This was an enjoyable B horror movie. I liked Anthony Hickox's direction and the new cenobites. The production values are pretty good and the acting was decent for what the movie is. Although the first movie is the best, this sequel is better than all the other garbage that came after it. Thoughts?
This film definitely isn't as bad as everyone makes it out to be but it can't compare to the two masterpieces that came before it. The reason it is so hated is because it pales in comparison to what preceded it.
The acting in Part III is terrible, it is surely SUPPOSED to be farcical...right? The scene where the Cenobites confront the police...as cheesy as heck!
But then, the acting in Part I was high on this cheese factor too. They all are.
But I liked it, and I really liked Part II & especially Part IV. Valentina Vargas was GREAT!
"I'd say this cloud is Cumulo Nimbus." "Didn't he discover America?" "Penfold, shush."
The only acting I thought was so bad that it was distracting was that of the camera man. He sounded like it was the first time he acted in his life & that he had only one take to get all his lines. Maybe this was the case.
I'm sorry, but I love this movie, and the finale is so goddamn scary to me, with Joey fleeing the Cenobites in the streets. I don't know why, just scares the *beep* out of me.
#1 I liked the movie. #2 Clive Barker did Candyman the exact same year and it is definitely a superior film. Maybe thats why. He put more time and effort into one production than the other?
I don't think he was particularly involved in either movie. For Hellraiser III, he came up with story ideas that weren't used and was later asked after the movie was complete for his input and he came up with the creature that came out of the floor in the quonset hut. Candyman was adapted from one of his stories but he didn't have any involvement in writing or directing the movie.