sandman54301 said:
How so? I agree that all of the sequels after part 4 have been pure and utter shite. But the first 2 are great, 3 has a great massacre scene but crappy Cenobites, and 4 was A ok with me cause of the back story about the Lament Configuration.
I'm going to chime in since I'm half-of-a-Hellraiser fan (half of thanks to the sequels sucking so bad, you're shamed as a fan of the series).
The first Hellraiser was great, a classic. Barker actually improved over his novella. It's almost like a horror play, a vast tale told in small sets. Hellbound is probably the only good sequel. Scratch probably, IS the only good sequel. And I think it could have been better, it drags in some spots. But, Channard was great (it was all Kenneth Cranham) and Kirsty wearing Julia's skin -- come on! Nice and twisted there...
I didn't care too much for the "humanizing" of the Cenobites. What I liked about Pinhead is how he's actually intelligent --not a silent dumbass like Jason or Mikey Myers and not a comedian like Freddy. But he's intelligent and you can converse with him. But I think they went a step too far when they made him...ugh..."good."
Three is a ridiculous piece of ****. Pinhead had some good lines, but it was really more like a Sega CD adaptation of Hellraiser. Too Hollywoody -- bad special effects and bad actors to match! (I call it "Hellraiser 3: Pinhead Does Hollywood"). Bloodline was just silly. I liked the idea behind Inferno, but it was POORLY done. Amateurish. Hellseeker was an even worse version of Inferno. Deader -- I actually, for some bizarre reason, enjoyed that one! It was better than Hellseeker, had more style than the previous few. A mess still, since it wasn't even a Hellraiser flick to begin with. Hellworld's the worst, though. Awful, awful, awful piece of poo.