Movies: Hellraiser 2022 (reboot) - Everything Hellraiser

[shadow1]

Hellbound: Hellraiser II (1988) - 6/10

Kirsty is institutionalized following the events of the first movie. Meanwhile, a psychotic doctor searches for the doorway to hell.

Hellraiser II, like the original, has us primarily follow the antagonist through the first half of the movie, and follows similar beats. Channard (Kenneth Cranham), a mental institution doctor obsessed with the Lament Configuration puzzle, sacrifices his own patients in order to revive a dead character whom he thinks can help him in his quest. This plot line is practically a mirror image of Julia luring men to revive Frank in the first movie.

However, there's a big shift in the second half. We focus back on Kirsty (who I erroneously called 'Kristy' a million times in my review of the original), who is searching the underworld of hell for a fallen loved one that reached out to her. She's joined by a mute patient named Tiffany (Imogen Boorman), an expert puzzle solver, and the two are hunted by Channard and Julia (reprised by Clare Higgins).

These underworld scenes - and possibly the movie in general - can be described as "wine ambitions, beer budget". To pull off his vision, director Tony Randel relied on matte paintings and stop motion effects to create a hellscape world. Though these techniques work okay in some scenes, in others they're just plain cheesy.

Despite that, I still think Hellraiser II captures some of the essence of the first movie. It looks and feels like a Hellraiser movie - something that can't be said about most of the sequels - while featuring good visuals ("Help Me I'm In Hell" being my favorite) and an abundance of gore. There are a couple moments that may be wince inducing for some audience members.

I found the plot of Hellraiser II to be messier than the original. The Channard/Julia storyline was straightforward enough, but the Kirsty storyline seemed somewhat pointless. This was largely due to a last minute change to a supporting character. Filmmakers originally wanted one character to return, but when the performer turned down returning to the series, they shoehorned another character in that role rather than make changes to the script. This change is crucial to Kirsty's plot line, and significantly hurt it if you ask me.

You may have noticed I have yet to mention the iconic Cenobites. Like the first movie, they're rarely seen and don't make their (non-archive footage) appearance until the 52 minute mark. Unlike the first movie, they have very little importance to the plot; they aren't the characters driving the events of this film. There is a scene that gives some backstory to Doug Bradley's Pinhead (credited as Lead Cenobite), but otherwise the Cenobites feel like window dressing. Worst of all, Pinhead and company don't feel imposing. On the contrary, they actually seem to be weak, which is highlighted by a very disappointing fight scene in act three.

Overall, Hellbound: Hellraiser II is a mixed bag, but it's an okay sequel. It's not nearly as good as the original film, but does enough well to eke out a 6 from me.

EDIT: I once again jacked up Kirsty's name a couple times (Kirstie... )

 

[shadow1]

Hellraiser III: Hell on Earth (1992) - 4/10

After witnessing a horrific killing, a TV reporter begins investigating a popular night club where the cenobite Pinhead lays dormant.

Hellraiser III stars Terry Farrell as Joey, a reporter who's frustrated with the assignments she's been sent on. After witnessing a unexplainable death, she teams up with Terri (Paula Marshall), a homeless clubgoer, and the two investigate the events of the previous movies as well as a club called "The Boiler Room".

Meanwhile, douchebag club owner J.P. Monroe (Kevin Bernhardt) purchases The Pillar of Souls seen at the end of Hellraiser II from an art show (except the pillar is now completely stone, rather than wood). Unsurprisingly, Pinhead escapes and goes on a rampage throughout the city - which is New York, as opposed to the UK setting of the first two films.

Hellraiser III commits the sin of being generic as... Hell (pun intended). The nightmare fueled visuals of the first two installments are gone; instead, Pinhead is dropped into mundane apartments, city streets, a nightclub, and even a field during broad daylight. The film looks like every other early-1990's horror movie.

Story wise, at the risk of sounding redundant, I have to once again invoke the word "generic". The characters are bland; the plot is predictable. Worse, there isn't much horror here. Sure, there's gore, but there's no tension. We're never really worried about any particular character's safety (though that's partially due to how forgettable they are). In fact, I'd say Hellraiser III has more action than horror, thanks to an explosion filled third act featuring a battle with the Cenobites. Speaking of whom...

