Hellbound: Hellraiser II

Discussion in 'Reader Reviews' started by DVD-fanatic-9, Oct 13, 2011.

  1. DVD-fanatic-9

    DVD-fanatic-9 And the Next Morning, When the Campers Woke Up...

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2007
    Messages:
    5,079
    Likes Received:
    411
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Horror
    [​IMG]
    Hellbound: Hellraiser II
    (1988 / director: Tony Randel)

    [​IMG]
    So, as we all know, horror was considered a very strong and thriving genre for a long time - until the late 80's, when every single studio decided they wanted a piece of the Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm Street franchise pie. No, this is actually true. Because although Halloween birthed a million and one scummy American and Canadian rip-offs (while Romero's Dawn of the Dead did the same overseas), the genre was still booming with creativity. As the slasher genre was beginning to fester, Carpenter gave us The Fog, Raimi gave us The Evil Dead, Cronenberg gave us Videodrome and The Fly, Romero gave us Creepshow, Cohen gave us Q the Winged Serpent, and 1981 gave us the finest werewolf films the genre had ever seen with The Howling and An American Werewolf in London. This is still to say nothing of the classics to come which would establish the new careers of Stuart Gordon (who will come up again in later paragraphs), Frank Henenlotter (Basket Case, Brain Damage), Peter Jackson (Bad Taste, Dead Alive), Tom Holland (Fright Night), and a few others. No, the genre wasn't dead in the early 80's. It was just in a slump, dominated by one subgenre that was busy trying to court controversy to drum up revenue and pay those producers, etc. Many of whom didn't give a damn about backlash. Did they have to? The paying public pretty much said: screw what Siskel & Ebert thought. And for awhile, the one constant throughout the years of questionable returns was guilt-free fun with the Jason and Freddy sequels (most of them were bad but nobody was breathing down their necks to be the ones to keep the genre's quality control in check). As for budding franchises: Evil Dead II and Prom Night II weren't great but they did prove there was a little juice left in the can; it wasn't time yet to call time-of-death on horror. Then, the clock struck 12:00 AM on January 1st, 1988, and everything went to hell. Literally. Although the year gave us 2 highly important film releases now regarded cult (or camp- take your pick) classics, Killer Klowns from Outer Space and Brain Damage (both high quality, must-see, and perhaps underrated as highly ambitious pieces of horror), people didn't flock to see those films (they bombed big time). Probably because the big money went into pimping sequels. Critters had nothing to lose when it spawned a sequel that year (because the original film was considerably overrated, including by critics who didn't even see how exceptional Gremlins was), but Nightmare on Elm Street did. Part 4: The Dream Master was disappointing at best (the only thing arguing its' success was mainstream popularity and we all know how reliable that is: *COUGH* Saw *COUGH*). But it was merely Child's Play (a film I was once willing to go out on a limb to defend but not anymore) compared to the one-two punch of Phantasm II and Hellbound: Hellraiser II.

    Phantasm II is another disaster for another time (as is the traumatically awful Scarecrows, just to show you how much original ideas were suffering that year as well). Hellraiser II may be superior to that trainwreck (I saw it once- please GOD don't make me sit through it again!). Though it certainly makes some of the same fatal mistakes. Namely- flashbacks and a continuation on the same story with a couple new pieces. I don't know about you but I don't want the same story. With sequels, unless there's no story in the first place (Friday the 13th), I want something new with some of the old pieces. Nightmare on Elm Street 3 and Prom Night II delivered this. But they actually had quality new ideas. And that was '87. In '88, it was in-vogue to incur memory loss and change details that were set-in-stone from the year before. To such absurd degrees, they deserve to be met with screaming "WHAT THE FUCK?!"s from anyone horrified that the original film's creator wouldn't condemn a sequel for. For example, at the end of Clive Barker's Hellraiser, the box was gone. And so was Larry and Julia's house. Yes, the thing set alight and on its' way to being burnt to the ground. Not in this film- the entire thing is not only still standing, there isn't anywhere NEAR the amount of damage there should be. And so, now there's an excuse to put Kirsty in an asylum (where she's no longer confused about the ending to the original film, now she's damn convinced she knows exactly what's going on and spews forth silly bullshit about fairy tales, leading to awful, sternly spoken one-liners which you can smell coming from miles away), have something cursed from the old house make its' way onto the stage of our new hell arena (a dungeon of jailcells with cliched screaming crazy mental patients, mostly victims of psychological brain-scrambling, ala- a Re-Animator lobotomy by way of Nazi experimentions performed by poetic madman, Dr. Channard - but as kinda handsome as Kenneth Cranham is, he's no match for David Gale's Dr. Carl Hill on the sinister scale), and more devious games of cat and mouse with the new pieces. Or, should I say- new rules? Because this film really wants to get to that big Labyrinth you probably remember if you crossed paths with this thing on late night USA / Sci-Fi Channel any time in the early 90's while flipping channels. That's almost cool. But for us to get there, this movie speeds up the montage of killings to get Julia her new skin. Then, the movie tosses in some motivation (Kirsty's mission to rescue her father - wherever he is - meanwhile, the evil doctor and Julia are hatching their own plan - whatever that is) to take us into the world of hell the Cenobites live in. The place where all the "sights" are that Pinhead wanted to show Kirsty before- though almost none of them are up to snuff.

