IMDb > Hellraiser III: Hell on Earth (1992) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Hellraiser III: Hell on Earth
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 8 of 15: [Prev][3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [Next]
Index 144 reviews in total 

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Nevermind the critics! It's worth a shot, or two, or even more...

Author: Rafael Sarges from Belém, Brazil
27 April 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Many reviewers regard this as a bad sequel because they see the Pinhead character turned into a Freddy Krueger lookalike, and the perverted ways of the series replaced by a more conventional "good against evil" approach. Ultimately, this is where Hellraiser leaves Europe behind and goes USA.

I, personally, disagree of this point of view. Watching it carefully, I really could have the feel of an "real" Hellraiser movie, although this identity lies behind a big amount of misplaced noise and visual pollution that, along with the poor acting, weakens this effort.

P.J. Monroe, Terri, Joey, these characters aren't that far behind the Cotton family, they share the same hedonistic, self-centered, obsessive, pleasure/pain driven behavior we expect in a Hellraiser movie. P.J. particularly is the perfect summoner of Pinhead. Self-indulgent, hedonistic, violent and violent obsessive, amoral and eager to go further in the realms of extreme experience. It should work with him. The plot is there, the lines are there, the scenes, the sets. In the paper, it seems very appealing, but in the screen, none of that shows up on screen. All the characters are pale, weak, like a bunch of lovesick teenagers waiting for something to happen in their lives.

As the main roles can't convince the audience, the movie reveals exactly what it is: a gory horror movie, meant to shock the audience with graphic violence. And that's too bad, because you can't (I couldn't) get ultimately connected to it. Every now and then you get wondering about the quality of the blood or what's the best outfit among the cenobites, when you should be scared out. That's why this movie falls so far behind the original. It's ultimately shallow, a shell of the movie it could have been, if it was done the right way.

But it is not that bad at all! Not at all! When Pinhead (and Cap. Spencer, in a smaller scale) is on screen, he breaths some fresh - or should I say filthy - air in the effort! He is cruel as ever and comes with a handful of cool lines (note the 'secret song' quote) that are rooted in the classic Barker material.

The boiler room slaughter is a very strong scene, and the church mocking sequence is one of the most creative horror movie sequences I've ever seen. The video-taped Kirsty is also very cool, and it could have been explored in a better way.

This movie is specially appealing for those who demand a larger screen time for Pinhead, as he didn't get much of it in both Hellraiser and Hellbound. Hell on Earth gives you loads of him!

By the way, I have to state that Pinhead laughs a little to much in this, and I like the original "shut face" attitude of the first film best, but I admit this is just me.

The new cenobites, in my opinion, can't get close the original group. They just don't share the same feel, and you can tell from the start they are a different breed. I personally like to think the cenobites in this movie as a Pinhead carved fake, not as actual Leviathan-made cenobites...

I can't forget to mention the score. The songs played are O.K., but the score in itself, just like in Hellbound, is too weak!!!! It sounds like something you've heard before, but can't get you in the mood, i.e. elevator music. This movie could have been 50% if you only add a score at the same level as the original.

All in all, this is a movie that was killed by its own director. Each and every flaw in it could have been avoided by a careful direction, but it seems that this one was more concerned in making cameo than making movie. I really wish somebody else had done it, and I wonder what a master such as Zack Snyder could have done with this material.

Nevermind, Doug Bradley knows what this stuff is all about, and manages to save the day. So if Pinhead is dear to you, don't pass this by.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Insultingly stupid "sequel" to two horror masterpieces

Author: Pinku_Eiga from Deutschland
16 February 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

There is a fine collectors DVD set from Anchor Bay; The first 3 films in the "Hellraiser" series, contained in an awesome replica of the 'Lament Configuration' puzzle box. "Hellraiser 3: Hell On Earth", is an embarrassing mess of a film. It has the unfortunate honor of being the first dud in a series that got progressively worse, after two of the finest horror films to emerge from the 80's.

