MovieChat Forums > Hellraiser (1987) Discussion > How is this movie only a 7 on IMDB?

How is this movie only a 7 on IMDB?


Very good flick. I'm a fan of the sequels too.

"Freddy. Bastard son of a hundred maniacs."

reply

because other people suck. or maybe people that don't like it should re watch it. I know I didn't like it after my first viewing. It took me 2 or 3 viewings to give it a high rating.

reply

"because other people suck. or maybe people that don't like it should re watch it. I know I didn't like it after my first viewing. It took me 2 or 3 viewings to give it a high rating."

I had the same thing.

I watched it for the first time about seven or eight years ago, and hated. Absolutely hated it.

I purchased a Classics Of Horror DVD set a few years later, and the first two Hellraiser films were on. I decided to give it a second chance, and enjoyed it. I've now purchased the remaining seven films, and am working my way through them. Part 4 is being viewed on Saturday.

reply

I think mainly because it's kind of unpolished and gory. I don't mind the occasional shoddy acting or special effect failures so I rated it an 8. Others don't forgive things like that and rate it lower.

reply

Why does it matter what rating is has on IMDb?

And so, God came forth and proclaimed widescreen is the best.
Sony 16:9

reply

because its really not that good of a film. it is somewhat influential but as a film it lacks a lot. And its kind of silly and unfinished, like someone else said. I think 7 is about right, not a bad score.

PJ didnt particularly want to direct The Hobbit, and I didnt particularly want to be bored to tears

reply

i think the special effects and acting had a bit to do with it.

reply

I personally gave it an 8, and Hellbound a 7. Both movies aren't perfect, but they are interesting in their own ways. While I like some of the aesthetics/visuals presented in Hellbound, it just feels a bit lacking in the plot department. Part one wasn't completely flawless on that account either; but it seemed to make a little more sense semantically speaking. I don't mind the abstract really, but it seemed the sequel just had too much of that going on at times. Still not a bad flick though. I own both movies. Have seen up to the fifth installment, but stopped because they really weren't worth it. Part 4 wasn't too bad though, even though alot of people hate it.

~My predicament lacks its usual cheer~


reply

[deleted]

Not a bad rating (to me is a better movie) but could be seen as underated when you see higher ratings for other modern crapfests out there.

reply

It does seem like every current summer blockbuster that's well-liked is destined to have an 8.0 or higher. Some people just don't know there are any ratings between a 10 and a 1.

reply

So true

reply

I think people know, but they don't grasp how to deal with variations beyond "good" or "bad" in their minds.

reply

[deleted]