yaktheripper

I'm shocked to see it's still holding a 5 rating on IMDb, what a travesty in ratings. Hellraiser 3 is a poorly acted, poorly scripted, plodding craptastic insult to special effects and slap in the face to the first 2 classics in the franchise. This is a steaming pile of cinematic garbage served with freaking puns...PUNS NOW...on the side. Some reviewers on here are giving it 5 or 6 stars...why? Why in the name of all that's Clive Barker would you give this movie an average or better than average grade? What have you been watching to think this is an average movie people? And...8's? 9's? 10's? TENS EVEN!?! People...you're being bamboozled I tell you. A 10 in the horror genre is perhaps...The Shining, The Exorcist, Alien, you know...something with a strong screenplay, suspenseful cinematography, interesting and strong visuals...something that gets under our skin. How could you idiots rate this a 6 much less a 10, unless you have some sort of bad movie fetish, I just don't get it. I give this a 3. The acting was atrocious, the F/X were pitiful, the cinematography was hackish, and the plot was boring. The cenobites were oafish and pathetic....just a mess all around and if you like this movie then...well whatever. It gets a 3 from me because sadly there's even worse movies like this out there and I give Doug Bradly props for repping Pinhead...the other stars are for doing the credits the right way I guess...whatever, don't even watch this crud.

"Big Bad Wolves" had topped a lot of 2013's best of lists and it's really far from the worst films of 2013, realistically it falls somewhere in the middle. Stylistic, charming, and great character acting highlight a sort of "who-dun-it" for dummies and I say that in the least offensive way possible. It doesn't take an Agent Starling to figure out who the culprit is though for some reason...many people didn't seem to figure it out...though the movie all but spells it out for you. So not being much, if any of a mystery, what genre does this movie fall in too? A comedy-revenge- lightweight thriller? Sure, I'll go with that. For such a brutal subject (child killer/pedophile) the characters are very charming and though we do know who did what...the actor playing the scumbag gives a convincing performance in the role he portrays. With such a small cast and not much drama, after the charm burns off in the first hour or so, I found myself wondering when this is going to wrap up...never a good sign. The movie ends sort of flat and uneven and I felt it was rather anti-climatic. Good for a rental I suppose and could make your top ten list of 2013 if you've seen very few movies that year. Tarentino really thought this was 2013's best movie though? That's probably the biggest surprise of all with this movie.

I wasn't a big fan of the "The Last Exorcism"; for myself it was an average scare flick, not a really a gem of the genre. The creatively titled "The Last Exorcism II" however is an inspired and creepy journey towards one woman's and perhaps humanities doom. The low score you'll see on the home page is due to a lack of imagination in today's average movie goer. A great deal of suspense built into this movie is visceral...it's what your NOT seeing that is disturbing. And that is what ticks me off about the low scores. Okay...so there's no monster chopping off heads or people being physically tortured or women showing their breasts. So it burns a little slow...so it uses atmosphere and environment to build tension, is this a reason to rate it low? If you have no imagination and can't focus on a movie for more then 10 minutes if there's no blood or CGI monsters to be found then yes....I guess it is. The director's behind this little gem hopefully are off to make even better movies and I look forward to what they can do in the future. Well done! Fans of demonic movies with a little bit of intelligence...this flick is for you...fans of gore and sex ONLY...steer clear.