Hellraiser (David Bruckner, 2022)

[DarkImbecile]

David Bruckner’s Hellraiser

[Mr Sausage]

David Bruckner’s Hellraiser

Is this about to go the Prey route and dump a worthwhile entry in a long-desiccated horror series onto streaming?

[therewillbeblus]

Bruckner is a competent technical director, even if I thought he played The Night House too safe. I’d expect a decently-shot and paced film at the very least, and maybe he’ll have the audacity to risk greater ambitions this time

[Finch]

I am open minded about Hellraiser after being pleasantly surprised by Prey. And Disney's judgement in deciding what goes theatrical and what's streaming only is already circumspect after they dumped relatively original films like Turning Red and Luca on D+ while giving the dire Lightyear a wide theatrical release (yes, I know, Toy Story connections, but we all saw from the opening weekend figures that that didn't save Lightyear).

[Big Ben]

David Bruckner’s Hellraiser

Is this about to go the Prey route and dump a worthwhile entry in a long-desiccated horror series onto streaming?

What's really incredible is that it won't take much effort to make a good Hellraiser film by comparison. Many of the films are atrocious even by Direct to Video standards.

[swo17]

Disney's judgement in deciding what goes theatrical and what's streaming only is already circumspect after they dumped relatively original films like Turning Red and Luca on D+ while giving the dire Lightyear a wide theatrical release (yes, I know, Toy Story connections, but we all saw from the opening weekend figures that that didn't save Lightyear).

To be fair, wasn't Lightyear their first post-COVID attempt to bring back the theatrical experience?

[beamish14]

David Bruckner’s Hellraiser

Is this about to go the Prey route and dump a worthwhile entry in a long-desiccated horror series onto streaming?

What's really incredible is that it won't take much effort to make a good Hellraiser film by comparison. Many of the films are atrocious even by Direct to Video standards.

I don’t know why they don’t just greenlight any of the screenplays that Barker himself has written for proposed reboots over the years. He’s credited as a producer on this, but I can’t imagine that he actually contributed much to it

[The Curious Sofa]

The trailer doesn't make this look much better than yet another Hellraiser sequel, though with the talent involved it has to be better. I wished this had been a new adaptation of the original Barker story, which I thought this would be till recently. While I like Hellraiser, there is plenty of room for improvement.

[Mr Sausage]

The trailer doesn't make this look much better than yet another Hellraiser sequel, though with the talent involved it has to be better. I wished this had been a new adaptation of the original Barker story, which I thought this would be till recently. While I like Hellraiser, there is plenty of room for improvement.

Have you watched any of the last six or so Hellraiser sequels? This doesn’t look like them at all.

[cdnchris]

I've seen them all (in the spirit of the films I'm a glutton for pain apparently) and this indeed looks like an entirely different beast more in tune to the original. I'm looking forward to it.

This is a frustrating series because I liked the original one a lot, coming to it way late (I don't think u saw it until 97 or so), and I found it to be one of the few genuinely scary horror movies I had seen. I kept watching the sequels hoping for something similar and have been consistently let down. I'm also one of the few that strongly dislikes the second one.

I thought Scott Derrickson's entry was half decent, Inferno, the first straight to video one. My understanding is that one (and many of the sequels that followed) was a different script that had Pinhead and the mythology worked in. Shockingly, I thought it mostly worked and was at least in the same spirit of the first film.

[The Curious Sofa]

The trailer doesn't make this look much better than yet another Hellraiser sequel, though with the talent involved it has to be better. I wished this had been a new adaptation of the original Barker story, which I thought this would be till recently. While I like Hellraiser, there is plenty of room for improvement.

Have you watched any of the last six or so Hellraiser sequels? This doesn’t look like them at all.

I’ve watched the first three sequels and a couple of the later ones. This new one looks more glossy but otherwise seems to be on familiar sequel ground, foregrounding Pinhead as a central character. My disappointment may stem from me having till recently thought this was a remake. I’m open to this being good.

[Mr Sausage]

Wanting Pinhead not to be a central character in a Hellraiser film is like wanting Jason not to be a central character in a Friday the 13th movie. . Hell, Pinhead's even a central character in Clive Barker's sequel novel, The Scarlet Gospels.