Unlike the previous movies, Pinhead (Doug Bradley) gets a ton of screen time. This is a problem because Hellraiser III's version of Pinhead is terrible! When he's not belting out awful one-liners, he's always laughing or screaming; the character is insanely over the top. Furthermore, the filmmakers also screwed up the Pinhead's look. The nails in his head are way too big (they're supposed to be pin nails - it's in the name!), there's not enough blueing around the eyes, and nothing was done to his voice in post production. Pinhead is a mockery in this movie; a dollar store version of Freddy Krueger.

As for the rest of the Cenobites, none of the other originals (Butterball, Chatterer, Deep Throat) return. Instead, we get hilariously bad replacements which include a DJ who shoots CDs as a weapon, and one with a film camera for an eye. I wouldn't even call them Cenobites; they're more like Deadites from the Evil Dead series, constantly spouting out one liners. If you didn't know any better you'd think the big action scene featuring these characters was some kind of weird parody.

In summary, Hellraiser III isn't the worst horror movie I've ever seen, or even the worst major franchise sequel I've ever seen. I almost gave it a 5, but upon reflection I couldn't really think of any positives. It's paced well and the story is told in a coherent fashion, but the actual content is pretty bad. Maybe this one will age well in a "so bad it's good" kind of way, but for now I'm giving it a 4. I was disappointed.

...and considering I couldn't find the next 6 Hellraiser movies on any streaming platform and had to shell out $44.99 for them, the fact that Hellraiser III - considered to be one of the better sequels - was a complete bomb isn't leaving me feeling so good about my investment...

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Hellraiser III: Hell on Earth (1992) - 4/10



...and considering I couldn't find the next 6 Hellraiser movies on any streaming platform and had to shell out $44.99 for them, the fact that Hellraiser III - considered to be one of the better sequels - was a complete bomb isn't leaving me feeling so good about my investment...

Judgment is on TUBI, the others are on Shudder!

(I still hate that film)

 

[shadow1]

Judgment is on TUBI, the others are on Shudder!

(I still hate that film)

I need to get Shudder one of these days…

 

[shadow1]

Hellraiser: Bloodline (1996) - 4/10

In 2127, an engineer aboard a spaceship recounts his family's history with the demonic puzzle box, the Lament Configuration.

In a story told across four centuries, Bruce Ramsay stars as three members of the L'Merchant/Merchant family. First as Philippe, a toymaker in 1796 France who's responsible for creating the famous puzzle box. Ramsay then plays John, an industrialist in 1996 New York who built the skyscraper seen at the end of Hellraiser III. Finally, the actor plays Paul, an engineer in 2127 aboard spaceship "The Minos", who is trying to destroy the box and the Cenobites once and for all.

As far as ambition goes, Hellraiser: Bloodline gets an A in my book. Execution on the other hand? I knew this thing was going to be bad before it even began due to the text "Directed by ALAN SMITHEE" prominently displayed during the opening credits.

Yes, this movie is a mess. Bloodline tries to tell an epic story, but attempts to do so with an insanely short 85 minute run time. Dimension/Miramax didn't like Director Kevin Yagher's submitted 110 minute cut, ordering reshoots to feature more Pinhead, and scrapping lots of exposition scenes. Joe Chappele, who ironically directed Dimension/Miramax's similarly diced up Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers, came in to direct reshoots.

The result is a boring, strangely paced, disjointed movie. Versions of Yagher's originally movie vision on Youtube, thanks to fan edits using work print footage. I have watched a few scenes and read the synopsis. One thing Yagher's version did that would've helped this movie was tell things in chronological order, rather than jumping around from 2127 to the other time periods.

Though the original idea seems to be nothing great, it probably could've gotten another star compared to the theatrical release. But even without the studio interference, Hellraiser: Bloodline has problems.

Specifically, the characters are bland, the movie isn't scary, and I personally don't care to see an origin story for this universe. The movie also looks very cheap, especially the scenes on the spaceship; you'd think this was one of the direct-to-video entries the Hellraiser series later became famous for. But hey, at least they got Pinhead right - he looks, sounds, and acts like the character from the first two movies, rather than the mockery he was made to be in Hellraiser III.

Overall, Hellraiser: Bloodline is a bad movie, and objectively worse than the bad series entry that was Hellraiser III. But, I still dislike Bloodline less, because at least the filmmakers tried something different, and may have been slightly more successful with less studio meddling.

 

[shadow1]

Hellraiser: Inferno (2000) - 7/10

A sleazy detective becomes obsessed with catching a serial killer known as The Engineer.