    When we finally get to the Labyrinth, we quickly see what this movie could have been in a sequence where mute female patient Tiffany runs into a section of the maze that looks a lot like a circus. Yes, Hellbound has a lot of great imagery scattered around. And a great deal of it is bundled up in Tiffany's story. Although we never find out anything about that, we do get great shots of her putting together various puzzles, flashbacks into her mother's surreal murder (a recurring image of a Stepford-like woman with lifeless eyes whose mouth is stifled by a black-gloved hand leaving the sound of a final squeak from her throat to echo over a shadowy shot of the girl all alone), and a few creepy clowns who appear in mirrors before they shatter. And that's all we get there. The other thing that keeps this movie from being a total shitfest is an even more delicious turn from Clare Higgins as Kirsty's wicked stepmother. This movie is too ugly to be a fairy tale, but almost every second with Higgins onscreen is a breath of fresh air. Her resurrection via a roomful of corpses hanging from chains (an image that looked a lot better in Nightmare on Elm Street 3) gives the movie opportunity for some wacked Universal-classic moments. Her bloody membraned husk wrapped up in The Mummy bandages until her glorious Bride of Frankenstein unraveling. And her confrontation scene with Kirsty finally makes good on the movie's underscored bitchy tension as Higgins lays some groundwork for the great Sigourney Weaver to later follow (in 1997's Snow White: A Tale of Terror) with the classic: "I'm no longer just the Wicked Stepmother. Now I'm the Evil Queen. So come on- take your best shot, Snow White!" Though thankfully, this sequel does away with ugly orange worms and Kirsty is given a far more attractive doomed love interest (William Hope), there has to be a point in returning to hell. A few improved effects and a story that promises higher stakes then crumbles is not going to do it. The horror genre suffered greatly for stupid stories like these with their painful predictability and sappy, psychologically-challenged attempts at fleshing out characters. Especially since plots with cheap gross-out and filmsy mindfuckery like these (simply extracted from Hellraiser's S&M-lite territory and then freely dropped in the middle of any given occult or ghost themed movie) would be hailed as refreshing change of pace from the latest Leprechaun or Dr. Giggles one-liner fests throughout the better half of the 90's (ironically, while getting a reputation on this site of having the poor taste to claim schlock is high art or something - neither of which I would call Deadly Friend or Jason Takes Manhattan, I merely respected and enjoyed the more schlocky 90's films because they never pretended to be better than they were: *COUGH* In the Mouth of Madness *COUGH*).

    You'd do much better instead with a double feature of Barker's original paired with Stuart Gordon's goopy near-masterpiece, From Beyond.
     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2011
  2. dave13

    dave13 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2008
    Messages:
    5,478
    Likes Received:
    474
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    wow, that's a pretty scathing take on a film most genre fans seem to enjoy. It's been a long time since i've seen it, so i can only say that i recall enjoying it quite a bit. I'd just like to point out that egregious continuity lapses are certainly nothing that started with the films of the 80's. Look at the classic Universal or Hammer series'. Settings, characters, and events often fluctuated wildly from film to film. For my part, it's something i've come to expect. As a horror fan, I've realized that I get much more enjoyment out of my favorite genre if I accept these for what they are: storytelling slight-of-hand in order to make one film work in the context of another as much as possible. I know that's only a small part of your argument, but i imagine that your displeasure over these issues would have colored your opinion of the film as you watched it. Had the continuity not bothered you so much at the beginning, perhaps you wouldn't have been in such a fault-finding frame of mind while watching the rest of the film. then again, perhaps not.

    that said, i appreciate the effort put into this review.
     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2011
  3. DVD-fanatic-9

    DVD-fanatic-9 And the Next Morning, When the Campers Woke Up...