[The Curious Sofa]

Wanting Pinhead not to be a central character in a Hellraiser film is like wanting Jason not to be a central character in a Friday the 13th movie. . Hell, Pinhead's even a central character in Clive Barker's sequel novel, The Scarlet Gospels.

Barker's original plan was to have Julia be the central antagonist of the franchise and the first two films bear that out. I think the Cenobites were effective when used sparingly, which they were in the original. But fans gravitated to the most outlandish characters of the films and Pinhead became the Jason/Freddy/etc of the franchise, which never interested me that much. Everything to do with Julia (helped by a great performance by Clare Higgins) and her moral descent in the cause of love/lust is what I enjoyabout Hellraiser, the rest is set dressing for me. Unfortunately Julia became the Mrs. Vorhees of the franchise instead. That's why I hoped that this would be a remake, that this would get back to Barker's Hellbound Heart but I suppose that boat has sailed.

At least the implications of recasting Pinhead are intriguing and more in the spirit of the novella.

[Mr Sausage]

Wanting Pinhead not to be a central character in a Hellraiser film is like wanting Jason not to be a central character in a Friday the 13th movie. . Hell, Pinhead's even a central character in Clive Barker's sequel novel, The Scarlet Gospels.

Barker's original plan was to have Julia be the central antagonist of the franchise and the first two films bear that out. I think the Cenobites were effective when used sparingly, which they were in the original. But fans gravitated to the most outlandish characters of the films and Pinhead became the Jason/Freddy/etc of the franchise, which never interested me that much. Everything to do with Julia (helped by a great performance by Clare Higgins) and her moral descent in the cause of love/lust is what I enjoyabout Hellraiser, the rest is set dressing for me. Unfortunately Julia became the Mrs. Vorhees of the franchise instead. That's why I hoped that this would be a remake, that this would get back to Barker's Hellbound Heart but I suppose that boat has sailed.

At least the implications of recasting Pinhead are intriguing and more in the spirit of the novella.

I think the second movie embraces Pinhead's, er, cultural infamy more than you imply, what with so much time given to both his origin story and redemption. Tho' I agree that the most interesting parts of the movie are the scenes with Julia and Channard after he's resurrected her.

Pinhead's been recast already, in the dire Revelations and the (unseen by me) Judgement. What's interesting is that Bruckner has cast a transwoman in the role (EDIT: actually I think your last comment was a reference to that, in which case I agree).

[Robin Davies]

I'm also one of the few that strongly dislikes the second one.

I seem to remember that the second one got very mixed reviews when it came out.
I hated it, as did Stefan Jaworzyn (the editor of Shock Xpress), so I didn't bother to see any further sequels.

[Orlac]

I've only seen the first three, but definetly found Part II my favourite.

[beamish14]

I've only seen the first three, but definetly found Part II my favourite.

I just saw the second for the first time ever at a screening last weekend with its writer in person. If you suspend any pretense of walking into something with a firm internal logic and allow yourself to be transported by some of the most deliberately garish and unpleasant images you might ever encounter, it is a wonderful experience

It’s amazing to realize that the same man who painted the iconic mattes for the exteriors of Black Narcissus’ Himalayan nunnery was also responsible for the labyrinth in this film

[Orlac]

One debit on the first film: it looks very British, but nearly everyone has been crudely revoiced.

[Mr Sausage]

I've only seen the first three, but definetly found Part II my favourite.

It’s my favourite as well, a Grand Guignol carnival ride of bizarre images and ideas.

I’ve seen every sequel but one, and the worst was easily Revelations, a film so miserable even Doug Bradley refused to be involved.

[The Curious Sofa]

I didn't like Hellraiser II when it came out, have given it a watch about once every decade ever since and I still don't like it any better. The Channard cenobite is fun but the film reduces Julia to a one dimensional villain, repeats the resurrection plot without the romance and perverse sexuality of the original and I find the cut-price hell most of the film takes place in an underwhelming setting. The labyrinth matte painting is fine, but most of the time it's people running down narrow corridors. It also centres even more on Kirsty, my least favourite aspect of the original, her all American perkiness doesn't fit the Barker universe and I find the actress terrible. The film was indeed poorly received when it came out but it seems every vintage horror film eventually gathers a cult following. On that note I'll admit that I enjoyed Hellraiser III more than II, though I haven't watched it in a long time.