Craig Sheffer stars as Joseph, a member of the Denver Police Department who is a complete sack of crap. He abuses, cheats on, lies to, or steals from every person unfortunate enough to cross paths with him. However, he is also pretty smart and analytical.

After the horrific death of a former classmate, Joseph becomes embroiled in a cat-and-mouse game with The Engineer, a serial killer who leaves a child's severed finger at every crime scene. Nicholas Turturro co-stars as Sheffer's by-the-book partner, along with James Remar as a police psychologist who had a previous run in with The Engineer.

Hellraiser: Inferno, the fifth entry in the series, is a breath of fresh air for the franchise. Whereas the previous sequels ride the coattails of the original film, Inferno does its own thing and tells as stand alone story. The main reason for this is that it wasn't originally a Hellraiser story; it was a spec script that Dimension added the Cenobites to. I don't see this as a problem at all though, as I'm pretty sure the only major change that was made was flipping Satan -> Pinhead.

Compared with this rest of the series, this movie also has a different tone to it. Rather than body horror, Hellraiser: Inferno is instead a psychological horror in the vein of something like Silent Hill. Your milage my vary, but I thought filmmakers were very successful going in this direction.

Speaking of direction, this movie was helmed by Scott Derrickson in his first ever turn behind the camera. Derrickson later went on to direct movies like Doctor Strange (2016) and The Black Phone (2021). Frankly you can see the talent, especially compared to the other Hellraiser sequels.

Hellraiser: Inferno was the first of many direct-to-video films in the series, but fortunately it doesn't show that much. There are a couple terrible scenes using computer effects, but the Cenobites look good due to the movie mostly relying on practical effects. Though the acting isn't great in general, it's way better than most of the Hellraiser movies.

I may be too high on Hellraiser: Inferno, but I found it to be above average. Many fans of the series are lower on it than I am due to the fact that Pinhead has very limited screen time. I find this to be a huge plus. The previous sequels went into the wrong direction of turning Pinhead into a boogeyman who needs to be defeated by the protagonists. Here, he returns to his role simply as a demon who inflicts torture on those unfortunate enough to open the Lament Configuration puzzle.

Overall, this is my favorite Hellraiser sequel up to this point. That might sound blasphemous for me to say about this direct-to-video entry, but it's significantly better than the previous two sequels, and I even find it to be better than the good but more bombastic Hellbound: Hellraiser II. IMDB currently has this film at a 5.4, but I'd be curious to see what the score was looking at only the last 10 years, as this film has seemed to age well with horror fans. I think the movie should be around a 6.5, so I'm grading up a little by giving it a 7. Either way, take this review with a grain of salt.

 

[shadow1]

Hellraiser: Hellseeker (2002) - 2/10

A man is investigated by police after his wife goes missing following a car crash.

Dean Winters stars as Trevor, a man who accidentally drives his car off a bridge with his wife inside. His wife is a familiar face - Kirsty (Ashley Laurence), star of the original Hellraiser film in her first series appearance since a cameo in Hellraiser III. Trevor escapes the car, but Kirsty doesn't. However, police can't find her body and begin to investigate Trevor, suspecting foul play.

Hellraiser: Hellseeker, the sixth entry in the series, tries to tell a mystery story with psychological horror elements but fails pretty miserably. The main reason is that the leading character is terribly written. Aside from a chronic headache, Trevor has no character traits. He works a nondescript office job, lives in a crappy apartment, and has zero charisma. His character motivations? Seemingly only to cure said headache, but even that's stretching it because the headache seems to come and go.

Though Trevor is the focal point of the movie, he personally does nothing to progress the plot. In fact, he pretty much seems to have no idea what's going on at any point in time. It's like watching a bag blowing in the wind. Other characters approach him all the time to keep the story going, including a number of women who want to sleep with him...which I do not understand. Sure, the guy is good looking, but he has the personality of a brick.

Furthermore, the movie uses a ton of dream sequence fake outs. It's hard to feel invested in a plot when half of what we see is followed by a jump cut of Trevor waking up in bed.

Hellraiser: Hellseeker is the second straight-to-video Hellraiser movie. Unlike its predecessor - Hellraiser: Inferno - it's painfully obvious this one's direct to video. Awkward shaky camera and slow motion sequences; fake-out jump scares (i.e. dog barking, phone ringing); bag CGI; below average acting; an incoherent plot - all of the hallmarks of a non-theatrical release. Though, there was one really good gore sequence a few minutes into the movie. Kudos on that one.

