Hellraiser III: Hell on Earth (1992)

Hellraiser III: Hell on Earth (1992)

Director: Anthony Hickox

Cast: Doug Bradley, Kevin Bernhardt, Pala Marshall, Terry Farrell

In the Hellraiser universe, continuity doesn’t really matter much. They give you the illusion that there’s continuity because they’ll start with a recap of the previous film, or they’ll mention some character from the previous film, but believe me, it’s all an illusion. In the Hellraiser franchise, each film exists within the universe that Clive Barker created but each film brings its own characters in and eliminates anything established by the previous film. By way of an example, just when you think Hellbound: HellraiserII (1989) is going to give us a bit of continuity because it brought back the character of Julia Cotton, they go and kill her off, eliminating with no amount of respect, characters and situations established on the first film. It seems like the only constant in these films are The Cenobytes and the Lament Configuration. Well, Hellraiser III: Hell on Earth (1992) does the same; it ignores previous films, avoiding any sort of continuity and presents us with an entirely new set of characters. How did this third outing in the franchise turn out?

This time around, the lead Cenobyte a.k.a. ‘Pinhead’ is trapped inside of a sculpture. How did Pinhead end up in a sculpture? Who put him there and why? Never mind these questions because the filmmakers never bother to answer them. You’re asked to accept the fact that Pinhead is a sculpture now and that’s that. It feels like the filmmakers simply said “You know what would look cool? Pinhead trapped in a sculpture! Let’s go with that! I like it!” They didn’t care if this concept made sense or not, or if it fit with what had happened to the character on previous films, they just went with it. Then we are presented with J.P., the owner of a New York dance club called ‘The Boiler Room’. J.P. also happens to be an art collector. One day, while visiting an art gallery, J.P. stumbles upon the sculpture in which Pinhead is trapped in and buys it. Little does J.P. know that he’s bringing ole Pinhead home with him. Similar to previous Hellraiser films, you have to feed the demon in order for it to become flesh. What happens when Pinhead is released from the sculpture?

The idea behind this film is that hell will come to earth. Sounds epic and grand don’t it? This epic premise was a giant red flag for me because if there’s one problem I’ve always had with the Hellraiser films is that they are big on ideas but small on budgets. As a result, even though their concept might be grand, what they actually get to shoot looks cheap. Take for example the premise for this film, what is ‘Hell on Earth’ reduced to in this film? Hell on Earth translates to the main character running through a deserted city street while man holes explode and fire comes out of them, a few windows explode and that’s it; kind of small scale for “Hell on Earth” wouldn’t you say? My point being there’s no grand scope to the concept even though it should’ve been grand. You’re left wanting more, disappointed. Something all Hellraiser sequels do.

Hellbound: Hellraiser II (1988) left us without our favorite Cenobytes. For some reason the filmmakers behind that film decided to eliminate everything that Clive Barker had established on the first Hellraiser film. They killed off all the memorable Cenobytes from the first film, even Pinhead himself! Yet here is Pinhead, alive and kicking on this film. Why didn’t all the other Cenobytes return as well? I guess it was just an excuse to present us with a bunch of new Cenobytes, which sadly are not better then the originals. Let’s see, we get a Cenobyte that kills with the lens of a video camera that pops out of his right eye. There’s a cd spewing Cenobyte which feels so out dated now that CD’s are disappearing. Worst part is that these new Cenobytes are on the film for only five minutes, they are sent back to hell in the blink of an eye…and again you are left wanting. It’s as if they really didn’t think of interesting situations to put these characters in. The main character (a reporter trying to get to the bottom of things) gets rid of the Cenobytes so easily, that you never feel she’s in any sort of peril. And we’re talking about 5 or six Cenobytes with deadly weapons against one human female! It seemed like lazy filmmaking to me, there was no intent to shoot something worthwhile. Cool make up effects do not make a movie my friends. You need tense situations, you need complexities.

