The movie was originally filmed in Britain but the studio convinced Barker to change it to take place in America after it was filmed. They dubbed over a some of the voices.
The only Cenobite who origin was deeply explored in the films was Pinhead so I won't mention his origin in case you want to watch other Hellraiser films without spoilers. But the others before being transformed were The Female Cenobite was a Nun obsessed with Sin. Butterball a gluttonous but also perverted man much like Frank. Chatterer was a young boy who opened the Box.
I second this. Barker has such a powerful imagination, and much of his prose reads like poetry. I've read everything by him, one of my all time favorite writers.
I remember the first time I saw this movie was in 8th grade on a school night and I randomly found it on a RUclips suggestion lol. Suffice to say I didn't sleep that night and the next day at school the movie was on my mind
The basic Hellraiser premise is sadomasochism -- i.e., some people have experienced so many ordinary pleasures, they have become bored and begin to crave something new: pain. In the Hellraiser world, they can seek these forbidden pleasures from the Cenobites, demon-angels who are experts in the pleasures of suffering. There were a number of great Darkhorse comic books that explored this world very well, with clear narratives as you seek. It's true the movies seem to often approach forbidden pleasures as subtext and focused instead on jarring horror. But the idea is that people like Frank and Julia enjoy the pain that destroys their bodies. Maybe new Hellraiser movies could explore this premise more directly, in the wake of films like 50 Shades of Grey.
17:00 Your brain just needs to read THE HELLBOUND HEART. It explains a lot of things that, quite frankly, because censorship - you could NOT tackle; BUT, the reason she GRAYS imo is because Frank feeds off of her. I could be mistaken.
I feel like pinhead being the main thing associated with the movie gives ppl an inaccurate idea of what the movie ends up being about. Like I personally love that frank and Julia are the real villains and the cenobites are more background, but I know it makes some ppl hate it. And most of the dialogue is terrible!! Lol
The Lament configuration is one of over 150 named puzzle boxes designed by Phillip La'Merchant of France... Each puzzle box acts as a DOORWAY into HELL.... And each puzzle box has a Guardian Demon attached to each one..... The object of each puzzle box is for the user to unlock 🔓 each sequence with the hopes of discovering an inexhaustible wealth of pleasures... HELL...
“That’s quite the commitment”!! You’re reaction @ 09:07 reminds me of the HellRaiser commentary- At some point in the movie they joke about alternate titles for the film in which they recall an elderly woman on the set who suggested it be called “What a woman won’t do for a good f*ck” 🥴🤷♂️
the bad acting and interesting gore effects are part of what makes some 80's horror movies like this endearing to fans like me, though I understand why it's not your thing too. Glad you gave it a go and I liked hearing your honest opinion about it
The answers you want are in Hellraiser 2 and 4 (I think you already reacted to 2). Barker is or was one hell of a horror writer. With Books of Blood he reached glory and immortality so quickly. His imagination is uncanny, his writing is precise, but his screenwriting and directing not so much, lol. I don't think the characters in the movie needed that much of a development. Barker gives succinct backgrounds for each character enough to drive the story forward. Also, Barker is or was quite into BDSM so the characters are a reflection of his thoughts on the sado scene, the search for pleasure and pain. I think there's a strong psychological element if you dig deeper. I remember when I saw this movie in an old and awful theatre back in the days before it was taken out of the theatres, I was so excited after reading part of his Books of Blood. I expected more of this movie, tbh, knowing how awesome is his writing, I left a bit underwhelmed, but the characters he created were and continue being unique and awesome. I'd avoid all the sequels except 2 and 4 (and I think the 6th?), which kind of stay inside of the mythos. Hellraiser is probably the franchise with the worst sequels ever made, lol. They turned Pinhead into a mediocre slasher monster. Lame. Watch them at your own peril. Imma check your other reactions.
I thumbed up your reaction. I think Hellraiser 2 was the popular one. I think that's when people really liked the character Pinhead - I really don't know why, probably the leather outfits and the fact that he's got pins on his head!? Oh wait, you watched 2 as well, let me go watch it now!
They are Cenobites, and in the first movie the main one is credited as "lead Cenobite " (in the end credits) the name Pinhead is not mentioned at all in the movie
The only time he's ever called Pinhead on-screen is cheesy as fuck. In the third film, "Hellraiser Goes Hollywood" as it could be known, features our new busty heroine shout something like "go to hell, Pinhead!" 🤣🤣🙄🙄
No, trust me, this movie has felt like half of it was left on the editing room floor since it came out. Amazing this ever turned into a series. Truly amazing.
Barker is known for horror but his work is primarily fantasy. He had a background in art and stage which is why a lot of the acting and dialogue feels so unreal, it's meant to be. Even the most mundane aspects of the film were intentionally surreal. Hellbound: Hellraiser 2 has a different director and co-writer so it's more conventional and gives more background on the cenobites and the box.
Watch all through Hellraiser Bloodlines. Even though a lot of people talk down Hellraiser Bloodlines it answers a lot of questions-backstory. These weren't really about the acting as more over the gore.
I actually think most are super solid but inferno is odd with the whole psychological thing it does but still kinda works with the being in hell since he opened the box. But even in hellseeker they kinda did the same thing. Love this series though!
Andy Robinson (Larry) was first known as the Scorpio killer in Dirty Harry, but is best known as Garak on Star Trek Deep Space Nine. Hellraiser is his other well known role. His performances in Dirty Harry and in DS9 are excellent, and very different from each other. He did so much prep for Garak that he basically wrote the entire character's backstory as a diary (for what was supposed to be a one-time guest starring role and eventually became a central recurring role), and later published it as a novel.
Going off what you said about wanting precision in films and for things to make logistical sense: I think you would really enjoy the body horror film The Fly (1986)! It’s the most tightly written Cronenberg imo and just super compelling overall 😁 I like your reaction a lot (even though it breaks my heart that the campiness doesn’t land for you the way it does for me) and I especially love your eye for detail!
