Hell House LLC III: Lake of Fire

The second movie definitely wasn't as good as the first, but this? What the hell is this? How does it even have a higher rating than the 2nd atm? It feels like an amateur project in so many ways, especially towards the ending. Story, acting, effects, it's so bad that it makes you laugh, and considering how the first movie kept you on edge and delivered some good horror moments, it's sad to see how this series ended up. Not everything needs sequels and explanations. Don't bother watching this, it's basically recycled content from the first movie but with a lower budget and terrible acting, and it's not like you're gonna miss out on the "story". The story itself is very shallow and unsatisfying in how it ends. Maybe could've given it a 4 if it wasn't connected to the Hell House LLC series, but as a final movie this is terrible. 2/10.

I really liked the first one. The second one was not as good as the first, but I didn't think it was terrible. The third one, I mean, it is part 3, how much truly new ground could they cover? A bad horror sequel is Blair Witch 2, and this film is certainly better then that one. I think people get a tad judgmental, and troll just to troll. This film, imo, is a decent conclusion. It was a fun, jump scare flick that is a decent way to spend about 90 minutes. Shudder is a cool channel that gives fans of horror, thriller, and suspense a place to go and find a bit of popcorn fun.

If you dig the genre, like honestly, dig the genre, there are films that are far worse. Let the trilogy tell its story and move on. This is not life changing material, but who said it was supposed to be?

A summation of my reviews for the first two entries in the 'Hell House LLC' trilogy would be that writer/director Stephen Cognetti wasn't getting the regular scenes in his movie right, but that his horror scenes were world class. Interestingly 'Hell House LLC III: Lake of Fire' serves to prove that the opposite of that is a much worse thing. This film has far better acting than the first two and also the dialogue is much better written, and yet it is the weakest of all three by a significant margin. Why? Because he forgot about the horror this time around.

The film has a tremendous amount of over-lapping shots from the first two films, mostly to show what happened in a certain part of the hotel/house or who a certain character was. At first this is helpful, but then it happens far too often from there on out and becomes very annoying and distracting. I think you just have to have faith that the audience has seen the first two films, and if they haven't then the information they are missing out on isn't hugely critical to the enjoyment of this one.

I think Cognetti was so intent on wrapping everything up into a nice little bundle storywise that he forgot what made the first two films so good, which was the epic horror sequences they featured. This one has little moments here and there, but there is never that big payoff that the first two films achieved. 'Hell House LLC III: Lake of Fire' was a little bit of a disappointing way to end an otherwise very good horror trilogy. It's not unwatchable, but it is a big step in the wrong direction.

Bad writing and the story loses focus very quickly. If that was not bad enough, it's also very boring.

This was a bit of a letdown to be honest.

The first HHLLC was an amazing, under the radar gem that genuinely ranks as one of the best horror films of the last 20 years.

HHLLC II was never going to live up to the first but it gave it a real good try and save for some 'by the number' characters it was still a great horror.

HHLLC III was released today and after a year of waiting I was quite disappointed! Boring in parts, annoying cast and anticlimactic, I would rather I had just watched the first one again!

Give it a watch as part of the trilogy but after part one, lower your expectations.