The original "Hellraiser" is a truly dark, hypnotically evil little film, filled with sadistic sex, grisly violence, and corrupt, sinister characters. It is one of the few films that is still genuinely frightening. Next came "Hellraiser 2: Hellbound", a film that is surprisingly great, and in some ways even surpasses it's predecessor, with it's amazing and outrageous imagery, particularly it's unique vision of Hell. And Julia, an even more formidable embodiment of evil, than Frank, of the first one. Then along comes part 3, an Americanized version, watered down and dumbed down by Hollywoods toxic influence. As usual, Hollywood sucks out the power of a horror film, by adding sickening comic overtones. While the original Cenobites were scary and fascinating in their own right, these new cenobites, with names like "Cd Head," and "Camera Head", are laughable and stupid. It's like "Freddy Vs. Jason", or a bad "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" episode", especially towards the end, with the battle of the cenobites in the streets of New York. In fact, from the opening scenes, when it becomes obvious that the location has been shifted from dark and gloomy London, to tacky and trendy 80's New York, I knew that i was in for a disappointment. What the filmmakers failed to realize here, is that the thing that made parts 1 & 2 so special, is that they were pretty much devoid of the "comic overtones" crap. Those films were played straight, and deadly serious. They played like horror films for intelligent, thinking adults who take their films, especially horror films seriously. "Hellraiser 3: Hell On Earth" is geared towards 13 year old kids who throw popcorn at each other in the mall cineplex. The story is all over the place, and the screenplay is a mess. The only element of the film that possesses any quality is the storyline about the handsome and sinister J.P. Monroe, a sick bastard who killed his parents to inherit their millions. He uses the money to buy an extravagant nightclub, a miniature world where he crowns himself King. He comes to possess the evil statue that houses Pinhead, who employs the corrupt J.P. to feed him young girls, so that he might again become flesh and blood. The J.P. character is good, but he is killed off fairly early, and the movie completely falls apart after. Guess what happens? Lots of dumb American teens get killed. What a profound disappointment for someone who has such great respect for the first two films. For fans of serious horror I do not recommend this trash. The series does not recover itself until "Inferno," the fifth installment, an elegant and stylish film noir study of a corrupt cop who comes across the Lament configuration box. However for fans of the "Scream" films, and the countless "Friday the 13th" and Nightmare On Elm Street" sequels, where liberal doses of comedy are mixed in with teens being butchered, they might enjoy this one.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Sad Addition to the Series

Author: SpudsOfSteel from United States
18 January 2007

I wont bore with Details of the Film as there is plenty information about the Story here.

My Complaints lie within the IDea the Film very loosely Follows and continues with a story that in no way, deserves to be a part of the Hellraiser series. the only thing it has in contrast to the other films is the cenobites and pinhead.

I gave it a 2 out of 10 because i simply was dissatisfied with the film as a whole. Considering the first two films this one lacks in gore, story and concept.

this film was made for one reason to introduce new cenobites, which i might add are not even in the future films, except for one brief moment. Not even long enough to warrant this film.

I found this to be more of an embarrassment to the series.

Now if you want a film that delves deeper into the History and background of the Box and the life of Pinhead as well the toymaker watch HR:BloodLines i found it to be much more satisfying, although I wanted more in it I felt it did more for the series.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Absolutely Abysmal Sequel.