My personal take is that Clive Barker is playing with the word ecstasy. Ecstasy is the point where pleasure and pain melt together and cannot be distinguished. Frank seeks the box because he hears that it can provide ecstasy, which he thinks is the ultimate pleasure experience but the cenobites approaches it from the different directions of extreme pain, which does reach a point of ecstasy( when Franks states: "Jesus wept" and have a face of pleasure) . That also make sense with their statement: "Angles to some, demons to others.
The thing I like an love about this movie is that. It's not your typical horror movie . Whare the villain is the monster, demon , ghost or what have you. Because the cenobites look like they should be the . Villain of the movie but they are not the real villain or monsters. The people like Frank and Julia are the real monster or villains of the movie. It's all about the sins of the humans in this movie. The person let's just say Frank seekes out the Lament configuration puzzle box. They desire it's pleasures they solve it . Pinhead or the Hell Priest an his gash comes . Then they judge that person's soul . If they are like Frank clearly a unpure soul . They take them to hell to be tortured for all eternity . That simple the role of the cenobites is to . Take unpure souls to hell to be tortured for all eternity . About the name Clive Barker wrote the book The Hellbound heart . Wich is what this movie is based on in the book Pinhead is called . By his original name or title that being the Hell Priest . But when he wrote the scip for the movie. The cenobites did not have a name . So the Hell Priest was just called lead cenobite. So the makeup artist started to call him Pinhead. Then so did others because he had no name in the movie.
One of the reasons Hellraiser is such a classic is also one of the reasons you didn't like it. It's entirely a, "show don't tell" movie, there's no grand backstory to the cenobites or the box, they're just this unfathomable force of nature, there's no long rant about why Frank is a creepy sadomasochist, they just show you that he's a depraved dirtbag through what he does. It does limit the characterisation in some ways, but it amplifies the horror aspects massively imo. Kirsty is great too, she's a lot like Nancy, she doesn't just run and scream but actively fights back. One interesting thing about this film that's lost in the sequels is the box itself, how it actually gives Kirsty what she wants (summoning the cenobites gives her a weapon against Frank, once he's gone it allows her to banish them) whereas later in the series it just becomes the box that makes Pinhead show up and do wacky shit. There's a lot of production issues that you have to see past to appreciate the rest of it (the weird dubbing, inconsistent acting, awful cgi) but it says a lot for the practical effects and certain parts of the writing (that scene where Kirsty meets the cenobites for the first time is still one of the best in any horror film) that it blew up despite all the other issues.
I saw this movie for the first time last year or so, and my thoughts mirror your entirely. There was a weird soapy feel to some of the acting and all that, but I liked most of the effects and the premise and so on. Hope you keep making more of these! (saw The Fly and The Thing) Also, you're a dead ringer for a '70s Meryl Streep, especially with your portrait being the corner.
I have equally mixed feelings about this movie, and I struggle to understand why it falls short for me. I feel like the movie focuses too much on the love triangle, and not enough on these mysterious Cenobites. But maybe focusing on them too much would rob them of their mystery, the very thing that makes them interesting. 🤔
I assume because this is a British production they dubbed a lot of actors to have an American accent but it's so awkward. Weird production decisions aside it's a very interesting movie, and I think the sequel really improves on all fronts. Ashley Laurence is great though, definitely one of my favorite "final girls" across all the franchises
Also some scenes are obviously set in the UK, even the house is very UK-ish. The film has a weird mid Atlantic feel which was obviously a production thing but I thought it created a cool weird vibe.
Has anyone ever told you that you look like Kate Winslet? Just found your channel. Love seeing someone who isn't a Barker freak interpret this movie. You pointed out the glaring flaws (I love this movie, but it has flaws.) Subbed!
I learned a long time ago not to think too hard with horror movies, you'll only end up disappointed. Some people just have difficulty with abstract ideas.
After Hellraiser 2 you definitely get diminishing returns from each subsequent sequel, but they’re just a guilty pleasure that I know I can reliably go through and be entertained. But if I only had to watch one sequel after 2, it’d have to be Bloodlines.
you should try "Lord of Illusions" -- also by Clive Barker, but not as much body horror and significantly better production and scripting, stars Scott Bakula.
What Clive Barker told Ashley Laurence "You're psychotic uncle has killed your father and is now in his skin and wants to kill you then have sex with you in that order" before they did the rehearsal. It's a shame they ran out of money because yes that ending is rather weak. Also the reason some of the performances are kinda strange was also a monetary issue they only had enough time and budget to do a maximum of two takes for each scene so it was a scramble at times. Clive Barker swore off directing anymore Hellraiser movies ever again after the horrible experience he had with it and he won't even talk about it anymore.
The most stupid thing about the dubbing in this film is that Frank wearing Larry's skin has Larry's voice too. Why not just get the guy dubbing Frank to dub those lines too? or better yet, get Andrew Robinson to dub Frank in the first place, doing a slightly different voice since they are brothers after all.
I wish Hollywood could focus on tuning up stuff like this instead of trying to cash in on all the old good stuff again and again... If it ain't broke, don't fix it; this 1 they can tinker with.
The film certainly is more conceptual, rather than story or character driven. But what a concept, ya know? Everyone has a curiosity of what Hell could be. If you are religious, it's probably very different than if you aren't. And then there's the notion that Hell can just be tailored to a person's individual fear. Beyond that, there is the idea of the things people deem as accepted vs. forbidden. What if a person desires that which is forbidden over what is accepted? Would that person choose Hell over Heaven? I have read that Clive Barker was a young gay man, in New York for the first time in the late 70s and early 80s, when he wrote "The Hellbound Heart," which this film is based on. Also, that he became drawn to some of the leather and S&M bars and clubs in the city, back then. His drive to explore the dichotomy between what was "forbidden" and what was "accepted," kind of became the themes of his novel. By the mid-80s, when they set out to make the film, they shot in England, to sub for America. I think the reasons were financial. But shooting in England meant that they had to hire a nearly all English cast and crew. Barker himself is English, so that base was covered. Of the cast, I think only the dad and Christie were played by Americans. This meant that the rest of the cast were Brits playing Americans, adopting American accents. Also, I believe they shot "MOS" (i.e. shooting without capturing sound live; intending to dub the dialogue in post production). I do not think they shot MOS to accommodate the accent situation; it was probably a budgetary consideration. If you aren't required to capture sound accurately on the day, you can schedule a lot more setups (shots) per day, and therefore finish shooting the movie sooner and save a ton of dough. So, this was a super-round-about way of explaining why the actor's dialogue might've come off as stilted and stiff. They had to dub their whole role later in a sound booth. Shooting MOS and dubbing later was a pretty common practice for many foreign films, though not the case for American or, usually, British films. Why they chose to do it with Hellraiser, again, I think had to do with keeping costs low. Anyway, really loving the channel. You have some interesting takes on these movies. Please keep it going.
Sometimes, I wonder if what I call mine is actually my Hell. Perhaps, I died a long time ago and this is my punishment. The worst part is experiencing a taste of Heaven knowing how much better it can be
You should check out the screenplay too. Written by Barker in his usual florid style so it almost reads like an abridged (or reimagined) version of the novella. Yes, I'm still binging your videos 🤣
if Frank had had enough time he would have drained enough victims to become himself 100%. But once Kirsty escaped with the box he knew his time was short. So instead of draining Larry, they killed and skinned him. He's literally wearing Larry's skin, Frank is still incomplete. This is why Larry's skin isn't decomposed, but why Julia's was. He was draining her as he did the other victims before Larry.
@@SamuelBlack84 its a good question,but its not hell its just a dimension of this beings ,the cenobites,,i think the word hell in this story its just a comparison,..like the title of the movie hellraiser,its for frank cotton,A man who is always a trouble maker and treats woman badly using them for sex and they keep coming back to him....
@@SamuelBlack84 ¿do you know what is the big nonsense in hellraiser for me?after frank opens the puzle box invoking the cenobites and being torn apart,the homeless guard dont go to the attic house and recovers the puzle box to take it to the chinese seller.....the box stays 10 years there............
@@SamuelBlack84 ¿do you think in franks opening puzle box and gets torn by the hooks is not real?i mean it just tells you what hapens to frank summarizing it,for not having to show you 2 times the same torn apart and leaving the suspense to the final confrontation
Greetings from New Jersey. Just discovered your channel. Great reaction. Yes, Hellraiser is a favorite horror movie of mine. Definitely check out Hellraiser 2. 3 is not as good but still worth a watch. Skip the rest of the sequels. Keep up the good work.
I find it interesting that you like the makeup so much. I feel the same way. Digital is really good for like fast action, but for close ups, I wish they would do more makeup. It just looks so much more intense. The digital is just too fake, cartoony even.
definetly check out Hellbound Hellraiser II and Hellraiser III Hell on Earth. Check out the documentary on shudder called Leviathan story of hellraiser and hellbound hellraiser 2
This movie desperately needed a skilled director and a budget. The acting is really no better or worse than the norm for low budget horror movies of the time. (except for that horrible dub of young Frank's voice. Ugh.) To me what makes this movie really impressive beyond simply adapting a brilliant writer's work is what they WERE able to accomplish with next to no money and in spite of the fact that half the people on set had literally no idea what they were doing.
If you get a chance you should read the book Hellraiser is based on,Hellbound Heart. What Frank goes through when he's being pulled apart is described in greater detail.
The reason for the bad acting is because of the director Clive Barker. He was a brilliant writer but he wasn't so much an experienced director because of being new in the movie business.
According to the story, they had the actor speak, but the producers thought it would be better with an "american" accent, rather than the british one, to make it more US friendly. and so yeah it was dubbed by another actor..
Frank thought he was doing it to attract some female cenobites, but.. erm they have gone beyond anything else.. he wanted some bondage but erm the cenobites cant differentiate pain and pleasure he founf out a little too late they were so very very extreme (the short story goes into more detail)
ok ¿you want more to know about the cenobites and the lament configuration?well thats the thing when the authentic stories they go to waste,,leaving it that way would have been the best,is when we enjoy debating and imagining.....hellbound 88 destroyit everything.....
for example,..the same happened with alien 79 and its alien spacecraft and its mummified occupant...ridley scott destroyit everything with prometheus and covenant
Hiya, just recently found your channel, great stuff. It's fine to not like something, but you did say why some of us love this. I thing age is one, the book it's brilliant and this was done on a very small budget and it was amazing what they pulled off. So, two things, this isn't body horror. The horror in this story/film isn't pinhead and his buddy's, its the woman that's the horror. All good keep going cos you doing well.
I have always heard a lot about this film, been told it is a cerebral conundrum, and quite the trip. Sadly, I could not get invested into the narrative as none of the characters spoke enough to me to care for any of them, so I felt as if I were merely a passer by viewing from the side-lines, and just wanted them all to get it to be honest ha ha. I think horror is one genre in which forming a connection to a character is important to actually heighten the terror, or anxiety. Sure jump scares and atmosphere go a long way, but when you care, then the scare, holds more power and amplifies. The Cenobites are certainly interesting, and funnily enough, in only a few scenes they drew more from me and actually made me watch the screen. In terms of acting, this is a strange film, it reminds me of some Giallo or Spanish horror films of the 70's, the shame is that the Cenobites were able to express more than the leads imo. Reminds me a bit of Demons (1985) An Italian film. Some of the practical effects were cool, but I don't know if I will venture further into the series, I think the title character is so much larger than the films, so has become more revered over the years, or perhaps those who grew up with this hold it close, or maybe even the other films are amazing, I don't know, just did not do what I expected, which is something that happens when expectations are too high I guess. Here are a few other Horror films I have seen recently if you are interested, I see you mentioned that psychological horror is what intrigues you most, that particular style is pretty difficult to find, especially something new or unseen, on those rare times you do find a film that stays with you, gnawing at your subconscious for weeks, it is a terrifying treat. Anyway, cool video, you see things I did not, always good to find someone who views things with a different perspective. Here is the list, some cheese, some gore, some very good, some not great ha ha. Rituals (1977) Dead and Buried (1981) Wolfen (1981) Thesis (1996) Jacob's Ladder (1990) The Hidden (1987) Next of Kin (1982)
I have been meaning to see Jacob’s Ladder! Thanks for your thoughts. I agree about character development being important to me as well to get invested.
Nah, I love art that actually has no purpose. But most films have intention, even as bizarre as Eraserhead. There is clear action by motivations in this film. It’s just explained very poorly in some parts.
