***SPOILERS!*** I sometimes wonder what makes sequel-makers think that they have to explain (and therefore destroy) the mysteries behind iconic Horror films. The original "Hellraiser" of 1987 was an absolute masterpiece and probably one of the scariest films ever made. The 1988 sequel "Hellbound" was also a fantastic Horror film, though I personally didn't like how the viewer got background information on the Cenobites, some of the all-time creepiest Horror-villains in the original. The third part, "Hell on Earth" (1992) was already quite a mess, whose makers obviously thought it necessary to add a dose of humor to the formerly incomparably creepy lead-cenobite Pinhead (a typical 90s stupidity) and therefore destroyed most of his scariness. This fourth part "Hellraiser: Bloodline" (1996) is slightly more atmospheric than the third one, but it lowers this quality by inventing even more silly and completely unnecessary 'background information' about the cenobites and the opening of the gates to hell.

Seriously - did we need to know how the mysterious puzzle boxes that open the gates to hell are being made? I think not, and that is not the only mystery about the cenobites that is stupidly destroyed in this film. The setting of "Bloodline" goes back and forth in three different periods. The film begins in a 22nd century space-station, when scientist Dr. Merchant (Bruce Ramsay) attempts to close the gates to hell forever. When government soldiers disrupt his mission he has to explain his reasons. In 18th century Paris, Merchant's ancestor was a toymaker assigned to build a puzzle box by an aristocrat obsessed with the occult. An evoked demon, the princess of hell, took over the body of the beautiful Angelique (Valentina Vargas). Since the only person capable of destroying the gateway to hell is the one who built it, the bloodline of the toymaker would be cursed and his ancestors infested by cenobites throughout the ages... The film, which takes place in the 18th century, the present, and the 22nd century, really is quite a mess. I admit that the part set in the 18th century has a creepy atmosphere and is by far the best part of the film, but its also its smallest part. The parts set in the present and in the future are quite weak, and filled with stupid and unworthy elements. The film's undoubtedly strong points are the terrific make-up and gore-effects, the absolutely ravishing Valentina Varagas as the she-demon, and Pinhead (Doug Bradley), who, in spite of having lost some of his creepiness, still is a menacing villain. It is an almost offensive idea for "Hellraiser" fans, however, that Pinhead is supposed be defeated by a ridiculous light-show. Overall, "Bloodline" is not a complete disaster, but it sure is an unworthy sequel to a series that began so brilliantly. Even director Kevin Yagher was obviously embarrassed about it, as he preferred to be credited as Alan Smithee. Overall, this is only recommendable to hardcore Pinhead-fanatics, and most of them are probably going to be angered by another diminution of their favorite demon's creepiness. All others are well-advised to stick with the brilliant first, and excellent second part of the "Hellraiser" franchise and skip all the others. The makeup effects in "Bloodline" are creepy as hell, but almost everything else is disappointing. My rating: 3.5/10

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative