Hell House LLC III: Lake of Fire

I liked the first (7/10), made peace with the second (5/10) and was frustrated by the third (4/10). I think it's awesome that there is such a trilogy, but it only got exponentially worse. I really wanted for that not to be the case.

The third part of "Hell House LLC" feels like more of the same with the same being much more amateur hour. Cheap is a fitting word here. It's hard to separate the positive things for there are so few of them, but in the bits and pieces was a good, short scare sequence, some ambitious concepts (with poor execution) and maybe something else. Shamefully, it's easy to point out the acute flaws, like the one that disappointed me the most, which was acting. At times there was on-the-nose, cringe-inducing performance materials, obvious and whacky (weakly) scripted dialogue citations & characters sometimes didn't make a lot of sense. At the start I was trying to be intrigued by the story, but the plot, with all its twists and turns, seems like a far fetch, a rushed script awkwardly executed. The amount of scares is smaller, somehow even the visual & technical aspects of the movie feel cheaper, showing off boring cinematography, very little new props/locations etc. in the game & an choppy, unintentionally funny climax with a shot that's seasoned with grade c cgi. Both video and audio editing doesn't excel with anything as well. One little thing I hated was the constant, repatitive flashbacks with the footage from the first two parts, it felt like anything but necessary.

Comparing it to its two predecessors, the third part feels undeservedly underdone and uninspiring. I don't know what happened, maybe it was financial issues or time issues, we-don't-have-any-good-ideas issues, but something went wrong, leaving us with a found-footage / mockumentary horror flick that rests below average and comes with a bonus disappointment, being the 3rd part of a franchise and all. I really wanted to like it more, but I can't say I didn't enjoy it. Wishing the filmmakers of "Hell House LLC" trilogy great future success, I give this one a 4/10.

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.

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.

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.