@@ScaredPale agree, but if you loved art that has no purpose then you would enjoy this movie without questions. Now you try to rationalize why you rationalize everything. But still liked your reaction, you're different. P.S. If you haven't seen it, go and watch the Korean film the ''Call''. It's the best psychological sci-fi thriller of 2020.
@@eldenringnew I don't love all art that has no meaning. But I love that you love this movie. I can totally respect why people love this movie. I've been meaning to get into more Korean films! I love Train to Busan and of course Parasite. Korean films don't enough credit in mainstream america. I will definitely look into Call!
You said you were more into psychological horror. John Carpenter's The Thing. Stanley Kubrick The Shining and The Exorcists are pretty decent psychological horror movies if you haven't seen them.
Clive Barker has the same problem David Lynch does. Their films are visually interesting, but their characters and dialogue are cookie cutter and boring.
I think Julia was all slimy and gory because Frank sucked the life from her, just like the guys in the attic. Much less gore for gore's sake. The acting is more than fine imo.
My 2 cents: You ain't wrong. It's a terribly made movie... But it got cult status because of the effects and subject matter, nothing more. The acting, the ADR, the house set... It's all shit. But the topic, cenobytes and the effects saved it. People love it because they feel they have to :/ It's "okay" as far as movies go.
You've really stumbled on the primary weakness of Clive Barker's writing in general. I read his Books of Blood series before I saw the movies. They're a collection of his short stories, but they are a perfect way of understanding him overall. He comes up with fascinating story ideas. They're weird, and interesting, and you want to know more. But he has no grasp of character. He doesn't seem to be able to make you can about his characters. So-and-so dies, and you feel like, "Meh, that happened." His movies seem to be the same way. You can't care about the characters, but the ideas are so interesting, you kind of go along with it.
Bad acting? Bad writing? Welcome to 80s horror. The practical effects were pretty cool for the time though. I think the exploitation or "shock" element is kind of what people like about it. I'm a horror nut myself and this wasn't at all what I was expecting but I didn't hate it either. There was such a stink surrounding horror at the time that it was getting stale. Clive Barker said "if we have to make a bad movie, let's make a BAD movie". Remember this was the decade when Stephen King elevated to a master of horror, when some of his earlier stuff probably felt a little more like simple exploitation just because he was writing "good" stories that happened to be "horror".
Haha so true. I love Stephen King and definitely lean towards, like you said, the “good stories” that happen to be horror. That’s why I love Ari Asters stuff. 80’s horror was before my time but I’m actually excited to dive into it more to understand it. Because they’re definitely fun!
@@ScaredPale Ari Aster is a sick man but SO good. I also like the Austrian couple that did GOODNIGHT MOMMY and THE LODGE. 80s stuff you should definitely check out if you haven't already: JOHN CARPENTER'S THE THING, PET SEMATARY, CHILD'S PLAY, A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STEET (I personally love the whole franchise but it's not for everyone; also I think it started in the 70s). I would have to include DEMON KNIGHT as well, although that was technically 90s.
@@ScaredPale It's not that the acting is bad; it's that all of the voices except for Kristy's are dubbed as you first suspected. The other actors are English and they wanted to give them American accents so it would sell better in the states.
The movie was originally filmed in Britain but the studio convinced Barker to change it to take place in America after it was filmed. They dubbed over a some of the voices.
I wonder why
it gona still a british horror movie
The only Cenobite who origin was deeply explored in the films was Pinhead so I won't mention his origin in case you want to watch other Hellraiser films without spoilers. But the others before being transformed were
The Female Cenobite was a Nun obsessed with Sin.
Butterball a gluttonous but also perverted man much like Frank.
Chatterer was a young boy who opened the Box.
hellbound 88 is from peter atkins and me and many other hellraiser 87 fans ignore....
Definitely read Clive Barker's short stories, and watch a "making of" for the film. It explains so many of the problems they had.
Oh man, I never saw any docs for this movie. I'm down
I second this. Barker has such a powerful imagination, and much of his prose reads like poetry. I've read everything by him, one of my all time favorite writers.
@@n0tk0sher the thief of always is amazing!
Ditto! Clive's short story about the box tells you what the experience is like when you open/sove it.
"Why did her skin change so fast?"
We're show Frank's ability to drain blood with his fingers before he attacks Kirsty. In the third man's neck.
The humans are the monsters in the movie and the monsters are the impartial judges of humans.
The Cenobites are mentioned by Immacolata in Weaveworld, a novel by Clive Barker. She called them the Surgeons.
6:30 "I dont want to say grotesque but"
No, grotesque just about sums it up, and thats part of why its great.
"Kirsty" actress was 16 at the time. Explains the acting.
I remember the first time I saw this movie was in 8th grade on a school night and I randomly found it on a RUclips suggestion lol. Suffice to say I didn't sleep that night and the next day at school the movie was on my mind
The basic Hellraiser premise is sadomasochism -- i.e., some people have experienced so many ordinary pleasures, they have become bored and begin to crave something new: pain. In the Hellraiser world, they can seek these forbidden pleasures from the Cenobites, demon-angels who are experts in the pleasures of suffering. There were a number of great Darkhorse comic books that explored this world very well, with clear narratives as you seek. It's true the movies seem to often approach forbidden pleasures as subtext and focused instead on jarring horror. But the idea is that people like Frank and Julia enjoy the pain that destroys their bodies. Maybe new Hellraiser movies could explore this premise more directly, in the wake of films like 50 Shades of Grey.
17:00 Your brain just needs to read THE HELLBOUND HEART. It explains a lot of things that, quite frankly, because censorship - you could NOT tackle; BUT, the reason she GRAYS imo is because Frank feeds off of her. I could be mistaken.
It’s always so hard to turn books into films because details like that are so lost. Thanks for the suggestion!
They ran out of money for the finale. Hence why we got dragon demon.
That makes a lot of sense hahah
I thought maybe the dragon demon was the Chinese(?) man who sells the cube... he grabbed it and then we see him next selling it off to a new guy.
In my horror top 20.
