Review of Hellraiser (1987) by Adam T — 14 Nov 2009

I think Hellraiser is a victim of it's time. Of all the popular low budget horror movies of the 80's, this particular one has recieved more criticism for some of it's dated effects and it's weaknesses have levied the popularity of this movie inexplicably. People split right down the centre with this one Maybe it's because other horror franchises have had chance to polarise of technical and plot limitations with numerous sequels, whearas Hellraiser's sequels have if anything damaged the original unique legacy of Barker's vision [even though he involved himself with some of the sequels in a lazy producer fashion]. From the dodgy creatures to even the 80's fashion! All foibles of low budget movie making of the time, and if that spoils the movie for you as compared to today's lofty standards, your just not a movie fan. What you should revel in is it's superior moments that warrants it's status amid it's constraints.

Of course people rightfully complain of some of it's understandable flaws accountable to a movie of it's time and budget restraints. While Frank and the Cenobite's makeup is perfectly executed, I was never a fan of the Engineer in Hellraiser and felt it was a bit of a cop out to put a full blown Hellish creature in a movie which didn't need it and gained it's power from original ideas and not humdrum filler [although the end confrontation when it lands a knuckle sandwhich on Kirsty's boyfriend is a constant source of amusement and Kirsty's initial walk into one of the Labyrinth's walkways was effectively executed]. I thought the way the Cenobites were finally rid from Kirsty lost some of the movie's dynamics, and in fact much of what occurs after Frank's dismemberment take away from those striking images you were initially left with. But it is also clear that was the point Barker and co just lost budget.

Complaints from naysayers such as an uncohesive plot, wooden acting and bad dubbing are just enhanced complaints. Any actual dubbing never necessarily bothered me, it's quite nice to actually hear audibly what characters are saying in a movie of this budget. I think accusations of bad acting are actually a product of those who wished to link in actual weaknesses with the movie with factors that are not a problem to diss the movie overall. This horror movie actually has strong performances from most if not all the leads, if not strong characterizations which aren't necessarily needed in a picture of this. And the ideas in this movie are involving rather than black and white clear to those not used to an extreme definitive vision of this nature. You get it, you don't, like with most original horror pictures that don't run along the usual cue of the slasher/monster vehicle. You want plot ambiguity, try Phantasm!

The ideas are executed authentically and powerfully, detail is given to cinematrography, editing and sound and image impact. It has probalby the strongest score to an 80's low budget horror movie, avoiding dated synth or minimalist scoring in favour of Chris Young orcheastrical score adding and epicness to a virtual one location picture and scenes such as Frank's Birth [probably horror's most unique birth or regeneration] unites all of Barker's weird, quirky,passionate, darkly humorous and of course horrific elements. Just check out Coil's interesting if overall bland in tone proposed score and picture the movie's opening credits to theme to appreciate the power Young's score lends to Hellraiser. I think the opening 5 minutes to the picture grabs you with authority even to this day, and the makeup is visceral, elegantly twisted and executed with detail and care.

For those looking for guaranteed horror enjoyment for ninety minutes, you could do far worse than Clive Barker's Hellraiser. I don't think the film is void of any elements a horror fan will appreciate and is a pefect example of low budget 80's horror moviemaking when they got it right!