Pinhead? Oh yeah, I should probably mention him. He takes a back seat again here (which is fine), mostly appearing at the end of the movie to explain the entire plot to us (which is not fine). Seriously, you can pretty much figure out what's going on from some flashback sequences peppered throughout the movie, but the explanation of events still manages to be convoluted.

Another thing worth mentioning is Ashley Laurence's Kirsty only has about 10 minutes of screen time. Her role is significant to the plot, but she goes long periods without being on camera. Why was she not the star of this movie? It's part six in what is arguably a pretty crappy horror franchise, and Laurence is obviously not some huge star that this filmmakers couldn't afford to pay for more shooting days. There's no reason Hellseeker needed to star a cardboard cut out of a character, played by the guy who's famous for the character "Mayhem" in the Allstate car insurance commercials (was I the only one who found the irony in him driving his car off a bridge?).

I know the answer to my question of why Laurence didn't command a bigger screen presence: it's because this script was originally a stand alone idea that later shoehorned the Kirsty, Pinhead, and the puzzle box into it. Bad, bad movie.

 

[shadow1]

Hellraiser: Deader (2005) - 5/10

A London journalist travels to Bucharest to investigate a cult called "The Deaders", who seemingly have the power to return back to life.

Kari Wuhrer stars as Amy, an investigative journalist for an underground newspaper sent on assignment in Romania after her editor (Simon Kunz) receives a video tape of cult ritual in which a woman commits suicide but is then revived. Once there, Amy becomes entangled with the local subculture and tracks down Winter LeMarchand (Paul Rhys), leader of The Deaders and descendant of the puzzle box maker from Hellraiser: Bloodline.

Hellraiser: Deader is not a particularly good movie, but it's honestly one of the better Hellraiser sequels. The characters at least have traits and motivations, and the movie feels a little bit higher budget than Hellraiser: Hellseeker thanks to more set variety, something which was accomplished within the budget due to filming in Romania. (By the way, this movie was filmed in 2002 but shelved for a few years).

There were a couple scenes I enjoyed; one in which Amy searches a disgusting apartment for clues, and another in which a character tries to remove a knife from their own back (which looked like fun). I also thought the acting was decent, at least by Hellraiser standards. Overall there were some things to like, especially in the earlier parts of the film.

Unfortunately, Hellraiser: Deader still suffers from some of the same problems as its predecessor. There are constant fake-out dream sequences, and it gets to the point that it's difficult to figure out which scenes are real or fake. Furthermore, director Rick Bota (who also directed Hellseeker) makes some questionable choices once again, including too much slow motion. There's also one scene near the beginning of the movie which is really bizarrely edited; it keeps flashing back and forth between Amy getting on a train and having a conversation in her boss's office. I get what they were going for, but the way they went about it is jarring.

For me, the movie really fell apart in act three. Without spoiling it, logic was thrown out the window, and the conclusion of the film was very stupid. This ending was a result of shoehorning the Cenobites into the film, as Hellraiser: Deader is yet another Hellraiser film based on a spec script that originally didn't feature Pinhead and company.

Worse, of all the movies in the series up to this point, Pinhead felt the most of out place. He and the cenobites seem to revert back to the "boogeyman" status of Hellraiser III, and have very little to do with the plot until the very end of the film - where they appear and ruin the movie. Not to be mean, Pinhead was looking kinda old - and dare I say a little pudgy - in this one. It doesn't help that his entire head seems to be grey, except his eyes, ears, and mouth which are blue; this ruins the illusion, as it's painfully obvious he's wearing makeup and prosthetics.

Hellraiser: Deader has issues, but it isn't the worst Hellraiser movie. It's more watchable than most of the films in the series, even though it suffers from many of the same pitfalls. In what is clearly a bad horror franchise, I would rewatch this direct-to-video entry before most of the others.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Hellraiser: Hellseeker (2002) - 2/10

Hellraiser: Deader (2005) - 5/10

Interesting. I thought the Bota trilogy went from bad to stinky junk, but you seem to go in the opposite direction. Let's see what you think of the final one!

 

[SwordsgoneWild]

I hope they bring this back to glory. The first two are legendary. Hell on earth and Bloodlines had their moments but ultimately fell short and were lacking.

Then followed all the shitty direct to sequel movies that weren't even suppose to be Helraiser movies until the Weinstein's shoehorned in Pinhead just to keep the rights.