What's interesting is that Bruckner has cast a transwoman in the role (EDIT: actually I think your last comment was a reference to that, in which case I agree).

It was !

One debit on the first film: it looks very British, but nearly everyone has been crudely revoiced.

The three lead actors speak with their own voices, most of the British supporting actors (Frank, Kirsty's boyfriend, Julia's victims) got dubbed with American accents. That was imposed by New World who thought it would make the film more commercial in the US. In turn they upped the budget when they saw the rough cut, which paid for a reshoot of Frank's rebirth with more elaborate effects and the score by Christopher Young.

[colinr0380]

I'm tentatively hopeful for this, especially seeing that it appears to be using really evocative labyrinth of Hell imagery that never really got explored to such an extent in series again outside of Hellbound: Hellraiser II, and it looks like there is a new Dr Channard figure experimenting on box opening by proxy (also from Hellbound), both of which seem like the perfect elements to elaborate on further. And I kind of like the extreme BDSM bodily modification appears to be going for a much more extreme, too eviscerating to be exciting for even the kinkiest viewer, Tetsuo-style fusions of metallic devices and box elements, along with the de rigeur chains. The big thing I would be concerned about will be whether the monsters remain nightmarish abominations or eventually turn into goofy Wishmaster-style villains with associated catchphrases, as there is a real tightrope to walk and danger of falling into the latter mode!

I'm with The Curious Sofa in particularly loving everything involving the character of Julia in the first two films who made for an excellent wicked stepmother figure, and it is a shame to see her exit the second film early! (Though I do quite like the grand guignol stylings of Hellbound generally, and Kirsty getting the essential for the time Aliens bump up into being an action heroine there. I also really like Hellraiser III despite some of the Cenobites with Schwarzenegger-in-Batman & Robin anticipating catchphrases turning up; and I really wish there was a way to see an approximation of the era-spanning storyline that Bloodlines was going for before it was transformed into mainly just being the "Hellraiser In Space" section. I also second cdnchris on Inferno; and Hellseeker for its committed main performance from Oz-veteran Dean Winters and the last brief bookending appearance of Ashley Laurence as Kirsty) Just going by this trailer, it looks as if this new entry is going to be very youngster focused, but who knows a female Pinhead may add a different element to it (I'd love it if it turned out to actually be Julia in some kind of wild twist!)

Plus this is going to be from a story from David Goyer, writer of the Dark City film! Which is now making me wonder if the Hellraiser films had any influence over the stylings of that film's leather clad villains!

[Mr Sausage]

This was...fine. Some nice ideas, a plot and mythology that doesn't just recapitulate the other films, and, unlike some feared above, Pinhead is an ancillary character just like in Barker's novella and film. The movie returns the series to Barker's conception of willing damnation and the outer extremity of sexual experience being a form of transcendence, with the addition of the role of power in experience and sexuality. I liked a lot of what it was trying to do--I just didn't find it particularly disturbing or effective (some terrific special effects at the end notwithstanding). And unlike Bruckner's The Night House, the character drama was lifeless and predictable. The film works, and I'll take it over every other Hellraiser film barring 1 and 2, but Prey this is not. It doesn't rejuvenate this long stagnant franchise, it just hits the low bar of making a competent film after decades of tripe. While things pick up in the last twenty minutes, the movie as a whole never quite springs to life.

I liked the new Pinhead, tho'. Unlike Doug Bradley's classically-trained commanding presence, Jamie Clayton plays things smaller, with a disquieting eroticism and, I don't know, neutrality? She doesn't play the part as the villain, just an entity pursuing its own goals within an alien set of beliefs and values. She'll probably get a lot of criticism for doing it differently, but I liked it.

