MovieChat Forums > Hellraiser: Hellseeker (2002) Discussion > This movie was pure trash!

This movie was pure trash!

posted 21 years ago by jamalkhaldi
7 replies | jump to latest

This movie was garbage, everything about it was crappy. Hellraiser was a fresh new idea when the movie was released, this movie doesnt even pay homage to any of the classic ideas that made Hellraiser such a great movie. I suppose they wanted to put a twist to the story to shake things up a bit, but that turned out to be a bad move. And what exactly happened to the gore the violence in this movie was enormously tame. So basically lets recap here, the story is terrible, the acting is awful, the direction is trash, and the violence isn't any worse than watching the Sopranos. NO wonder Clive Barker had absolutley nothing to do with this film, that was a smart move on his part, making this movie however was not a smart move.

[–] dem0nic 21 years ago

I thought the story was original and the acting was good.

Even though the movie lacked gore I think it's a better horror, I'd rather the sequels didn't use hilarious gore effects at an attempt to create a scary atmosphere, it just doesn't work for me.

[–] jamalkhaldi 21 years ago

Your right they shouldn't use hilarious gore to create a scary atmosphere, I don't think the gore in the first two films were over the top, it went well with the content. But this film lacked a scary atmosphere, really any atmosphere at all, if you think the acting was good then that is fine that is your opinion, but if that is considered good acting then we are all doomed. I got tired of his acting very quickly. But like I said that is just my opinion.

[–] 21 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jamalkhaldi 21 years ago

You have some good points here, however, the movie was quite dull, I watched this film three times now, they were really stretching to make this particular movie have a different twist to it, im sorry it didn't work, the movie bored me. It was more of a psychological thriller than a horror film, if that is what they wanted to make then they should have not even bothered with any of the Hellraiser ideas. And yes I do look more into films than just the gore, and this film had absolutley nothing to offer me than a tired old attempt to make money off the Hellraiser name.

[–] dem0nic 21 years ago

I guess it all depends what your after.

It was a psychological thriller, similar to the movie Jacobs Ladder but personally I still find this more of a horror then having another cheap B-Movie gorefest (Bloodline) these sequels are obviously on a small budget.

[–] 21 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Bl33din2morrow 20 years ago

"Barker wasn't involved, but he did like Hellseeker."

Thats why I came here to post. Barker basically hated every Hellraiser AFTER part 2 except for Hellseeker. In my opinion, I think Hellseeker was the best sequel since part 2. Everyone today is looking for slasher films with a good plot, and story. Sure, Pinhead has gone direct to video for awhile now, but hes still the best horror villian out there. He doesnt need to beat you by killing you to have you psyched out like other villians, he could just beat you with his mind. Hes probably the most innovative villian out there in history. Now what the directors have done to him is a pure shame. He went from the slasher route after part 2 to the psychological *beep* route. Personally, hes much better with the mind games. Why have a Hellraiser movie with Pinhead just killing everyone with a big plot inside of 2 hours? Its pointless, because Pinhead cant die like the other villians could. I dont think the first two Hellraisers were all the popular to everyone, so I suppose the direct to video releases, nobody would even bother to touch. Just look at the votes for these movies on the IMDB page. The people who voted this film a straight 10 and a straight 1 are idiots. In my book, no movie deserves a 10 because no movie is perfect. What I do know is that this movie doesnt suck. It doesnt deserve a 1. I give it about a 6 even. It had a good storyline with 3 good actors. Most people end up judging sequels on rating systems if their better than the last film, or films before it. Cant be done. A film should be judged on its own. The direction... the acting... the plot... etc. And for a Hellraiser film, it can only go two ways. Psychological horror or slasher. Face it... the meaning of these films you can find by watching the first two. If you ask me... the meaning of Hellraiser is about how evil humans can be. Its not about Pinhead and the cenobites per say. Who else opens the box anyways? Garbadge mainly who is looking for a way out, pleasure, and a escape into something more than their life has. Hellraiser was never really about Pinhead as a slasher, or a demon that just comes to kill people. Hellraisers about evil people, doing bad *beep* than looking for something more to live for. I'm really tired of morons coming onto these pages just trolling to hate the films. They dont even give a specific reason as to why they hate it, or are willing to debate it.