that the movies were really all about the concept of opening that gateway to hell and what that can do to a person, and what's on the other side. That's true, but I agree. Pinhead should be essentially untouchable then. If he goes down that easy then he's not very intimidating. .........Anyway... I just read a review on Collider of the new one, which says more or less what I'd expect, but also is a little hopeful. Essentially they said it's better than the last one, and it makes a genuine effort, but it's basic storyline for the human characters is pretty generic and rips off better serial killer and horror movies, but that the cenobite scenes are at least somewhat inventive and attempt to expand on the mythology and whatnot, and that the director being a longtime practical effects guy pays off in the quality of the makeup... also that the new Pinhead guy is perfectly fine. They gave it a C. That's kind of the best we could have hoped for, I think.
|
|