I feel like pinhead being the main thing associated with the movie gives ppl an inaccurate idea of what the movie ends up being about. Like I personally love that frank and Julia are the real villains and the cenobites are more background, but I know it makes some ppl hate it.
And most of the dialogue is terrible!! Lol
Pinhead is definitely the legacy of these films
What are you talking about? I don’t hate it.
@@AdamRee-lx8uh Then he wasn't talking about you lol.
The Lament configuration is one of over 150 named puzzle boxes designed by Phillip La'Merchant of France... Each puzzle box acts as a DOORWAY into HELL.... And each puzzle box has a Guardian Demon attached to each one..... The object of each puzzle box is for the user to unlock 🔓 each sequence with the hopes of discovering an inexhaustible wealth of pleasures... HELL...
It's actually good that they're not too clear on their motivations.
It makes the Cenobite's more mysterious.
You know, fear of the unknown, & all.
“That’s quite the commitment”!!
You’re reaction @ 09:07 reminds me of the HellRaiser commentary-
At some point in the movie they joke about alternate titles for the film in which they recall an elderly woman on the set who suggested it be called “What a woman won’t do for a good f*ck” 🥴🤷♂️
HAHA
Nightbreed is worth a watch also by Clive barker with a interesting horror cameo
the cenobites are not demons,they are interdimensional beigns explorers of the 3rd region,
He's definitely a master of fantasy horror and worldbuilding, but not character development. I can't think of a movie he's made that was consistent.
Lord of Illusions is kind of too consistent.
the bad acting and interesting gore effects are part of what makes some 80's horror movies like this endearing to fans like me, though I understand why it's not your thing too. Glad you gave it a go and I liked hearing your honest opinion about it
you need to find the final cut version with all the deleted scenes for Hellraiser 2 (one of the scene is a guy with a razor for example)
The answers you want are in Hellraiser 2 and 4 (I think you already reacted to 2).
Barker is or was one hell of a horror writer. With Books of Blood he reached glory and immortality so quickly. His imagination is uncanny, his writing is precise, but his screenwriting and directing not so much, lol.
I don't think the characters in the movie needed that much of a development. Barker gives succinct backgrounds for each character enough to drive the story forward.
Also, Barker is or was quite into BDSM so the characters are a reflection of his thoughts on the sado scene, the search for pleasure and pain. I think there's a strong psychological element if you dig deeper.
I remember when I saw this movie in an old and awful theatre back in the days before it was taken out of the theatres, I was so excited after reading part of his Books of Blood. I expected more of this movie, tbh, knowing how awesome is his writing, I left a bit underwhelmed, but the characters he created were and continue being unique and awesome.
I'd avoid all the sequels except 2 and 4 (and I think the 6th?), which kind of stay inside of the mythos. Hellraiser is probably the franchise with the worst sequels ever made, lol. They turned Pinhead into a mediocre slasher monster.
Lame.
Watch them at your own peril.
Imma check your other reactions.
Cool Sydney, hope you do more reviews. Always looking for more reaction videos each day.
I thumbed up your reaction. I think Hellraiser 2 was the popular one. I think that's when people really liked the character Pinhead - I really don't know why, probably the leather outfits and the fact that he's got pins on his head!? Oh wait, you watched 2 as well, let me go watch it now!
Thanks for the support!
One of my FAVORITE HORROR MOVIES
They are Cenobites, and in the first movie the main one is credited as "lead Cenobite " (in the end credits) the name Pinhead is not mentioned at all in the movie
The only time he's ever called Pinhead on-screen is cheesy as fuck. In the third film, "Hellraiser Goes Hollywood" as it could be known, features our new busty heroine shout something like "go to hell, Pinhead!" 🤣🤣🙄🙄
No, trust me, this movie has felt like half of it was left on the editing room floor since it came out. Amazing this ever turned into a series. Truly amazing.
Hooks you in right from the start. 😊
I see what you did there. :p
You might like the novelette this is adapted from. A short read. Maybe 200 pages.
Barker is known for horror but his work is primarily fantasy. He had a background in art and stage which is why a lot of the acting and dialogue feels so unreal, it's meant to be. Even the most mundane aspects of the film were intentionally surreal. Hellbound: Hellraiser 2 has a different director and co-writer so it's more conventional and gives more background on the cenobites and the box.
there is no cgi in hellraiser. those efects are drawings on the film
Watch all through Hellraiser Bloodlines. Even though a lot of people talk down Hellraiser Bloodlines it answers a lot of questions-backstory. These weren't really about the acting as more over the gore.
I actually think most are super solid but inferno is odd with the whole psychological thing it does but still kinda works with the being in hell since he opened the box. But even in hellseeker they kinda did the same thing. Love this series though!
@@bradleyrocks618 Let's hope the upcoming tv series is worth it
Working title was What One Woman Would do for Great Sex. -paraphrased it was probably more graphic then that-
Andy Robinson (Larry) was first known as the Scorpio killer in Dirty Harry, but is best known as Garak on Star Trek Deep Space Nine. Hellraiser is his other well known role. His performances in Dirty Harry and in DS9 are excellent, and very different from each other. He did so much prep for Garak that he basically wrote the entire character's backstory as a diary (for what was supposed to be a one-time guest starring role and eventually became a central recurring role), and later published it as a novel.
React to Candyman from 1992.... It does have a psychological element to it.
She looks like kate Winslet.
The demon pinheaded hates that name and considers it an insult. He goes by HellPriest.
If you look up CENOBITE in the Dictionary..... It is a word of PRIEST......
Going off what you said about wanting precision in films and for things to make logistical sense: I think you would really enjoy the body horror film The Fly (1986)! It’s the most tightly written Cronenberg imo and just super compelling overall 😁 I like your reaction a lot (even though it breaks my heart that the campiness doesn’t land for you the way it does for me) and I especially love your eye for detail!
Thanks so much! I'm going to go to my local video store that's still around and rent The Fly this week to react to!
@@ScaredPale omg yes support them, my local video store closed because of covid and downtown just isn't the same
@@ScaredPale Fly is a fantastic movie. Cronenberg is the man. Enjoy!