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2007
    Messages:
    5,079
    Likes Received:
    411
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Horror
    Yeah- I definitely felt the need to post it after the A- review from... Chunkblower? I literally can't believe so many people weren't bothered by the same things that nearly drove me to shut it off. Less than 10 minutes into it.


    I believe we're in full agreement up to this point.


    Not exactly. I have other parts, yes. But that's not a wide-reaching problem I have with sequels in general. I think other people pick and choose what sequels they're going to burn for doing this. That's their problem. My problem is when one movie has nothing and ports over elements from the first or previous films in a series just to walk all over in order to get their own stupid movie off the ground. You know what I mean? Some fans will bash a sequel for having the same name as another film in a franchise (*COUGH* Friday the 13th Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan *COUGH* - yes, I may well be using that gag quite a lot this month) they hold in high regard because the franchise to them is sacred. But the film chooses to ignore the past events in the original or other sequels to launch into something (like a new character's actual story) they feel has merit.

    This movie, though? Is just flash and trash. Some of it worked, most of it didn't. As a matter of fact, I'd be willing to say up to 85% of it or more didn't and put my name on that. Did they try to use the first movie as a stepping stool to get to something of meaning or value? Not unless you were wowed by the visuals. So wowed, in fact, that you could ignore the grevious abuse of what little about the Kirsty character made her likable in the first movie.


    :D I'd like to think I'm in extreme fault-finding mode most of the time.


    Thank you.
     
  4. Matt89

    Matt89 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2004
    Messages:
    5,672
    Likes Received:
    944
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Toronto
    Sure there was a lot of effort put into your review, but much like your claims about Hellraiser II, your review is just littered with problems.

    Horror was definitely NOT in a slump in the early 1980s. You begin to distort facts in your review in order to support your argument, which actually in turn makes for a far weaker argument that holds no water. Yes there were a lot of slashers but just look at 1981: You mention The Howling, An American Werewolf in London, and you have films like The Evil Dead, Ghost Story, Roadgames, The Beyond, The House By the Cemetery, Dead & Buried, Scanners, and TV films like Dark Night of the Scarecrow. 1980 had The Shining, The Changeling, Alien, City of the Living Dead, Eaten Alive, Dressed to Kill, Motel Hell, The Awakening, Inferno, The Fog. Sure it was littered with slashers, but the early 1980s was definitely NOT a slump period for horror. There were tons of films made that were not splatter films. You couldn't be more incorrect with that statement.

    Secondly, you complain about the fact that you don't like the same story in a sequel. This actually goes against the very DEFINITION of sequel, which is a work (whether it be a movie or a novel) complete in itself, that CONTINUES THE NARRATIVE OF A PRECEDING WORK. Most of the really bad sequels are ones that totally abandon the original storyline (Prom Night II is fucking terrible and to put it up alongside a film like Evil Dead II makes no sense). Oh, the box was actually not destroyed at the end of Hellraiser. Watch the ending again. You'll see it.

    And okay they find the mattress again. It's funny how you don't seem to be bothered by slasher films not having continuity (you have this "oh well, that's how it is" attitude) when slashers take place in ordinary settings (a college campus, a summer camp, a small neighborhood) and there are WILD inconsistencies and things that don't make sense. Yet, when we're dealing with a film that is shrouded in fantasy and the supernatural, all of a sudden these things have to make sense? Did you ever think the cenobites maybe WANTED the mattress to survive somehow? Sure the house might have burned down but Frank also had a way of getting back in the original film. It doesn't need to be explained.

    Kirsty's motivation in the film is to rescue her father (who was clearly unjustly brought to hell in the first movie). Is that so far-fetched? And Dr. Channard and Julia ALSO have a plan of their own. Whatever that is, right? Well, Dr. Channard is clearly obsessed from the get-go about the lament configuration and wants to experience hell and uses Tiffany who has a gift for solving puzzles, to open it. It's actually a clever concept, that it is not fingers that summon the cenobites, it is desire. As Tiffany had no desire to open the box, nothing happens to her, yet Dr. Channard is turned into a cenobite.