Author: Andy (Incubus_Reborn) from Maine
24 May 2004

"Hellraiser" was a series that started off with so much potential. The first two installments were completely unique, all while being utterly disturbing and showcasing some mind-shattering gore effects. While the first two movies were perfect excercises in true horror and focused on just how low the human spirit can go, "Hellraiser III" plays out more like any of the "A Nightmare On Elm Street" sequels. These movies were never about Pinhead (Douglas Bradley). In this installment, he is reduced to a wise-cracking, obnoxious villain. Unlike Freddy Krueger, no one is cheering for Pinhead, because when he chooses to talk, it's annoying. So many times I was yelling "shut up" at the screen. The stuff he would come up with was just stupid and dragged the story down. And while I appreciate them elaborating on his mythology, it was all so unconvincing (his good side roams the dream world? Puh-lease). The movie itself could be mistaken as a made-for-TV movie, if it weren't for the cheesy gore effects (which come off really awful this time around). The characters are also way too cartoony and unrealistic. There is a certain plot-point where Pinhead taunts a character about killing his parents which is never mentioned again in the movie and makes you wonder why they brought it up in the first place. Oh, and did I mention the cenobite that shoots CD's at people? Don't even get me started. Although it was released in the 90's, "Hell On Earth" is an attempt at making Pinhead an anti-hero in the vein of 80's icons like Freddy Krueger, Jason Vorhees or Michael Myers. They definitely sold the series out with this one, and fail on all attempts, as this series went straight to straight-to-video after just one more installment. It may be worth watching if you haven't seen the first two movies, but if you have, this one will make you wretch in pain.


Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

American horror (horrible) franchising

Author: umyde from Monte Estoril, Portugal
20 October 2002

I guess fans of this type of movies will always give a dime for their icons, may they be Jason, Freddy, Candyman or whoever else. These icons are the offspring of a tradition that started with the late 50's b-series and spawned into the 70's gore. There is a slight difference, however: no real commercial sense was implied in the making of these movies. In the case of the HELLRAISER series (as well as NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET, FRIDAY THE 13TH, etc.), a bright idea, instead of being explored, gets exploited. Nothing left but to be startled at the stupidity of it all. Although I wouldn't go as far as to consider myself a fan of the series, the original HELLRAISER was the first cinema fright I remember as a child. Also being a fan of gore, trash and underground cinema, I cannot consider HELL ON EARTH anything but a laugh of a movie. Sorry this review didn't focus on the movie itself, but the comment should fit better when bearing this sequel in mind. For bearing it is all about, one cannot hope to enjoy this movie and understand a straw about real cinema.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Not bad at all!

Author: Bogey Man from Finland
3 June 2002

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Many consider that this third Hellraiser: Hell on Earth, directed by Anthony "Waxwork" Hickox is very bad and stupid, but I don't think so and I was pleasantly surprised when I viewed this. The story takes place this time in a big city in which the Pinhead and cenobites try to attack and bring Hell on Earth, thus the title. There is again a certain way to call Pinhead, and all the weak persons do so in order to get some satisfaction and pleasure...Instead, as we have learned in the previous films, they get something that PINHEAD considers pleasant and satisfying! Pain.

There are many atmospheric scenes and one disco mayhem scene is memorable as Pin and pals attack and soon many kind of killing machines are invented and *small spoiler* cenobites destroy the whole place and people in it. Flying and slicing CDs are only among the many "creative death tools" found in this nice piece of horror trash. *no spoilers anymore!* The atmosphere is very dark in the streets throughout the film and I think this is as "noteworthy" as Hellraiser 2, as far as we talk about sequels. Part two has that problem that it relies too much on splatter effects and becomes pretty stupid and boring. This third installment is in my opinion far more interesting and also inventive, and I was pleasantly surprised having read all the bad comments from some people. This is not a horror masterpiece like Barker's first Hellraiser, but as a sequel and piece of 80's (often stupid) horror, this effort by Anthony Hickox is very well done and can be viewed several times without getting bored.

7/10 but still, cannot be mentioned in the same sentence with the original Hellraiser.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

One of the worst films I've ever seen...