Man Fly is such a great film, good call
My personal take is that Clive Barker is playing with the word ecstasy. Ecstasy is the point where pleasure and pain melt together and cannot be distinguished. Frank seeks the box because he hears that it can provide ecstasy, which he thinks is the ultimate pleasure experience but the cenobites approaches it from the different directions of extreme pain, which does reach a point of ecstasy( when Franks states: "Jesus wept" and have a face of pleasure) . That also make sense with their statement: "Angles to some, demons to others.
The thing I like an love about this movie is that. It's not your typical horror movie . Whare the villain is the monster, demon , ghost or what have you. Because the cenobites look like they should be the . Villain of the movie but they are not the real villain or monsters. The people like Frank and Julia are the real monster or villains of the movie. It's all about the sins of the humans in this movie. The person let's just say Frank seekes out the Lament configuration puzzle box. They desire it's pleasures they solve it . Pinhead or the Hell Priest an his gash comes . Then they judge that person's soul . If they are like Frank clearly a unpure soul . They take them to hell to be tortured for all eternity . That simple the role of the cenobites is to . Take unpure souls to hell to be tortured for all eternity . About the name Clive Barker wrote the book The Hellbound heart . Wich is what this movie is based on in the book Pinhead is called . By his original name or title that being the Hell Priest . But when he wrote the scip for the movie. The cenobites did not have a name . So the Hell Priest was just called lead cenobite. So the makeup artist started to call him Pinhead. Then so did others because he had no name in the movie.
One of the reasons Hellraiser is such a classic is also one of the reasons you didn't like it. It's entirely a, "show don't tell" movie, there's no grand backstory to the cenobites or the box, they're just this unfathomable force of nature, there's no long rant about why Frank is a creepy sadomasochist, they just show you that he's a depraved dirtbag through what he does. It does limit the characterisation in some ways, but it amplifies the horror aspects massively imo. Kirsty is great too, she's a lot like Nancy, she doesn't just run and scream but actively fights back. One interesting thing about this film that's lost in the sequels is the box itself, how it actually gives Kirsty what she wants (summoning the cenobites gives her a weapon against Frank, once he's gone it allows her to banish them) whereas later in the series it just becomes the box that makes Pinhead show up and do wacky shit. There's a lot of production issues that you have to see past to appreciate the rest of it (the weird dubbing, inconsistent acting, awful cgi) but it says a lot for the practical effects and certain parts of the writing (that scene where Kirsty meets the cenobites for the first time is still one of the best in any horror film) that it blew up despite all the other issues.
Subscribed. Love Clive barker.
Thanks so much!
I saw this movie for the first time last year or so, and my thoughts mirror your entirely.
There was a weird soapy feel to some of the acting and all that, but I liked most of the effects and the premise and so on.
Hope you keep making more of these! (saw The Fly and The Thing)
Also, you're a dead ringer for a '70s Meryl Streep, especially with your portrait being the corner.
I’ve gotten the Meryl Streep comparison before, what a legend, I’ll take it!
Glad I’m not the only one who felt this was about the movie
I like this movie and I excited to see the HBO show
This movie is my fave horror movie of all time. And the remake of Dawn Of The Dead 2004.
I have equally mixed feelings about this movie, and I struggle to understand why it falls short for me. I feel like the movie focuses too much on the love triangle, and not enough on these mysterious Cenobites. But maybe focusing on them too much would rob them of their mystery, the very thing that makes them interesting. 🤔
I assume because this is a British production they dubbed a lot of actors to have an American accent but it's so awkward. Weird production decisions aside it's a very interesting movie, and I think the sequel really improves on all fronts. Ashley Laurence is great though, definitely one of my favorite "final girls" across all the franchises
Also some scenes are obviously set in the UK, even the house is very UK-ish. The film has a weird mid Atlantic feel which was obviously a production thing but I thought it created a cool weird vibe.
Has anyone ever told you that you look like Kate Winslet? Just found your channel. Love seeing someone who isn't a Barker freak interpret this movie. You pointed out the glaring flaws (I love this movie, but it has flaws.) Subbed!
Thank you!
I learned a long time ago not to think too hard with horror movies, you'll only end up disappointed. Some people just have difficulty with abstract ideas.
After Hellraiser 2 you definitely get diminishing returns from each subsequent sequel, but they’re just a guilty pleasure that I know I can reliably go through and be entertained. But if I only had to watch one sequel after 2, it’d have to be Bloodlines.
I think you look a lot like Kate Winslet
Not sure if you’re aware, but a channel by the name of Geneva Rayborn has taken and reuploaded a few of your videos
Oh no I didn’t know, thanks for the heads up
you should try "Lord of Illusions" -- also by Clive Barker, but not as much body horror and significantly better production and scripting, stars Scott Bakula.
What Clive Barker told Ashley Laurence "You're psychotic uncle has killed your father and is now in his skin and wants to kill you then have sex with you in that order" before they did the rehearsal. It's a shame they ran out of money because yes that ending is rather weak. Also the reason some of the performances are kinda strange was also a monetary issue they only had enough time and budget to do a maximum of two takes for each scene so it was a scramble at times. Clive Barker swore off directing anymore Hellraiser movies ever again after the horrible experience he had with it and he won't even talk about it anymore.
The most stupid thing about the dubbing in this film is that Frank wearing Larry's skin has Larry's voice too. Why not just get the guy dubbing Frank to dub those lines too? or better yet, get Andrew Robinson to dub Frank in the first place, doing a slightly different voice since they are brothers after all.
I hate that Pinhead's fingernails look manicured.
I wish Hollywood could focus on tuning up stuff like this instead of trying to cash in on all the old good stuff again and again...
If it ain't broke, don't fix it; this 1 they can tinker with.
The film certainly is more conceptual, rather than story or character driven. But what a concept, ya know? Everyone has a curiosity of what Hell could be. If you are religious, it's probably very different than if you aren't. And then there's the notion that Hell can just be tailored to a person's individual fear.
Beyond that, there is the idea of the things people deem as accepted vs. forbidden. What if a person desires that which is forbidden over what is accepted? Would that person choose Hell over Heaven?
I have read that Clive Barker was a young gay man, in New York for the first time in the late 70s and early 80s, when he wrote "The Hellbound Heart," which this film is based on. Also, that he became drawn to some of the leather and S&M bars and clubs in the city, back then. His drive to explore the dichotomy between what was "forbidden" and what was "accepted," kind of became the themes of his novel.