Is there anything positive to say about Hellraiser III: Hell on Earth? Well, not really. It feels like a lame-o sequel when compared to the original first film. At least the second one entertained with the ultra gory violence, which by the way is considerably toned down for this third entry. That edge, that feeling of shock, of the forbidden is gone; it’s not on this sequel. There are a couple of cool moments in the film, like when Pinhead walks into a club and the Cenobytes start killing everyone in the club, but it feels restrained. It feels like a wasted opportunity, that whole scene could have been so much more. Okay, I did like those scenes in which Pinhead fights himself. It’s like Pinhead the evil demon vs. the human side of Pinhead, who he used to be before he became a servant of hell. That concept was cool. The film does get sacrilegious at times; there’s a scene in which Pinhead walks into a church and starts bashing down crosses and cackling away like a mad man, but sadly these scenes amount to nothing but having Pinhead pose. The only purpose this film serves is to show us exactly what a cash in is. It kind of makes sense that the director for this film is Anthony Hickox, during the 90's, he was one of the go to directors for cheap horror sequels like Waxwork II: Lost in Time (1992) and Warlock: The Armageddon (1993). Hellraiser: Hell on Earth (1988) proves what I’ve been saying all along about the Hellraiser franchise, that after the first film, all Hellraiser sequels have gone from bad to worse with each consecutive film. It’s a good example of a franchise being treated like a cheap whore and being bled to death.  

Rating: 2 ½ out of 5  

Hellraiser (1987)

Hellraiser (1987)

Director: Clive Barker

Cast: Andrew Robinson, Clare Higgins, Ashley Laurence, Sean Chapman, Doug Bradley

As I write this, it’s been almost thirty years since Clive Barker’s Hellraiser (1987) first opened the gates of hell, giving us a new horror icon to rival that of Freddy Krueger and Jason Voorhees. Weird part is that Clive Barker wasn’t aiming to create a horror icon for a new generation, he was simply adapting his novella ‘The Hellbound Heart’ into film, his intent wasn’t creating a horror icon that horror fans would embrace vehemently and ultimately christen “Pinhead”. And Pinhead it has stayed, even though Clive Barker himself says this name is not dignified enough for the character that Barker called ‘Priest’ in the first versions of the script. Still, the character caught the public’s imagination, and there it has stayed. As I write this, there have been 9 films inspired on Barker’s Hellraiser universe, with a tenth one in production hell. Sadly, none of these numerous sequels have been as good as the original Clive Barker directed film which still remains the best film in the lengthy franchise.

Honestly, I don’t think anything done today will be as good, horrifying or gory as the images that Barker conjured up in his directorial debut. Very rarely do extremely gory or overly sexual films make it to theaters today, which is why I say that Hellraiser is a rare film that we should relish and thank the movie gods for. To use a tired phrase “they just don’t make them like this anymore”, but it’s not for lack of trying. Modern horror filmmakers are constantly trying to make films like these, but they always end up straight to video, where most gore fests end up nowadays. I know Barker is currently trying to get Hellraiser properly remade, but if you ask me, the way Hollywood works today, this remake will never go theatrical. Barker would have to tone down the blood and gore and if he does that, then it won’t be Hellraiser anymore. Sad but true. That’s why I see films like Hellraiser as a rare jewel from one of the goriest decades in horror, the 80’s! A decade in which films like Hellraiser could end up in theater screens and get a sequel every year! Seeing it now, it’s such a shock to the system when compared to the light horror films seen today, which speaks volumes about the soft core crap that passes for horror today. I feel special for having grown up with these twisted/cool horror movies that titillated my young mind!

Hellraiser was another one of those horror movies that as a 12 year old kid, I wasn’t supposed to see, yet found a way to see anyway. My morbid curiosity peaked with these films. The themes explored in Hellraiser were deadly serious and adult, yet there I was, sucking it all in, absorbing the darkness that the world had to offer.Like the dark delights the Cenobytes brought to those who opened the Lament Configuration, so where these movies for me. Dark, hellish delights that presented my young mind with a side of the human psyche I knew nothing about, but was eager to discover. These films were all about uncontrolled passions and the lengths to which a person can go to in order to get ultimate pleasure. How far will a man or woman go for the ultimate ‘good fuck’? Pretty damn far that’s how far! The film has a thing or two to say about the banality of a boring marriage versus the intensity of amazing forbidden sex. It also plays with the idea that pain and pleasure are close bed partners concepts maybe a bit too profound or dark for my innocent little mind, but hey, there’s a first time for everything right?  In Hellraiser, the Lament Configuration is a puzzle box that opens the doors to a dimension where pain and pleasure are indivisible and whoever is dumb enough to solve the puzzle instantly regrets having done so, hence the ‘lament’ in its name. This idea that a supernatural artifact can open the gates to hell isn’t in a new one, other films have played with this premise: The Beyond (1981), City of the Living Dead (1980), The Gate (1987) and The Ninth Gate (1999) come to mind, but only Hellraiser mixes the whole thing with these themes of lust and desire.

