Hellraiser (1987) Review-Because October.

Recommended Videos
Nov 28, 2007
10,686
0
0
This is a movie that was on my list to tackle ever since I first heard about it in high school 8 years ago. As a fan of horror movies, it felt weird having the name Hellraiser hanging around, just wanting me to watch it and see what it was like. 8 years later, I finally got a chance to watch it for free (I'm a cheap bastard, OK?). Seeing as it is October, I felt it fitting to do a review. Did the movie live up to the hype?

Coming into existence in 1987, Hellraiser is about a husband, Larry Cotton (played by Andrew Robinson, who played the villain Scorpio in Dirty Harry as well as Elim Garak in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine) and his wife Julie (played by Clare Higgins, mostly known as a stage actress, although she did play Ma Costa in The golden Compass), moving into a house owned by Larry's hedonist brother Frank (played by Sean Chapman, who provided the voice for Sgt. Michael "Psycho" Sykes in Crysis). It's not a bad house, but the relationship is starting to deteriorate between husband and wife. It doesn't help that Julie holds a torch for Frank, her brother-in-law, and that the relationship between Julie and her stepdaughter (and Larry's daughter) Kristy (played by Ashley Laurence, who has had a few more minor roles since Hellraiser on TV and movies, but nothing of note) has always been rocky. Soon, Frank re-enters their lives, and Julie's love for Frank starts to overcome both marriage and morals. Also, there is this tiny cube puzzle Frank owns that summons Cenobites, which are essentially S&M cultists from an alternate dimension. You know, just your normal dysfunctional family.

The plot sounds a bit dull, almost TV-movie-esque. Really, it isn't. The family drama drives the plot, but there are a lot of elements that you wouldn't see in a TV movie, such as Frank requiring blood to make himself whole again, due to his use of the puzzle box, known as a Lament Configuration. It's hard to really describe the plot without spoiling it. What I can say is that I never lost interest in the plot, although it does sometimes seem to take its sweet time moving the plot along.

She's had it with your Se7en jokes!

When you have a film as driven by drama as this film is, the actors are critical. If one of the main actors is off, the entire film will likely fall apart. Luckily, the majority of actors in this film pull it off quite well. Clare Higgins as Julie does a great job as the stepmother who doesn't get along with her stepdaughter, and is slowly feeling her morals slip away for the man she loves...who is not the man she married. Meanwhile, you have Ashley Laurence successfully playing the part of the stepdaughter who loves her father, but doesn't get along with her stepmother, Sean Chapman playing the hedonist Frank to near-perfection sliminess, and rounding it all off with Andrew Robinson having a surprisingly solid performance as the kind and gentle father helplessly trying to hold the family together, having no idea that his efforts have failed before they even began. Of the four, I give the most credit to Ashley Laurence, who manages to successfully show the gamut of emotions as needed. Her interactions with "uncle Frank" are quite uncomfortable as written, but they are made even worse by how Ashley acts in the role; seeing Kristy cringing away from Frank, almost visibly repulsed by his touch, you feel for her character.

That said, even the greatest actors struggle with a poorly written script. The script here is far from poorly written. Having a man known for writing horror literature, Clive Barker, writing the script is a good way to ensure that the film lives up as a horror movie, and the fact that the movie is an adaptation of one of Clive Barker's own novels helps as well. Who would be better at communicating the motivations, the characterization, the feelings of the actors through the script than the man who originally wrote the story to begin with?

As well as writing the script, Clive Barker directed the film. Through his direction, it is made fairly clear that Clive Barker had a vision going into the film, and knew how to communicate that vision quite well. There were some moments where the camera work was a bit shaky, with too many bright lights and rapid cuts, but more often than not, the disorientation caused by the camera work is fully intentional, and Clive Barker manages to make you feel even more uncomfortable purely through editing. For example, after the first scene with Kristy and Frank together, she manages to escape, after a few comments on his part about how well she grew up, and how beautiful it is. Creepy enough, but as she runs, Barker had the brilliant idea to occasionally cut to...a sped-up video of a flower blooming. Heavy-handed symbolism? Yes, but it definitely does the trick. Clive Barker is not the most subtle of directors, but he gets the job done quite well.