    It's such an overly negative review (rather one-sided and unfair) and the fact that you make claims without actually going into much detail in support of them causes your review to crash and burn.

    ~Matt
     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2011
  5. Katatonia

    Katatonia Hellbound Heart

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2003
    Messages:
    20,587
    Likes Received:
    1,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Missouri
    Pfft... somebody will always hate every single film made, it's the nature of cinema. :rolleyes: Sure there are perhaps more "professional" films out there, but that doesn't always mean they're as enjoyable or as effective.

    It remains one of my favorite horror films, mistakes and all; and I make no apology about that.
     
  6. DVD-fanatic-9

    DVD-fanatic-9 And the Next Morning, When the Campers Woke Up...

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2007
    Messages:
    5,079
    Likes Received:
    411
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Horror
    Yeah, right: this is the Citizen Kane of horror movies. :p



    I almost made an intro to explain that I was really talking about the slasher subgenre but didn't specify that it particular because I was dramatizing / stretching it to fit my argument. You're right that my initial argument was entirely technically false if you take it to mean the entire genre, rather than the slasher sub (which I should have been more clear about). However, I do stand by my opinion that the slasher film was never as strong again following Carpenter's Halloween. And, since nearly every single slasher film following tried to rip-off Halloween or Friday the 13th...

    I actually didn't write this review for this board (I simply copied one I had already wrote for another board and embellished certain sections of it).


    My arguments about the film are still technically separate from what I said about the genre and nothing you say will change that.


    I won't debate or argue this at all. In fact, I will admit what I tried to do when I wrote that review back in the spring was find a way to explain how I felt about some sequels. When in reality, I truly do go with the flow and am ready to accept a sequel as its' own separate movie based on its' strengths. When something fucks up a movie like this one- I'm not always able to pinpoint where it is in other movies. I'm not quite sure what I was saying about what I want from a sequel but I was describing a personal preference and made that apparent.


    Well, hold on a minute... you've just about taken me to task more than anyone on this board for claiming my opinion was a fact, now here you are doing the same thing. Add to that you actually defended Child's Play 2 once and MY GOD if there was ever a "fucking terrible" sequel, it was that one.

    Now, if we're ready to pull back a bit from each other's throats for a second? I actually didn't think Prom Night II was any good either when I first saw it, or when I first rewatched it after buying the DVD. But I hated Evil Dead II with a passion. Alright- personal opinions are important to consider, let's pretend this is still a subjective matter. Now... I got smart and decided to give these movies a second chance because I could see they are much beloved in cult circles. Or, in Prom Night II's case, a third chance and it's not bad. Exactly. All the shoehorning-in of Carrie cliches is ridiculous, the Exorcist rip-off religious stuff is shit, and some of the acting hurts. But aside from the special effects being pretty fucking good, many of the ideas were shockingly adult for a teen film. Oh, and it was also actually scary (the rocking horse) and unpredictable (don't even TRY to tell me you knew what was going to happen during that death scene in the costume / prop room to that girl with the big hair). The Mary Lou stuff, including the possession angle, was good. As a matter of fact, I think this movie made better use of it than Christine did with Arnie's changing personality. Though (and I'm taking a chance that any of this describes you) I don't expect the typical man's-man crowd to agree since that pandering piece of shit - my call - is an ode to the "sweet smell of pussy" yet this movie has a teenage prude-cum-nympho climbing on top of and effectively reducing ultra-manly sci-fi action star Michael Ironside to a quivering schoolboy while threatening to fuck up his son in a manner left up to our imaginations.

    I'm sorry, you had a point to make- didn't you? ;)