By the mid-80s, when they set out to make the film, they shot in England, to sub for America. I think the reasons were financial. But shooting in England meant that they had to hire a nearly all English cast and crew. Barker himself is English, so that base was covered. Of the cast, I think only the dad and Christie were played by Americans. This meant that the rest of the cast were Brits playing Americans, adopting American accents. Also, I believe they shot "MOS" (i.e. shooting without capturing sound live; intending to dub the dialogue in post production). I do not think they shot MOS to accommodate the accent situation; it was probably a budgetary consideration. If you aren't required to capture sound accurately on the day, you can schedule a lot more setups (shots) per day, and therefore finish shooting the movie sooner and save a ton of dough.
So, this was a super-round-about way of explaining why the actor's dialogue might've come off as stilted and stiff. They had to dub their whole role later in a sound booth.
Shooting MOS and dubbing later was a pretty common practice for many foreign films, though not the case for American or, usually, British films. Why they chose to do it with Hellraiser, again, I think had to do with keeping costs low.
Anyway, really loving the channel. You have some interesting takes on these movies. Please keep it going.
Sometimes, I wonder if what I call mine is actually my Hell. Perhaps, I died a long time ago and this is my punishment. The worst part is experiencing a taste of Heaven knowing how much better it can be
You should check out the screenplay too. Written by Barker in his usual florid style so it almost reads like an abridged (or reimagined) version of the novella. Yes, I'm still binging your videos 🤣
Great reaction, looking forward to future reactions. New subscriber here🤘😎🤘
Perfect for Halloween watching! (both the reaction and the movie)
frank gets the skin of his brother ,you can see when kirsty scratches him as the strip of skin is released ,it still not completely attached,,
if Frank had had enough time he would have drained enough victims to become himself 100%. But once Kirsty escaped with the box he knew his time was short. So instead of draining Larry, they killed and skinned him. He's literally wearing Larry's skin, Frank is still incomplete.
This is why Larry's skin isn't decomposed, but why Julia's was. He was draining her as he did the other victims before Larry.
maybe frank would not been able to eat more food and would be forever sucking blood
I've always wondered if Frank's victims go to Hell or not
@@SamuelBlack84 its a good question,but its not hell its just a dimension of this beings ,the cenobites,,i think the word hell in this story its just a comparison,..like the title of the movie hellraiser,its for frank cotton,A man who is always a trouble maker and treats woman badly using them for sex and they keep coming back to him....
@@SamuelBlack84 ¿do you know what is the big nonsense in hellraiser for me?after frank opens the puzle box invoking the cenobites and being torn apart,the homeless guard dont go to the attic house and recovers the puzle box to take it to the chinese seller.....the box stays 10 years there............
@@SamuelBlack84 ¿do you think in franks opening puzle box and gets torn by the hooks is not real?i mean it just tells you what hapens to frank summarizing it,for not having to show you 2 times the same torn apart and leaving the suspense to the final confrontation
Greetings from New Jersey. Just discovered your channel. Great reaction. Yes, Hellraiser is a favorite horror movie of mine. Definitely check out Hellraiser 2. 3 is not as good but still worth a watch. Skip the rest of the sequels. Keep up the good work.
I find it interesting that you like the makeup so much. I feel the same way. Digital is really good for like fast action, but for close ups, I wish they would do more makeup. It just looks so much more intense. The digital is just too fake, cartoony even.
Clive Barker is an immensely talented novelist. Too bad his brand of horror isn't my cup of tea.
Hellraiser was really good, what do you mean?
definetly check out Hellbound Hellraiser II and Hellraiser III Hell on Earth. Check out the documentary on shudder called Leviathan story of hellraiser and hellbound hellraiser 2
This movie desperately needed a skilled director and a budget. The acting is really no better or worse than the norm for low budget horror movies of the time. (except for that horrible dub of young Frank's voice. Ugh.) To me what makes this movie really impressive beyond simply adapting a brilliant writer's work is what they WERE able to accomplish with next to no money and in spite of the fact that half the people on set had literally no idea what they were doing.
Great point acknowledging the budget. That young Frank dub is just the most hahaha
I highly recommend reading some Barker, a true Horror master whose work is not easily translated to film ❤ *liked and followed
Thanks for the support!
. 14:48 😂
If you get a chance you should read the book Hellraiser is based on,Hellbound Heart. What Frank goes through when he's being pulled apart is described in greater detail.
Hellraiser 5 is the best one 😊
Have u got your roots sorted out yet????
The reason for the bad acting is because of the director Clive Barker. He was a brilliant writer but he wasn't so much an experienced director because of being new in the movie business.
Then, why have an amateur do it?
According to the story, they had the actor speak, but the producers thought it would be better with an "american" accent, rather than the british one, to make it more US friendly. and so yeah it was dubbed by another actor..
Frank thought he was doing it to attract some female cenobites, but.. erm they have gone beyond anything else.. he wanted some bondage but erm the cenobites cant differentiate pain and pleasure he founf out a little too late they were so very very extreme (the short story goes into more detail)
You're supposed to clip the mic onto your collar!
I know 😂 my hair kept hitting it in my test runs. I got so over it I just decided to hold it.
ok ¿you want more to know about the cenobites and the lament configuration?well thats the thing when the authentic stories they go to waste,,leaving it that way would have been the best,is when we enjoy debating and imagining.....hellbound 88 destroyit everything.....
for example,..the same happened with alien 79 and its alien spacecraft and its mummified occupant...ridley scott destroyit everything with prometheus and covenant
just for money making
the score
I always enjoyed 2 and 3 so keep going if you can.
The music was very Beatlejuice.
What would Beetlejuice think of the Cenobites?
You look a little like Kate Winslet.
Leighton Meester 💕
Hiya, just recently found your channel, great stuff. It's fine to not like something, but you did say why some of us love this. I thing age is one, the book it's brilliant and this was done on a very small budget and it was amazing what they pulled off. So, two things, this isn't body horror. The horror in this story/film isn't pinhead and his buddy's, its the woman that's the horror. All good keep going cos you doing well.