He is named Pinhead. I bet you can't guess why. All right, he's technically not called Pinhead, being credited as "Lead Cenobite", but still.

The special effects...well, the gore effects are pretty good. Hey, you have a movie based around an S&M cult. You know there is going to be blood, and a fair bit of it. It doesn't hold up that well compared to modern gore effects, and Cliff Wallace (the special effects makeup technician) is no Tom Savini, but it still works well for setting the mood and scene. Unfortunately, he and Clive Barker found out when it came time to do the post-production effects that they ran out of budget. Not really having an option of going over-budget, they made the decision to...have Clive Barker and "a Greek guy" (his words) hand-draw in the special effects over a weekend. Under those circumstances, the special effects are not bad. But those are some horrible circumstances, and the special effects look cheesy and dated even by 80's standards.

Overall, this is a really well done film. The plot sometimes seems to meander almost too much for its own good, but those seemingly random plot meanders soon come together, for the most part. The special effects look rather cheesy, and the boyfriend/love interest of Kristy might as well not exist, for all that he brings to the plot. Even with these flaws, the strong acting, writing, and directing make the film work as a drama, and the memorable villains and unflinching look at the darkest side of S&M make the film work as a horror movie. If you are a horror movie fan, you owe it to yourself to check out this movie. It is a cult classic for a reason.
 

Fox12

AccursedT- see you space cowboy
Jun 6, 2013
4,828
0
0
You need to see the sequel. It manages to expand upon and improve the genius of the original. It's really a horror classic, and is certainly the most "epic" of the films. Great review, by the way.

A little known fact, Hellraiser was a primary influence of berserk. The behlit has a great deal in common with the configuration, which is itself reminiscent of pandoras box, while the land of the God Hand is clearly modeled after the other world controlled by Leviathan.
 

flying_whimsy

New member
Dec 2, 2009
1,077
0
0
I usually consider Hellraiser I+II to be the silent hill 2 of (psychological) horror movies. Given when they were made, I think they are just about the best you can get for that kind of horror experience. I always liked the idea of the cenobites as being a possible outcome for someone on the darker side of human curiosity rather than just demons from hell (the real monsters in the first two movies are the people); I always felt like the later movies missed out on a lot by simply assuming they were evil. And much like silent hill, I feel that the hellraiser series has continuously missed the point as it's gone on, even the decent fifth entry in the film franchise wasn't quite there.

To hammer home the point: my mother actually likes the first two movies and she hates horror as a genre (although she's too scared to watch them alone).

sataricon said:
Amazing movie.
Sad about Revelations though.
Yeah, it felt more like a crappy remake than another entry in the series: a shame since it did have quite a lot of potential. Better actors and a little more polish on the script could have gone a long way. That part where the evil kid is standing on the living room table giving a long 'I'm evil' monologue made me cringe in all the wrong ways.
 
Nov 28, 2007
10,686
0
0
@Fox: I'm going to check On Demand tonight to see if Hellraiser 2 is available. If it is, I'll probably watch it, then do a review of it tomorrow. Thanks for the kind words on my review.

@flying_whimsy: I've not played any of the Silent Hill games, but I do agree about the cenobites. They are somewhat treated as demons in the first movie, but Lead Cenobite/Pinhead puts it best, when asked what the cenobites are: " Explorers... in the further regions of experience. Demons to some, angels to others." They aren't necessarily evil, it's just that what they represent is seen as evil by a large chunk of people.
 

Tanis

The Last Albino
Aug 30, 2010
5,262
0
0
I liked the first movie, loved the second, mixed on the rest.

Well, minus the 'reboot' which was so bad, it's just...bad.
Not even worth a 'drinking game' or whatever.