Never bothered with the 2 after those-- Revelations and Judgement

Such a chaotic fall from grace for a Franchise that started off legendary.

 

[shadow1]

Interesting. I thought the Bota trilogy went from bad to stinky junk, but you seem to go in the opposite direction. Let's see what you think of the final one!

I was surprised at Deader's watchability after Hellseeker. I've seen part of Hellworld before on TV, but can't remember it. Considering the plot is basically Hellraiser goes online, I'm not optimistic...

 

[SwordsgoneWild]

Interesting. Already looks better than the last 6 . Though that's not such a ringing endorsement lol. I was pleased with Hulu's prequel of Predator so i will keep my fingers crossed for this. The first two Hellraiser's are some of my favorite horror movies.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

I was surprised at Deader's watchability after Hellseeker. I've seen part of Hellworld before on TV, but can't remember it. Considering the plot is basically Hellraiser goes online, I'm not optimistic...

Thanks for the trailer. Hadn't seen it. I'm confident Clayton will be great, but the tone of the original movie is so unique that I doubt the reboot can get close to it.

 

[SwordsgoneWild]

Thanks for the trailer. Hadn't seen it. I'm confident Clayton will be great, but the tone of the original movie is so unique that I doubt the reboot can get close to it.

Same goes with trying to replicate the tone from other movies of that era. Its hard to do. Those movies were products of their times. Everything came together to give those flicks their atmosohere /tone.

Cinematography, lighting, the ambiant scores, acting. The 80s had a very unique feel that the filmmakers were able to tap into and harness.

 

[NinjaKick]

the trailer gets a thumbs up from me, can't wait

 

[Jussi]

Hulu means Disney+ for the rest of the World.

 

[sdf]

The first film started out as something very good and of high quality, I was anticipating that it would be something of high quality due to the fact that the director is a famous writer in the horror genre, and at the beginning everything looked exactly like that, but then at some point it began to feel like a f***ing joke and some cheap shit that absolutely cannot be taken seriously. This guy must be very unhappy with his work otherwise he is not very good at creating nightmare stories

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

The first film started out as something very good and of high quality, I was anticipating that it would be something of high quality due to the fact that the director is a famous writer in the horror genre, and at the beginning everything looked exactly like that, but then at some point it began to feel like a f***ing joke and some cheap shit that absolutely cannot be taken seriously. This guy must be very unhappy with his work otherwise he is not very good at creating nightmare stories

So that's the feeling fanboys have when I walk in a thread... ;-)

Luckily, it's no Marvel thread here, so all opinions are welcome - can't agree with you though. Sure it's not high lit, but IMO Barker is a great fiction author, walking the line between horror and fantasy like no other. He made only 3 films, and each one of them - no matter the weaknesses - come with a strong signature, something I respect a lot.

 

[shadow1]

Hellraiser: Hellworld (2005) - 4/10

Two years after the death of their friend, a group of online gamers are invited to a mysterious party based on the game "Hellworld".

Hellraiser: Hellworld stars Lance Henriksen as "The Host", a mysterious man who invites gamers to a secluded mansion. The invitations are sent through "Hellworld", an addictive online game which is based around the Cenobites and the Lament configuration (which one character hilariously calls the LaMONT Configuration). Once there, guests are given masks and cell phones and encouraged to engage in drinking and anonymous sex. Meanwhile, a killer lurks in the shadows...

This film's plot is straightforward enough - characters are invited to a creepy mansion and picked off one by one, in what is basically is a classic slasher movie plot. However, the details are extremely incoherent.

What was the point of making the protagonists gamers? It had no impact on the plot, aside from the method in which they were invited to the adult-themed party (i.e. NOT A GAMING PARTY). How does a game exist based around the Cenobites? This movie doesn't pull a Blair Witch 2 and claim the previous Hellraiser movies as fiction; in fact, this movie definitely seems to be within the previously established cannon. Did Lance Henriksen invent the game? It sure doesn't seem like it based on later revelations in the movie...but if so then how did he send the invitations?

Nothing makes sense, and the further you deep dive, the worse it gets.

The characters in Hellraiser: Hellworld are a mixed bag. Lance Henriksen - who apparently turned down the role of Frank in the original Hellraiser - gives a good performance as the antagonist in what is very familiar territory for him. The main protagonists are supposed to be Jake (Christopher Jacot) and Chelsea (Katheryn Winnick); Jake's character trait is being emo, while Katheryn's is knowing karate... I think? She kicks someone.

