Comwayon
A Disappointing Continuation
Alistair Olson
After playing with our expectations, this turns out to be a very different sort of film.
Brenda
The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one
Stephen Abell
This could be called Pinhead in Space or Death of Pinhead or L'Merchant's Revenge. So I put off watching this one as the thought of Pinhead in Space kinda made me feel nauseous, especially after Jason X - sometimes you shouldn't trust your gut or your precognitive intuition; because I missed probably the best Hellraiser film. Oh, that has to be controversial as it only scored 5.1 on IMDb.It's the story that makes this movie. There are three stories for the price of one, to be exact. We start with the pivotal tale of Dr Paul Merchant, a distant relative to the cube's creator Phillip L'Merchant, who is driven to right the wrongs his ancestor loosed upon man and womankind. This tale is set in the far future (making it so we can still have Pinhead stories and movies up until 2127 - 109 years to go...). We then have the tale of Phillip and his role in the release and creation of the Cenobites. It's this story that introduces us to Hell's princess, Angelique, who is a proper daemon and constricted by rules and commandments, more a puppet than a puppeteer. Then the third story is set at the end of the third movie where the building at the climax is built by architect John Merchant. What is so good is the intrinsicalities within the story that leads to a believable final act, tying all four films together to give a credible ending to the saga.At one point in the late '80's and '90's horror was going orbital.
There was a spate of Sci-Fi Horror flicks. The one crucial difference here is space being intrinsic to the plot - it's not just the writer going... what now? Oh, I know - Space!It's also nice that Kevin Yagher (who directed under the pseudonym of Alan Smithee) used such different lighting methods to create the most suitable atmospheres. The story of Phillip is more frightening than the rest as it uses firelight and long shadows to enlighten the scenes of debauchery, violence, and bloodletting. Whereas, the modern day of John uses natural light. Yagher uses silhouettes and dark corners well to build up the tension. Then in Paul's future, there's subdued blue electric lighting as there's no natural lighting in a tin-can. This gives the added feeling of coldness and aloneness. Add to this, some nice segues and camera shots and you have a very well crafted film.Add to that the cast, who are all good in their roles. I didn't even realise that all the Merchant's were played by the same actor, Bruce Ramsey, he was that good at giving them different personas. Though Bradley is just as brilliant as Pinhead, as usual, I have to give credit to Valentina Vargas who is superb as Angelique. In the beginning, she appears cool and calculated as she bides her time until she can free herself from the ties that bind her to her puppeteer, Jacques (Scott). Then when she meets Pinhead, taking a place by his side, she's nearly as fear-inducing as he.For the most part, the special effects are on par with the previous movies, though the CGI has gotten better it still looks dated. And why do all robots have to have an element of a human? Why does this 'bot need a terminator steel skull?Though you could watch this one as a stand-alone film, I would at least recommend having watched Hell On Earth, just so you get a feel for the Cenobites, and you know the story behind Merchant's building.
vengeance20
Upon watching this I wasn't particularly bought. Heard & seen a trailer to see it was in outer space, & I myself, was sort of turned off by it as I don't like Sci-Fi Films & prefer realism over fantasy. But after watching this I actually thought it was really good! Was pleasantly surprised to like it as I dislike Sci-Fis at the best of times, but this was an exception. It proves that Horror & Sci-Fi go well together & it's a genre mix that should be used more often by writers & directors alike!The film starts in space 2124, inside a spaceship were a space crewman is trying to unlock the Lament Configuration via a robot, he successfully does this only to be ambushed by space agent police. This is where the film goes back to the 20th century & explores the origins of the lament configuration & how it became an evil tool/gateway to hell.I found the film at first to be so-so while watching, but go attracted & interested as it picked up & oh boy did it! The blood & graphics where great as always. I also liked the Sci-Fi scenery too! It was attractive & got me into it considering I don't like them. But the graphics were great & the kills were unique.The ending was satisfying as well & the film was short & sweet. Which made it more watchable & a lot better than the previous 3 films in the series.I give this film a 7.5/10 it was really good & watchable, this is coming from a man who dislikes Sc-Fis too, give it a watch! It's great!
blackboxla
I'm certainly in the extreme minority of people who can appreciate the ambition behind Bloodline. Though the film got hacked up and reduced the plot to a mess (as only Dimension and Joe Chappelle could do it!), the multiple story lines stretched over three time periods makes for an interesting take on the Hellraiser mythos. It also features some slick gore and makeup gags, which comes as no surprise considering Kevin Yagher was at the helm (before he was unceremoniously dumped in post-production); A three part anthology spanning five centuries, it explores the origin of the puzzle boxes and the family that created them.The movie worked as an excellent slipcase for the entire series. It gave us a definitive start to the story, wrapped up threads from the earlier movies and gave us a definitive ending.
