After watching the _Hell House LLC_ series, I’ll admit I’m questioning my comprehension of the plot. Can this film series really be as ideological as it appears? In this conclusion to the trilogy, did a pious media mogul really save the day after the previous two films’ torturously miserable endings?

Russell Wynn is an analogue for Zuckerberg, Dorsey, Musk, or Jobs and reflects a dated vision of CEO/Founder-worship that has long been abandoned by most people.

I mean, seriously?! He’s supposed to be an angel? The subtexts is overwhelming. This is a film that suggests the benevolent entrepreneurs and tech industry titans of the world can save us through philanthropy. For Wynn, that philanthropy is mediated by Christianity, which makes it even more egregious.

The movie is really no better or no worse than the previous installment, and only slightly worse than the first one, but the bizarre subtext and corny, naive ending make it less enjoyable for the cynics and close-readers among us.

Wynn being a good guy and an angel, protected from the temptations of Satan in a way none of the other Hell House owners have been, is only because of his wealth. Alex Taylor, on the other hand, is easily tempted by the Satanic Andrew Tully because of his financial dire straits. The conflation between wealth and morality is a truly reactionary, conservative fantasy.

I’m hard on the film because of the ideological subtext and I argue it results in a weaker plot, but it’s not as though I’d tell people who have watched the first two to not watch this one. But even if you’re not analyzing _Lake of Fire_ in the way I have, I think you’ll still be disappointed.