Fortunately, there are two other characters - Derrick and Mike - that are played by future well known actors Khary Payton (The Walking Dead) and Henry Cavill (Man of Steel), respectively. Even early in their careers, these two act circles around everyone not named Lance Henriksen and add a level of legitimacy to this direct-to-video film.

Getting in to the spoiler section, I did like the twist that Lance/The Host was the father of the friend who died (whose name is Adam, by the way). This twist caught me off guard because, for some reason, I thought Jake and Adam were brothers due to the fact Jake was the only one who dressed up - and in general seemed to give a crap - during Adam's funeral.

By the way, Adam died after becoming obsessed with the Hellworld game, committing suicide via self immolation. Therefore, it seems unlikely that Lance would concoct a revenge scheme on Adam's friends for getting him addicted had he invented the game. However, if he did not invent the game, then it makes no sense that he'd have the ability to issue invitations via solving a puzzle within said game!

Anyhow... this revelation is made when Chelsea finds a photo of Adam and Lance together during a birthday celebration. Not long after, Jake screams at Lance/The Host, telling him he wasn't present in Adam's life for "16 years!" Didn't we just see a photo of father and son smiling together two seconds ago? Hilariously, not long after Chelsea asks Lance "why he's doing this!?" (read: killing everyone); he gives the obvious one word answer of "revenge". It's so bad it's hysterical.

I swear, the filmmakers went through all this work to give Lance/The Host a motive - even going as so far to explicitly say it's revenge just in case the dumb audience couldn't figure out out - when they could've easily just made him a psychopath.

To get back to the non-spoiler section... I've written several paragraphs while barely mentioning Pinhead or the Cenobites. In what was Doug Bradley's final turn as the iconic character, the demons play absolutely no role in the events of this film. That's susprising because unlike the past several movies, this screenplay was originally written as a Hellraiser movie.

The Cenobites serve as a mascot for the Hellworld video game (appearing on shirts and other apparel in the film), and make a few appearances during some hallucination scenes, but we don't see them a lot. When Pinhead and friends do appear for real at the end of the movie, they're in the "slasher villain" mode I hate so much, rather than their previously established torture mode. Pinhead looks like crap, just as he did in Hellraiser: Deader. That's not a surprise considering the two films were filmed back-to-back in 2002 in Romania, both directed by Rick Bota (in his third straight Hellraiser effort), and both shelved until 2005.

Overall, Hellraiser: Hellworld is yet another bad movie in the series, but it kinda works as a generic slasher movie as long as you don't pay too close attention to the plot. I also think there are some "so bad it's good" elements here, as I laughed at least a couple times during some unintentionally funny moments.

 

[sdf]

In 2009, videos appeared on the Internet showing a giant pyramid over Moscow, the world media reported about it, once on one site I found an article with a good analysis of these frames, in addition, a letter from a certain person was published there, claiming that he had seen this phenomenon and discovered what it was. The letter said that people cannot perceive this object as it really is, so they see it as a geometric figure, but in fact it is something that cannot be explained correctly in words, and its appearance is due to the fact that soon something significant and strange will begin to happen in the world. Leviathan over the Kremlin? I think he was not mistaken, Putin is an excellent candidate to make a cenobite out of him

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

In 2009, videos appeared on the Internet showing a giant pyramid over Moscow, the world media reported about it, once on one site I found an article with a good analysis of these frames, in addition, a letter from a certain person was published there, claiming that he had seen this phenomenon and discovered what it was. The letter said that people cannot perceive this object as it really is, so they see it as a geometric figure, but in fact it is something that cannot be explained correctly in words, and its appearance is due to the fact that soon something significant and strange will begin to happen in the world. Leviathan over the Kremlin? I think he was not mistaken, Putin is an excellent candidate to make a cenobite out of him

I guess I set myself up for it when I said all opinions were welcome. You do you!

 

[sdf]

I guess I set myself up for it when I said all opinions were welcome. You do you!

I just remembered it when I watched the second part of this franchise. In fact, I wanted to say something about the film, but then decided that this UFO case is much more interesting. Since this sequel is exactly as ridiculous as the first part, but with that video, not everything is so clear, there are some interesting mystery nuances about it, regarding question whether it's fake or not

 

[shadow1]

Hellraiser: Revelations (2011) - 1/10

Two college friends go missing in Tijuana, and a mysterious video tape may provide clues about their fates.