This was Clive Barker’s first film so he was a rookie when he made it, he’s admitted to not knowning much about the intricacies of filmmaking at the time of making this picture, still, what he did have was the view point of an artist, a necessary quality to pull off a film like this one. Plus, he wrote the story the film is based on, and while it’s not always a great idea to put writers behind the camara, in this case it worked with hellish charm, because Barker is a painter and he treats the images he captures with his cameras as if he was layering one of his paintings. He showed promise with what he did with this film, and went on to show growth as a filmmaker in films like Nightbreed (1990) and Lord of Illussions (1995), my favorite Barker film. This first Hellraiser film is more aesthetically pleasing to the eye than any of the sequels in the franchise. The special make up effects are amazing on this one. The resurrection sequence, in which the character of Frank comes back to life is one of the high points of the film. I recently screened this film for an audience and that scene still makes hearts stop. It’s a show stealer. Where the film does have a few faults is in the visual effects department and Barker admits that these were done in a hurry to meet the schedule, and it’s a damn shame because when those cheesy visual effects show up, it brings the film down a few notches for me. Still, as a whole the film is solid, if it wasn’t for those cheesy visual effects I’d give the film a perfect score. But whatever, I love the film, warts and all as they say.

The success of Hellraiser spawned a sequel that started rolling mere weeks after Hellraiser proved a success in cinemas and so we got Hellbound: Hellraiser II (1988), a decent sequel that sadly wasn’t directed by Barker himself. Hellbound: Hellraiser II was messy in terms of story (last minute rewrites galore) and it had flaws in the visual effects department as well, but it gives us some of the best and bloodiest moments in the entire franchise and let’s not forget it also gave us Pinheads origin. For me this franchise was good up to Hellraiser III: Hell on Earth (1992), after that one, things started to really go downhill for the franchise, with each sequel being worse than the last. If you’re really bored, then the last one that’s “watchable” is Hellraiser: Bloodline (1996), the fourth film in the series. You know the franchise was on its last legs because on that one they sent Pinhead to space! If that isn’t the sign of a franchise running out of juice, I don’t know what is. After Hellraiser Bloodline, the franchise consists of extremely low budget films that were made from scripts that weren’t even Hellraiser scripts, they were horror scripts that the producers had laying around and converted into Hellraiser films. What’s one got to do to get a decent Hellraiser film nowadays? Go to hell to get one? Here’s hoping Barker successfully reboots this franchise and gives us a new dose of decent (or maybe even better?) Hellraiser films.

Rating: 4 out of 5  

    

Nightbreed: The Directors Cut (1990)

Nightbreed (1990)

Director: Clive Barker

Cast: Craig Schaffer, Anne Bobby, David Cronenberg, Doug Bradley

First time I saw Nightbreed was in theaters, way back in 1990. Back then I must’ve been thirteen or fourteen years old and while the film made a definitive impact on me, I also got the feeling that it was missing something. I mean, even the title sequence lets us know there were creatures that were filmed that never made it to the finished film, you got the feeling that more was filmed than what we ended up watching. Nightbreed had an epic feel to it, for a horror film anyways. Years later I would learn that Nightbreed was in fact a troubled production. Not from the creative side, because creatively it had energy and ideas to spare, but from the producing side. You see, the producers behind this film thought the film was ‘too weird’ and that it didn't play by the rules. Which of course was entirely true, Clive Barker meant to make a film that would turn the conventions of the traditional monster movie upside down! Sadly when a filmmaker wants to try something new, studios usually look down upon it, especially if it’s within the realm of horror and fantasy, two genres that are generally treated with disdain by producers and studios. In spite of its troubled post-production, plagued with creative differences, the studio still released the film.  How did it fare at the box office?

You might be asking yourself how can a producer read the script, greenlight the film and then not like the film that ends up getting made? My take on it is that producers probably said yes to Nightbreed because of the box office success of Barker’s previous film: Hellraiser (1987). They wanted Barker to produce another hit, they didn’t care what it was. But still, why greenlight a film only to give the filmmaker hell when they shoot the script that was approved? I mean, it was right there in black and white. Monsters, Midian, gore…why after its being filmed do they suddenly get cold feet? Did they even bother reading the script? Maybe once the shooting commenced they realized just what a strange and unorthodox film this was. Maybe then they realized that there’s no target audience to sell this movie to, it’s a blending of genres, its horror, it’s a love story, it’s a film in which the monsters are the heroes! And that last point is the one that irked producers the most; they didn’t know how to market a film in which the monsters are the “good guys”.