Author: isamu4242 from United States
8 December 2005

Clearly a perfect example of why sequels in Hollywood are horrible. Shot in NC, my home state this laughable "sequel" exceeds in only one thing, overdone B-horror cheese. The plot, which has basically little connection to the first two films, takes our viewers to what apparently the writer believed to be the counter-culture/underground rebellious youth scene of this time period. There a reporter runs about trying to stop Pinhead who for whatever reason is resurrected through from a stone statue. The worst parts of this film though have to be the new Sinnebites created specifically for this film. For whatever reason the creators decided to have 1, a demon created from a DJ that shoots CD's from his head, and 2, a demon created from a reporter that has a camera lens in his head he uses to smash people's skulls with. Geez, what next guys?? A demon created from an office executive that shoots hell powered stables and invoices? Or perhaps a cenobite fast food operator that flings Satan's deep frying grease and the third level of hell razor fries. Do not waste your time with this film UNLESS you are looking specifically for a over-the-top B-horror film.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

Hellraiser III: Hell on Earth (1992)

Author: Gravekeepre39 from Fleet Street
16 August 2004

Hellraiser III totally changes the direction of the series,and turns Pinhead into the main villain. We didn't get to know much about him in the first film,because Frank Cotton was the villain. Pinhead has plans to bring Hell on Earth,and the only person that stands in his way is Joey Summerskill,a reporter who is investigating the strange happenings. Maybe I am a little too harsh on the first Hellraiser.Maybe Clive Barker's story didn't appeal to me.I seem to like this entry a bit more,no offense.We get some creative special effects,and Pinhead is very scary,and bad ass. Most of all it is more fun,and fast paced than the first Hellraiser.I have yet to see Hellbound Hellriaser II,so I'll give it a try next trip to the video store...


Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

Reasonable Entry In The Hellraiser Series

Author: Big Movie Fan from England
9 March 2003

Hellraiser III:Hell On Earth was not as good as the first two films but it was a reasonable entry in the series.

Some people have criticized this film for not having Ashley Laurence or Claire Higgins from the first two films in it. But did we really want to rehash the same old plot? This was something different which is why I respected it.

That pesky box is back causing trouble and the sexy Terry Farrell is the reporter who gets drawn into it's world. Pinhead is back (with some new, and sadly, inferior Cenobites)and he plans on bringing hell to earth literally. Only Farrell and Pinhead can stop him.

What do I mean, Pinhead can stop Pinhead? Well, Pinhead used to be a human Army Captain in his former life and his human alter ego is trapped in limbo. Only Pinhead can stop Pinhead...does that make sense?

The film is in no way as atmospheric as the first two films which were set in that horrible house and we don't get to see hell this time because most of the action takes place on Earth. But the film does have it's moments and there are a few scares to be truthful. It's also nice to get a bit more backstory on Pinhead's life as human after the first two films which only briefly touched on the subject.

All in all, Hellraiser III is a respectable film. Don't compare it to the first two films (like I have done). Just watch and enjoy.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

Better than the sequel.

Author: canot67 ( from Devon, England
16 August 2002

Hellraiser 3 is better than number 2 but not as good as the original,still is a good attempt though.This time (ignoring the first two in the series altogether) it involves a reporter,a hooker and a nightclub owner.The nightclub owner gets hold of the box and unleash's Pinhead who then erupts havoc on earth.The reporter is trying to solve the mystery who teams with the hooker.It isn't as predictable as it sounds and the movie has a few flaws,but apart from this it is great.

The effects are great and it doesn't fail on scaring the audience.I suppose by now Pinhead has lost his appeal but that doesn't make him out to look like a threatening pin cushion.There are new demons and they are all creative.There is more originality this time and I liked it.I thought it was more enjoyable than Hellbound.One thing it doesn't beat is the first in the series. I don't reccomend these movies to people (only people with an aquired taste).I would say if you're a fan of the series then go for it.If you liked the original but not interested what happens afterwards,then all the sequels are not worth bothering with.I rate 3/5.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 8 of 15: [Prev][3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
Awards Newsgroup reviews External reviews
Parents Guide Official site Plot keywords
Main details Your user reviews Your vote history