Hellraiser: Revelations stars Steven Brand and Jay Gillespie as Ross Craven and Nico Bradley (yes, seriously), two college students who run away from home to Mexico with the intention of partying. However, they go missing, and the only clue to their whereabouts is a cryptic video recording. One year later at a dinner party between the Craven and Bradley families (ugh), Steven suddenly returns, but all is not as it seems.

The best way I can describe Hellraiser: Revelations is it feels like you're watching a YouTube fan film.

Seriously, I'm not even trying to be mean! Everything about Revelations - the acting, cinematography, direction, writing - screams amateur. When I was watching it I kept subconsciously telling myself not to be too hard on it because it wasn't a professional movie. Except it was - Dimension Extreme produced (read: crapped out) this movie in order to retain the Hellraiser franchise rights.

Revelations is a partial found footage film, and the found footage scenes are the worst. The dialogue is just awful; I suspect most of it was improvised. The cinematography during this portion of the film is some of the worst I've ever seen, with excessive extreme close ups that cut off half of the subject's face. What human being doesn't know how to operate a video camera? (Don't say this movie's cinematographer...)

The dinner party scenes are almost as bad. The dialogue is terrible, and there are many filler scenes; the audience doesn't need minute long scenes of characters refilling each other's wine glasses. There's even a minute long scene that we see in its entirety twice. Even though it's filled with minutiae, Hellraiser: Revelations has a measly 75 minute run time - the shortest feature film I can recall.

One thing that confused me about the plot is that there is a lot of talk about how the two characters "ran away". Were they really planning to live in Tijuana? Apparently so because when Steven returns, he gives a monologue about how much he hates living in the town he grew up in. Also, they were adults, so it's not exactly "running away". Emphasis on the word adults; the actor who played Nico was 32 when this movie was made, while his on-screen mother (Sanny van Heteren) was 34!

Is there anything good about Hellraiser: Revelations? Not much, but I'll give credit where credit is due. It was written as a Hellraiser movie, which is a rarity for this franchise. Also, there are a couple decent uses of gore. That's about it as far as "pros" go. These two elements alone don't move the needle much for me with everything else being so amateurish.

For the first time in series history, Pinhead is not played by Doug Bradley. Bradley turned down the role after reading the screenplay, and was replaced by Stephan Smith Collins. Smith Collins looks jarringly different than Doug Bradley, and his voice was dubbed by a different actor. Fans in 2011 quickly wrote this film off based on leaked photos of the "new" Pinhead, but the Cenobite is the least of this movie's problems (though I'd obviously rather have Bradley in the role).

Overall, Hellraiser: Revelations is one of the worst movies I've seen released by a major studio. Even in a series filled with bad sequels, it still manages to be a slap in the face to the fans. I really don't like giving 1 star ratings, but if this isn't a 1 star movie, what is? I'd rather open the Lament Configuration than watch this film again.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Hellraiser: Revelations (2011) - 1/10

I'd rather open the Lament Configuration than watch this film again.

Well, it looks like you have very low tolerance for amateur productions! I've seen bunches of student films, so I don't really mind things going hyper-cheapo - and I often prefer people trying and failing, than just feed me with the paint-by-numbers pre-chewed commercial crap (not that it's really the case with any of these sequels). I thought this one was closer in principles to the original intentions than most of the sequels (post 2) - In fact, I'd rewatch it before 3-6-7-8, just not right now - or maybe ever.

 

[shadow1]

Well, it looks like you have very low tolerance for amateur productions! I've seen bunches of student films, so I don't really mind things going hyper-cheapo - and I often prefer people trying and failing, than just feed me with the paint-by-numbers pre-chewed commercial crap (not that it's really the case with any of these sequels). I thought this one was closer in principles to the original intentions than most of the sequels (post 2) - In fact, I'd rewatch it before 3-6-7-8, just not right now - or maybe ever.

It all depends on the movie for me. I'm willing to overlook some things if the movie is a passion project (like 1981's Madman, that I recently watched), but not when it's a clear example of a big studio quickly getting something on film in order to not lose rights to a franchise.

I'm cautiously optimistic about the next entry in the series because I know the director was heavily invested in the project, even playing a cool looking character. But there's still a good chance it's yet another Hellraiser movie I rate a 4 or below.