    Something about how classic (sure, I put that word in your mouth) Evil Dead II is. Well, I have no doubt that that sequel soothed a lot of people who felt the original was a bumpier ride in terms of terror and even edgier content- so Raimi and co's solution was to make a goofier film and thus, we find this has retained a greater popularity with the mainstream. Ash is an acceptable badass hero? Give me the scared shitless guy from the original any day. That bloodthirsty "heroine" who wants Ash's head on a platter because she sees a "dirty" chainsaw and doesn't want to hear an explanation before she practically sentences him to be thrown in the cellar? And to think people actually complained about Gaylen Ross in Dawn of the Dead. At least when she stood up against someone, she was actually in the right. Yeah, I couldn't care about her or her parents or her quest for justice- the movie instead is making me remember how much more effective it was watching the original film's characters being - I don't know - terrified of the force in the woods and their nerves racked by the various mysterious goingson, rather than the sequel's trying to hang each other over nothing. Was it effective? Sure, if the movie was trying to be annoying. Anyway: I give it its' fair due for being inventive, having pretty good effects (although the original is still by leaps and bounds scarier and more effective as a traditional 70's / early 80's horror film), and of course the amazing camerawork. But the characters are not actually improved upon, the new music score sucks, the story is annoying, and it's just too damn goofy. In a way that pales in comparison to the much more wild, fun, and freaky Dead Alive. As a matter of fact, Peter Jackson's Bad Taste also mastered this formula more successfully than Evil Dead II.


    Don't misquote me. I said it was gone. If you remember the ending (I've seen it 10 times at least, smartass), you know the box was taken away by the flying demon. Then it was taken back to the market where Frank purchased it. It's a big fucking leap to say that's not actually what happened at all since that is, in fact, what happened in the original movie.


    That's a mighty long bender you're going on to try and make your point. We both saw Hellraiser II, we both saw any given Friday the 13th sequel. At least, I'm assuming you did. We know Friday the 13th Part II, III, etc(.) don't give a fuck what happened in the previous movies- they don't even bother to bring it up (in Part II, they don't refer to anything specifically; even though they hired the same actress, what they have her doing in this sequel has no relevance to the last film's plot other than the fact that she's going to be sliced up- given that, the film is taking probably the most significant element from the original formula - the murders - and not attempting to deviate from it). Hellraiser II did. That's the point. Why should I be bothered by the original Friday the 13th franchise, what good does it do? Why was it important for those successive sequels to have to pay attention to the events of any previous film when even you've argued none of those films were very good. Now, Halloween II (and if you had asked me about that one, you would have seen that I'm not the great hypocrite you're trying to make me out to be) is a different story. That film does very much the same thing Hellraiser II does and abuses the original film. Therefore, it fucked up in the same elemental way Hellraiser II did. However, though that film was brainless it was often fun. With the exception of the Dr. Loomis character, Halloween II didn't take itself seriously. On the other hand, Hellraiser II - by your own admission - did.

    Hellraiser is a very strong original film in many ways but no masterpiece. Hellraiser II is trying to draw life out from / put more weight onto something that already had holes in it. For example, it thinks there's actually something more to milk from the Kirsty character. Instead, they didn't realize she wasn't very compelling apart from her kinda tomboyish physicality, and proved how little there was to do with her.


    It's a bullshit machination the sequel invented. If you're buying it, you're arguing, A) that all of Julia and Frank's victims were sent to hell (which - if true - was never made into a significant plotpoint in the sequel and sure as HELL had nothing to do with the first film- since Frank didn't actually say the bodies Julia slaughtered were trade-ins for him in hell, just that their blood would regenerate his skin), and, B) the only reason in the original film the Cenobites decided to wait like, let's say, 30 minutes after Frank & Julia killed Larry - since that's when Kirsty showed up - was to send her a silent message that they were holding on to her father when Pinhead said, "We want the man who did this!" And in Hell specifically, rather than any of the various doors to the pleasures OF Heaven or Hell, which Frank explained in the dialogue. And we see Frank tortured in what appears to be a limbo likely having personal signifcance to him, but you believe he was just being shipped off to the place where they hang, hook, bleed, and deskin all the others. You and the sequel seem to be taking the second implication there more literally than the original film was. Not to mention your scenario is kind of cheap on the part of the Cenobites since they spend much of the dialogue really building up the wonders of their unfathomable otherrealm only for it to turn out of be just: Hell. Um... o...kaaay.


    Perhaps you're right. It may well be a clever concept. But if you think I'm arguing that a poor execution can be saved by you telling me the intention was ambitious... think again. We both know that I'm saying this movie is poorly made. So, why do I care how great the ideas they had were?


    Well, turnabout is fair play. Isn't it? You felt I was making shit up to claim Deadly Friend and Friday the 13th Part VIII were better than they really were. You're doing the same with this movie. We both believe what we claimed and our arguments seem pretty absurd to the other person. Only... in this case, you'd have to honestly argue all these things you're saying are carried over into the sequel were in Clive Barker's book to make any headway. Because they sure as hell aren't in the original film. Your arguments rely on me not knowing the original film very well. But I do. And I've paid close enough attention to it to know that you're way off.