Another possible reason why this film was treated with such disdain by the studio had something to do with the films subversive message, the clear hatred towards authority and religious figures. I mean, this is a film in which a faithless priest ends up killing a cop! As you can see, many things lined up against Nightbreed which resulted in a shitty trailer that gave audiences the impression that this was a slasher film, even going as far as re-shooting some sequences to give it a slasher feel. And Nightbreed wasn't a slasher, it was a dark fantasy. And if there’s one thing audiences hate its being lied to. And so, the film tanked at the box office, this even though it was made with a mere 11 million dollar budget! In my opinion, a decent trailer and some faith in the filmmakers original vision would have increased Nightbreed’s chances of making a bit more money upon its release. I mean, sure it’s not a mainstream film, but it could have made more than 8 million, which is what it ended up making at the box office. 

  

But as if often happens, audiences discovered Nightbreed on home video and turned it into a cult classic. People love this movie so much that someone did their own cut of the film called “The Cabal Cut”  which included deleted scenes never seen on the theatrical cut! They even made special screenings to show this cut of the film. Fans have always wanted a director’s cut of this film, and well, their screams were heard because the fine gals and ghouls at Shout Factory made it possible. They gathered all the deleted scenes which were in a vault somewhere, they got the original cast to dub some new dialog and they re-edited the film which is now twenty whole minutes longer! And they got Clive Barker to oversee the whole process! How cool is all that!? Freaking sweet is what it is. But the question remained: which cut of the film is better? What are the differences between theatrical and directors cut?

The main thing with this new cut is: we get more monsters! I can’t believe they cut some of this stuff out, I guess they cut out the weirder looking monsters for whatever the reason, but there’s a ton of new monsters you never got to see before, even if just for a second, but they are finally here, which is of course cool because that’s what this whole film was always about, the monsters! This cut of the film is a bit gorier, but not by a whole lot. We get to see that Boone was a mechanic, and that Lori was a lounge singer, which is completely unnecessary for the film if you ask me. I mean, with regards to these two scenes where we see Lori and Boone during their day jobs, well, I can see why the studio thought that they could be cut out. We really didn't need to see Lori singing a whole song. But anyways, getting back to the good stuff, the biggest changes come during the ending of the film, which is all different. Scenes are switched around, and happen at an entirely different pace and order than in the original theatrical cut. We get to see extended scenes involving Baphomet, which I always wanted more of. I mean, Baphomet is the weirdest thing about the movie. What the hell is he exactly? I still don’t fully understand, but I wanted more and I got it. On this new cut certain characters have a different demise, and so we get to see them die in entirely different and violent ways. Priests turn evil (as they often do in Clive Barker films) and evil cops get their due, which is probably why these scenes were cut out, cops are depicted as evil, racist, violent bigots. There’s a lot of hatred on this film for intolerant bigots in general.  

The director's cut is a bit more violent!

And finally, the very ending of the film was changed drastically; Lori and Boone have more moments together and their relationship takes a very interesting twist that I loved. Basically, the film ends on an entirely different note, with the doors left open for a whole series of films to continue. I would have loved to see this series take off the way Barker had intended. After all, Barker wanted to make the “Star Wars of Monster Movies” and if that isn’t an enticing enough remark about Nightbreed, I don’t know what is. My only gripe with this cut is that they deleted the ending we saw in the theatrical release, the one in which Ashberry (the evil priest) puts his hands inside Decker’s chest and brings him back to life as Decker screams! When I originally saw the film, that ending had such an impact on me! I still love it, I wish it hadn’t been taken out, so you might want to hang on to your theatrical cut, because it still has that original ending which is pretty cool. But whatever, watching this directors cut is a real treat. And it’s a reason of celebration for Clive Barker fans and fans of the horror genre in general. While the film still retains its flaws, like for example it’s often times cheesy situations and dialog, Nightbreed still has a lot of heart, for underneath its monstrous exterior, this is a film about learning to accept each other for who we are. There is space in this world for all of us, isn’t there?

Rating: 4 out of 5