breakdownthatfilm-blogspot-com
When movie franchises begin to get "long on the tooth", everyone from the director and the film crew to the studio producing the film, are required to come up with new ways to make the viewing experience fresh for the audience that follows it. These are the guidelines that should be followed when occurrences like this happen. Of course we all know that's rarely the case except for the few. Most money hungry studios end up taking the full reign of the production and end up demanding the final result being fairly an exact copy of previous entries made or drastically changed the concept itself. Thus leading to the trend of diminishing returns. For Clive Barker's Hellraiser (1987) franchise, the trend is mostly the same, except the issues are in other places this time.Compared to Hellraiser III: Hell on Earth (1992), this entry doesn't really surpass it, but it does at least feel more on track than the prior one does. Originally Kevin Yagher (a make-up and special effects artist who had experience in other horror films) was set to direct as his debut film. Unfortunately, Miramax Studios, which then owned the rights fought with Yagher, causing him to quit. However, one man who hasn't left since Hellraiser II: Hellbound (1988) was writer Peter Atkins, who once again penned the script. In this chapter, the year is 2127 and audiences are introduced to Dr. Merchant (Bruce Ramsay) an inventor who has discovered a way to destroy Pinhead (Doug Bradley) and his followers forever. Regrettably, he is stopped before he is able to finish by a group of soldiers who came to take him away. To stall time, Merchant convinces Rimmer (Christine Harnos) to listen to why he needs to finish what he was doing. The story Merchant tells is how the Cenobites were first released and how they connect to his family ties.The fact that Atkins went in even further than before to explain the back story to Pinhead and his origins is again commendable, but sadly this new information totally contradicts the three films before it. None of the main characters in the prior entries were related to Merchant, so why did their fate have them come in contact with Pinhead? Also what about the multiple boxes that Dr. Channard had in his office from the second film? If these boxes act as portals, what makes you think destroying one box will keep Pinhead out forever? It just doesn't add up. Along with that is a new pseudo-villain named Angelique (Valentina Vargas) who also has a past with Merchant, but only him. Of the characters in the story, the only people that matter and viewers will enjoy is Dr. Merchant, Angelique and Pinhead. Bruce Ramsay (who ends up playing different versions of himself) manages to at least be competent in his role and certainly more convincing than Terry Farrell from the previous movie. As for Vargas and Bradley, they both looked like they enjoyed their roles. Doing all kinds of evil acts and such.On the flip side, the rest of the cast is completely forgettable. There is no character development, not even for Rimmer who listens to Dr. Merchant. There's also a young Adam Scott and an older Kim Myers (from A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge (1985)) and they too have no real significant importance. But aside from characters, Atkins did change a number of things for the better. One being the tone; the third movie had a completely different tone to that of the first two. Many fans took it as too goofy and cheesy where Pinhead was portrayed more as a generic slasher villain. Here, Pinhead still kills just cause, but he's not as blood hungry either. Another plus is the creativeness of the cenobite designs, which unlike the third film looked quite gimmicky. Here, they look more like what Pinhead's followers would look like. Then again, fans may also complain because there really isn't a lot of new additions. Throughout the whole film, only three new cenobites appear of which one wasn't even human and they also don't receive a lot of screen time. Along with that is a possible dislike for the smaller amount of gore too. With that it may not be as scary either.Yet, the kill scenes are still quite gruesome. Another interesting edition to the mix of the franchise is the use of CGI, which doesn't look that bad. It's used minimally which is how it should be used. The cinematography shot by Gerry Lively is a slight improvement over his work in Hellraiser III: Hell on Earth (1992). This time instead of showing Pinhead in the sunlight all the time, he is kept in the shadows and this helps him feel more mysterious and dangerous. Finally for the musical score, Daniel Licht who would later be known for his music in the Dexter (2006) TV show composed the tracks. Thankfully, Licht exceeds Randy Miller's score from the prior film by adding new themes for the cenobites and making a variation of Christopher Young's original theme that was created from the first film. Much of these tracks use the same string build up, choral echoes and percussion but its the deviations that make it more appealing to listen to than recycled tracks.It still doesn't anywhere match the first two original movies and most will probably find it equal to that of the Hellraiser III: Hell on Earth (1992) quality, but even for the production troubles that it had and nonsensical story telling, it can be a more entertaining watch. Although the likable cast is few, it is made up with more back-story, a better- written tone, appropriate costume design, acceptable special effects that don't look dated and a better film score.