    What you're really saying is the sequel has merit because you like the ideas. Well... I might have liked the ideas too if the movie had been better made. The dialogue feels insultingly stupid and void of depth and the rest of the movie is poor repetition intending to be an extreme step up - except for Clare Higgins, who actually does become more threatening. Like I told dave13: it's just flash and trash that couldn't be bothered to take its' time to build a worthwhile film based on its' ideas.
     
  7. Katatonia

    Katatonia Hellbound Heart

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2003
    Messages:
    20,587
    Likes Received:
    1,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Missouri

    :rolleyes: No one ever claimed it was. Opinions are like assholes...
     
  8. dave13

    dave13 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2008
    Messages:
    5,478
    Likes Received:
    474
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    Maybe i need to watch child's play 2 again, but i remember liking it a lot. its not as good as the first, but it's better than the third, and i'll take evil chucky over wisecracking bride and seed chucky any day, no matter how well those movies may or may not have been made (forgive me if i'm anticipating your support for those films, but it seems to me that the same argument you have against evil dead II could be made against them - an argument that is irrespective of the movies' technical qualities).

    I'm in complete agreement. I really enjoyed Prom Night II. It's a whole lot of fun and has a lot going for it, not least of which is that rocking horse you mentioned. I'd completely forgotten about it when i saw it a few weeks ago, and its a really creepy image.
     
  9. DVD-fanatic-9

    DVD-fanatic-9 And the Next Morning, When the Campers Woke Up...

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2007
    Messages:
    5,079
    Likes Received:
    411
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Horror
    I haven't seen Seed yet and I wasn't really campaigning for them to make a followup to Bride (mostly because the ending was pretty weak after "I'm trying, you fucking midget!"), but I do think Bride of Chucky is easily the best film in the series up to that point. It changes the rules and when I saw it for the first time, I was ready to defend the first movie but now I have to take a step back. I mean, for what they were trying to do (tell us the doll / dolls is evil rather than allowing us to guess), Stuart Gordon's Dolls was far more successful in getting it right. Better music score (although the end credits of CP pulled out an excellent theme that so should have been moved up to any point during the actual film, fuck even The Initiation got that right: 7:40), better acting in many spots of the casting and more entertaining characters to make up for the performances that don't work, a truly creepy feeling and dark menacing feeling. Both movies scared me as a young kid however, there's no question that not only does Dolls get better with each viewing while CP declines, but I still feel something either for the characters or against them when I see it. Child's Play is a movie where I even start to get incredibly bored watching it now. I mean, some of the ending is good and then there's the excellent batteries scene... And that's it. The rest of the movie is trying to scrape up some kind of "dark alley" grittiness from the Chicago streets. There's no real psychology at play. No incredible depth in the characters. If I'm not mistaken- no twisted irony. Just... one-liners and bad drama. Oh, and great special effects. But Chucky talks too darn much. And the original ideas for the movie were a lot better.

    Bride of Chucky has stood the test of time better, I still find it every bit as appealing as I used to when I was a teenager. It's a smarter movie that knows we're dealing with killer dolls, no one is going to find them scary, and more than makes up for what the other movies had that this lacks with witty, beautifully twisted ideas and dialogue, and some interesting, progressive values. Now... can you make the same defense for Evil Dead II? Did that film dabble in cultural satire? No; I'm sorry, but Bumpkin Bob and Bimbo Betty - just temp nicknames I came up with - don't count in my mind, they may be thrown at the wall but they don't stick. Now, Martha Stewart on the other hand... not only do they really make that a concrete part of Tiffany's philosophy and later have her realize how unfulfilling it really is, but the movie even pre-dates Fight Club's similar idea (and if you really wanted to argue Martha Stewart was an idea the book had first- you would sorta have to prove Don Mancini read it before writing Bride). Hell, even the truck death scene went on to "inspire" Rob Zombie's The Devil's Rejects (he full-blown ripped it off, there's no doubt about it) and potentially even Final Destination (to show the film even had resonance in the pop culture beyond a joking reference on The Nanny or Dawson's Creek). Was it goofy too? Sure, I'd never argue it wasn't. But it does have a little more thought put into the plot / story framework than Evil Dead II does. So, please remember that I don't dismiss what Evil Dead II actually tried to do, I just think the original and Peter Jackson's 2 best splatter films did it better. (As well as... uh-oh, I'm about to say it... Steve Miner's House.) Then, let's not forget about a dark tone which is totally missing from ED2. Return of the Living Dead has a much stronger balance between dark horror and silly humor.

