Hell House LLC III: Lake of Fire

Loved the first Hell House (7/10) and the 2nd was serviceable (5/10). I was expecting more from this one. The story was convoluted and the writing was weak. You've got a location where dozens of people have died or gone missing and everybody just flocks back likes its no big deal, even when similar unexplained things begin to happen again. Sure. Sad way to end the story.

The first Hell House LLC was so good, an excellent found footage which used limited perspective to its advantage. Part three, like the second, has a handful of good moments and is watchable enough, but falls apart in the last third when it really should be getting going.

I don't mind finding ways to incorporate the actors of the previous films but the film relies far too much on re-using footage from the previous movies as a way to establish this. It totally shoe horned in and the audience doesn't really care, it's just there to make sure the actors all have role in the third (and likely final) installment. I mean, it's nice everybody gets to come back for a cameo or whatever but the whole "now they're ghosts who are trapped in the building" thing kind of feels pointless and by the fifth or sixth time it just seems gratuitous. Wouldn't it have been better to use "unreleased" footage from the previous movies instead of badly incorporating them into the current timeline?

Also, the play or whatever they're showing in the house is terrible. There's barely any set, the "acting" is awful and the story is moronic. Who the hell would be impressed by "Insomnia"? As theater, it's worse than a haunted house and that's saying something. I've seen a play where the audience went from room to room and it was pretty cool. I would be mad, as an audience member if I showed up and it was like the worst version of Faust ever.

The movie has some moments. But they just overuse things from the previous movies too much. Like, why are those clowns still there? I mean the blonde girl going into the basement is pretty much the highlight of the movie, but it just doesn't make sense. And I could not stop thinking about how that guy's scar seemed so fake and not like something someone would get in a car crash. For me, the whole ending just kind of did what the first movie did but worse.

There's a twist, which is ridiculous and... surprisingly Christian? It's sad because I honestly enjoyed a lot of the movie, thinking it better than the second, until it began its downward spiral in the second half.

A good found footage movie is always welcome, and clearly they're harder to get right than you might think. But please, lets let go of all this angels and devils nonsense. And stop re-using footage in your sequels, it wasn't cool in Silent night Deadly Night 2 and its not cool now.

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?

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.

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.