[Finch]

Going a different route was a wise choice, I think. I liked her performance, too and my take on the film is pretty much the same as yours. For the first 70 minutes it's a little boring but then it finally started to engaged me (one torture scene recalled Takashi Miike), and it sticks the landing for the most part. I don't know if Hulu would let them make something more transgressive if another film gets made. I'm trying to think of an American director with the right sensibilities and am thinking, maybe David Slade who directed some terrific episodes of Hannibal.

[Finch]

Bruckner and Barker on Hellraiser

David Bruckner: We never thought a remake was possible. I also thought that even tonally, to chase all the particular figures of your work, it’s just not something I would know how to do over the course of a year and a half experience making a film. At a certain point, you have to let your own instincts carry you away. You were there to help me recognize what I was experiencing and to make the story work. I think what Jamie, what blew me away so much working with her at first- we had several Zooms before we finally agreed to go forth- was that she understood from the beginning that this was going to have to be her own thing. She was having her own experience with the lines. I think from the beginning, she found and understood a certain sensuality in the character that felt new to me.

Clive Barker: Yeah. Before you move on from that, let’s just look at that.

David Bruckner: Yeah.

Clive Barker: Doug was anti-sensual. Doug was, in other words, cenobite is obviously a real word. The female equivalent is anchorite, yes? Which is a nun who spends her life, in some cases walled up, actually behind bricks. So, cenobite is the male equivalent, and Doug went for the anti-sensual monk-like. Yes, he makes a lot of references to sensuality in oblique ways, “No tears, please. It’s a waste of good suffering,” a perfect example, right? References two kinds of emotion; tears and the wetness of watery tears and then pain suffering all in one line. A lot of what he talks about is about himself, I think.

I think what Jamie has done is push the character out into a third place. I’m thinking of the Hell Priest in the book, he’s a very different thing from how Doug creates it. Any good self will take you to a whole new place. I love that. I fucking adore it because you can only do it so many times before the jokes aren’t funny. It’s like comedy. Horror is very like comedy in the sense that there’s a statement and an answer.

David Bruckner: Also, I mean, every actor has their tool kit; they have their experience that is inevitably going to come across on screen. The way that they internalize the lines, the other characters working with them are going to respond to that in some ways. One of the things Jamie got a hold of was a quiet intimidation. You could feel that she had a very, very curious intrigue relative to her subjects. I really grabbed onto that because one of the scariest lines for me in the original film is when Kirsty’s negotiating with the Cenobites and she says, “I can give you Frank,” and the female cenobite says, “Perhaps we prefer you.”

I always loved the idea that speaking to a Cenobite would be like bargaining with God and that you had to do something to their sense of taste in one way or another. So, the idea that Jamie had favorites and that Jamie’s Pinhead has a matter of preference who she’s working with and why and what she wants them to accomplish was something that was really present in the script. I think she got a hold of that and pulled it to the surface in ways.

Clive Barker: I think that Doug’s is person specific. Doug’s Pinhead is person specific. Jamie is the deadly seductress, or seducer, whichever gender you want. There’s something very sly about Jamie, or Jamie’s performance. Doug is not sly. Doug is utterly direct, and that’s what makes him intimidating. His statements are questions and there’s never any ambiguity in the original Pinhead. What you two had brought to our new Hell Priest is ambiguity. I love that, and I hope Jamie will recreate this role again. Because it seems to me that there’s so much more to be done with her performance than the script allows her to do this time around after all.

David Bruckner: That’s right. I think we all want to.

[The Curious Sofa]

Now that I've seen the movie, I stand by my earlier comment that this is just another Hellraiser sequel. Sure, it has a larger budget and a more skilled director than previous sequels but it's about more foolish characters getting their hands on the box, playing around with it and getting torn apart. While the movie starts with an orgy scene, it then never returns to any themes of desire or sexuality, which is what made the original novella and movie interesting for me. Wasn't that keen on the redesign of the Cenobites, stripping them of their BDSM outfits (especially the Hell Priest's leather cassock) they looked underdressed for the occasion. The Cenobites are best bunched together as a group, when they are separated in wide shots, as there are throughout the film here, they look far less threatening. Changing "Pinhead" to female/androgynous is the only good idea the film has and Jamie Clayton is fine in what must be a thankless role.