    As for the other two sequels... ug. I truly hate Child's Play 2 and one of the reasons I hate it is because it (and the beginning of part 3) is trying to play like it's a hard-edged expose of corporate evils mixed with a look into the unsettling world of orphan-collecting while little Andy has difficulty adjusting to school because people are mean and unfair to new kids... with low self-esteem(?). Meanwhile, what it really is showing us is a jaded asshole who swears, a lot like Chucky but older and wearing a business suit, and his lackee who is equally annoying and some bobbleheaded board members, a bunch of underwritten "morally ambiguous" characters who we truly don't care about (otherwise they wouldn't have been so clumsy with the wife's throat-slashing, since she was single-handedly the most sympathetic character apart from Andy who we all knew would survive) playing "challenging" for the audience's discretion, and all of Andy's emotional stuff is handled so poorly- it invites nothing but aggressive eye-rolling (I tried but I just can't keep up with the incredible amount of garbage this movie throws at us: "bad kids" antagonizing Andy, his teacher is a haggy judgmental bitch, his adoptive "father" is not sensitive enough, and much more). They shoot it tight, probably for tension. But they forgot that without depth, it's just annoying. Like someone poking you with a stick waiting for you to take a wack at them rather than you becoming engrossed into the story. Also: the dialogue is bad. Really bad. Most of the actors don't have a clue how to handle it so they make a sort of wrong turn and become ugly. Grace Zabriskie is the best example. She is supposed to show us that she actually believes what she tells the adoption couple at the beginning but she's cutting the dialogue off, looking like she hasn't slept in weeks.

    When you consider all that... well, you can tell the difference between us is that I rarely see Chucky as being the star or the thing that gets my attention most of the time. This changes a little bit in part 3 where both him and his hide the soul "game" become the movie's most annoying aspect. I not only take Dolls over the first movie now, but I'll take Leprechaun over Chucky for the first three movies of both franchises (this changes of course by the time we get to, let's take a particular scene for example, the White Zombie loving Chucky in Bride versus the pot-smoking Leprechaun in The Hood; "Thunderkiss '65" shows great taste on his part).


    Thanks. I still take the movie a little hard (except for Lisa Schrage and her creepy burning face, the movie is incredibly slow to start). But, yeah, once it gets going it's easily worth a little cringing during the priest's rendition of "the power of Christ compels you." Also, one of his scenes is capped off with the classic "no fucking wings!" Awesome moment. Wendy Lyon is pretty good at playing evil, even if she's not as scary as Schrage. And the rocking horse is actually one of the few things in horror that still has the power to creep me out. I almost get lost in that scene. When you see that face and the closeups of those eyes... you kind of forget where you're sitting and are nearly tempted to step back a bit. Not to mention they were probably making some pretty freaky psychological references in that scene.


    Okay, stop being a dick about this- I did not claim you claimed it was but what you wrote and the attitude inflected would more than lead anyone to consider that you might be.
     
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2011
  10. Katatonia

    Katatonia Hellbound Heart

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2003
    Messages:
    20,587
    Likes Received:
    1,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Missouri
    :lol: :lol: Wow, did you take it the wrong way. All I was saying was that everyone has an opinion. DUH.

    If you took it as an insult, that's your business then. :rolleyes: But since you called me a dick, whatever dude. I'll just say your opinion sucks and end it.
     
  11. Zombie Dude

    Zombie Dude Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2008
    Messages:
    5,707
    Likes Received:
    1,075
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Australia
    *high fives* Hellbound is awesome.
     
  12. Matt89

    Matt89 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2004
    Messages:
    5,672
    Likes Received:
    944
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Toronto
    Hahahaha wow, holy shit. I can't even be bothered to read that response, you need to break it up with a few chapters I think.

    ~Matt
     
  13. Zombie Dude

    Zombie Dude Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2008
    Messages:
    5,707
    Likes Received:
    1,075
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Australia
    :lol:
     

Share This Page