Oh boy.. ;) the 2nd one is turned upto 11 and being a gorehound gore doesnt bother me that much but in the 2nd on one part icks me out.
Please react to: Memento. Shutter Island. The Jacket.
A horror classic. You might like some of the sequels.
Hellraiser II and Hellraiser Inferno are some of the better put together films. ⛓️
Skinless frank was played by a different, skinnier actor and dubbed.
I have always heard a lot about this film, been told it is a cerebral conundrum, and quite the trip. Sadly, I could not get invested into the narrative as none of the characters spoke enough to me to care for any of them, so I felt as if I were merely a passer by viewing from the side-lines, and just wanted them all to get it to be honest ha ha.
I think horror is one genre in which forming a connection to a character is important to actually heighten the terror, or anxiety. Sure jump scares and atmosphere go a long way, but when you care, then the scare, holds more power and amplifies.
The Cenobites are certainly interesting, and funnily enough, in only a few scenes they drew more from me and actually made me watch the screen.
In terms of acting, this is a strange film, it reminds me of some Giallo or Spanish horror films of the 70's, the shame is that the Cenobites were able to express more than the leads imo. Reminds me a bit of Demons (1985) An Italian film.
Some of the practical effects were cool, but I don't know if I will venture further into the series, I think the title character is so much larger than the films, so has become more revered over the years, or perhaps those who grew up with this hold it close, or maybe even the other films are amazing, I don't know, just did not do what I expected, which is something that happens when expectations are too high I guess.
Here are a few other Horror films I have seen recently if you are interested, I see you mentioned that psychological horror is what intrigues you most, that particular style is pretty difficult to find, especially something new or unseen, on those rare times you do find a film that stays with you, gnawing at your subconscious for weeks, it is a terrifying treat.
Anyway, cool video, you see things I did not, always good to find someone who views things with a different perspective.
Here is the list, some cheese, some gore, some very good, some not great ha ha.
Rituals (1977)
Dead and Buried (1981)
Wolfen (1981)
Thesis (1996)
Jacob's Ladder (1990)
The Hidden (1987)
Next of Kin (1982)
I have been meaning to see Jacob’s Ladder!
Thanks for your thoughts. I agree about character development being important to me as well to get invested.
You rationalize everything because your brain is trying to overcome the feeling of fear. It's a psychological defense mechanism.
Nah, I love art that actually has no purpose. But most films have intention, even as bizarre as Eraserhead. There is clear action by motivations in this film. It’s just explained very poorly in some parts.
@@ScaredPale agree, but if you loved art that has no purpose then you would enjoy this movie without questions. Now you try to rationalize why you rationalize everything. But still liked your reaction, you're different.
P.S. If you haven't seen it, go and watch the Korean film the ''Call''. It's the best psychological sci-fi thriller of 2020.
@@eldenringnew I don't love all art that has no meaning. But I love that you love this movie. I can totally respect why people love this movie. I've been meaning to get into more Korean films! I love Train to Busan and of course Parasite. Korean films don't enough credit in mainstream america. I will definitely look into Call!
@@eldenringnew Oh it looks like it's on Netflix!
@@ScaredPale yes, I'd love to see your reaction on that.
Just watch the second one. Cenobotes get a backstory.
You said you were more into psychological horror. John Carpenter's The Thing. Stanley Kubrick The Shining and The Exorcists are pretty decent psychological horror movies if you haven't seen them.
Clive Barker has the same problem David Lynch does. Their films are visually interesting, but their characters and dialogue are cookie cutter and boring.
I think Julia was all slimy and gory because Frank sucked the life from her, just like the guys in the attic. Much less gore for gore's sake. The acting is more than fine imo.
Will you be able to react to my favorite Hellraiser movie
Hellraiser inferno ?
My 2 cents:
You ain't wrong. It's a terribly made movie... But it got cult status because of the effects and subject matter, nothing more. The acting, the ADR, the house set... It's all shit. But the topic, cenobytes and the effects saved it. People love it because they feel they have to :/ It's "okay" as far as movies go.
You've really stumbled on the primary weakness of Clive Barker's writing in general. I read his Books of Blood series before I saw the movies. They're a collection of his short stories, but they are a perfect way of understanding him overall. He comes up with fascinating story ideas. They're weird, and interesting, and you want to know more. But he has no grasp of character. He doesn't seem to be able to make you can about his characters. So-and-so dies, and you feel like, "Meh, that happened." His movies seem to be the same way. You can't care about the characters, but the ideas are so interesting, you kind of go along with it.
The first one was wack as fuck, I'll admit but Hellraiser inferno was killer
IT'S A HORROR MOVIE! IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO MAKE SENSE!
The best ones do though for me :)
This did make sense though.
You're both wrong lol.
Bad acting? Bad writing? Welcome to 80s horror. The practical effects were pretty cool for the time though. I think the exploitation or "shock" element is kind of what people like about it. I'm a horror nut myself and this wasn't at all what I was expecting but I didn't hate it either. There was such a stink surrounding horror at the time that it was getting stale. Clive Barker said "if we have to make a bad movie, let's make a BAD movie". Remember this was the decade when Stephen King elevated to a master of horror, when some of his earlier stuff probably felt a little more like simple exploitation just because he was writing "good" stories that happened to be "horror".
Haha so true. I love Stephen King and definitely lean towards, like you said, the “good stories” that happen to be horror. That’s why I love Ari Asters stuff. 80’s horror was before my time but I’m actually excited to dive into it more to understand it. Because they’re definitely fun!
@@ScaredPale Ari Aster is a sick man but SO good. I also like the Austrian couple that did GOODNIGHT MOMMY and THE LODGE. 80s stuff you should definitely check out if you haven't already: JOHN CARPENTER'S THE THING, PET SEMATARY, CHILD'S PLAY, A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STEET (I personally love the whole franchise but it's not for everyone; also I think it started in the 70s). I would have to include DEMON KNIGHT as well, although that was technically 90s.
@@ScaredPale It's not that the acting is bad; it's that all of the voices except for Kristy's are dubbed as you first suspected. The other actors are English and they wanted to give them American accents so it would sell better in the states.