Enter Bianca Walworth

Manhattan Girls: Gwen's Reverie

Hellraiser (1987)

In 1986, fantasy horror writer Clive Barker wrote the chilling novella The Hellbound Heart. After the publication, he would later turn it into a script, in which it became the basis of the spine-tingling gorefest Hellraiser.
When I was a kid I was too scared to watch this or any of the movies. It's just something about Pinhead that freaked me out. Well, all of the horrormeisters of the 80's, such as Micheal, Jason, and Freddy, all freaked me out. But it was Pinhead, in particular, that gave me the chills. It's just something about his chalk white skin, ominous stare, and mutilated-pined face. Ugh, I couldn't bear to look at him. By the time I was around 12 or 13, I was finally able to watch this through.
And...This is probably the most visually striking horror movie I've seen in a long time. It's horror at it's finest. The violence and gore cuts skin deep, it's really extreme. The MPAA probably had a field day cutting out the more gruesome scenes, I amazed that some of the footage went through.
But what really stood out to me was the story. Everything just flows well. The character development, the plot, the conflict, the climax, everything.

This is why I think Clive Barker is one of the best horror writers since Stephen King. He really takes you into another world with his writing, combing the feeling of what's being captured on screen. This is why the first one is the best of the series because, without Clive Barker, the movie's identity is lost.
The Story: Married couple, Larry and Julia Cotton, just moved into a new home, unbeknownst to the strange going-on in the house. One night, Julia curiously goes up to the attic, only to find her former lover and Larry's brother, Frank, very much alive but horribly skinless, having escaped from a hellish dimension. In order to make his body whole, Julia must lure men for Frank to suck their body organs. Larry's teenage daughter Kristy, unfortunately, finds herself caught up in Frank and Julia's twisted web of deceit. And after escaping from Frank's grip, Kristy finds a puzzle box that soon unleashes a league of blood-thirsty demons known as the Cenobites. Now it's up to Kristy to save her father from Frank and Julia's diabolical plan and put Frank back to hell. Once and for all.

The cast is phenomenal. The stronger performances come from Andrew Robinson and even Doug Bradley.

But let's start with the main hook of the story which is Frank and Julia.

Claire Higgins actually did a good job of portraying the character of Julia. Her fear, her reluctance, her path to the dark side was all captured splendidly. The character of Julia within the novel is pretty much the same. This bored, unsatisfied woman who wants excitement and passion gets what she's bargained for once she meets Frank. And when Julia is caught up in Frank's sexual dominance, that's when all hell breaks loose. That's pretty much the description of her character. A woman who falls into lust but turns evil because of it.

Sean Chapman was delicious as Frank. He definitely conveys that bad boy edge and very hot to boot. Although he has little screen time in the role, Sean Chapman does have a seductive presence, fitting right at home with a character like this.

Frank in the novel is not particularly the hot, sexy stud you see on film. He's an average-looking man with a stocky build but it's really his raw masculinity and aggressive nature is what Julia finds attractive. Frank is pretty much a thrillseeker, finding anything that quenches his thirst. Once he discovers the puzzle box, it unleashes a force he can't reckon with, which in turn banishes him into an eternal hell. Once he escapes the wrath of the cenobites, he too turns toward a path of darkness.

Andrew Robinson was sensational in his dual roles.  He's probably the most versatile actor, playing victim and villain in one movie. He's quite likable as Larry, being the kind, jolly everyman that would say dry jokes at the dinner table.

And in all honesty, he and Julia are a total mismatch as Julia would fit at home in Dynasty than Leave It To Beaver.

Rory (his name in the novel) and Larry don't really have much characterization beyond just being boring and bland but Andrew Robinson put more into the role and you feel sympathetic to him. And like I said, Larry and Julia, total mismatch, wherein both versions, Frank and Julia plot to kill and take Larry's skin.

That's where Andrew Robinson's roles switch and he is TERRIFYING as Frank. With his lecherous stare and diabolical grin, is darkly gleeful.

The Jesus wept line when his body brutally hooked in chains, gave me the chills. It was actually Andrew Robinson's idea to put that in the script. What a genius. He is clearly the strongest actor in the film.

Lastly, we have Kristy, Larry's daughter. I thought Ashely Laurance did a really good job of capturing the vulnerability of her character.
But now comes the strange part about her. In the novel, Kristy is Rory's (remember that's Larry) friend who happens to have had a crush on him. Weird considering that's she's his daughter in the movie but aged younger. However, I do like the changes that were made to the character. Making her Larry's daughter puts more stake to the plot, giving her a much more cohesive motivation for Kristy to save Larry as oppose to a twenty-six-year-old woman trying to save the guy she had a crush on from the hell dimension. It gives the two characters more of a connection by making them child and parent.

There are also personality differences as well. Kristy is a lot feistier in the movie and I  kind of like that. She really seems like the kind of girl that doesn't take any crap.

Okay, let's just squeeze this in. I did not care for Steven. There really is no purpose to his character other than being Kristy's love interest. I guess the producers needed something or someone to add with Kristy into the story and I guess they added a love interest just because. What makes this character even more laughable, is that he just shows up at the end, suddenly becoming dragged into the story. How convenient.
Okay, I have saved the best for last and now I introduce to you...

The Cenobites!

Ahh! what incredible make-up effects and costumes. Only Clive Barker would have a vision like this. The near-sight of these creatures are ghastly and immaculate at the same time.

But I guess the real star of the film is Pinhead himself. He doesn't quite have a role in this, but every time he's on screen, he has such an intimidating, commanding presence. This was Doug Bradley's first major role, and boy, is he good. Just like Andrew Robinson, Doug Bradley gives this in-demand performance, taking the character of Pinhead and rolling with it. This is why he made Pinhead so iconic. 

The score is phenomenal. Bursting with this strong operatic flare, taking you into an adventurous but dangerous territory.

Fun fact! Clive Barker had no experience in film directing but what he showcases is definitely the most gruesome yet gorgeous imagery that's ever captured in horror.

For example, the scene when Frank escapes from hell by the drop of his brother's blood, morphing into a skeletal beast. This was one of the best special effects work I've seen a long time. They don't make it like this anymore. 

The scenes are of ambiance, it's mysterious and it gets under the skin, probably something that no audience in 1987 haven't seen before. For Clive Barker to be involved with every waking moment in this film is awe-inspiring, which is why he is known today as a cult film director. 

Trivia Time!

The film was originally supposed to be called The Hellbound Heart, named after the novella it was based upon. However, the studio decided that the title sounded too much like a romance. Ironic, considering the gist of the plot is based on a love affair albeit a destructive one. So Barker went with another title which was, Sadomasochists from Beyond the Grave, which sounds like a Roger Corman B-movie title But then the funny part is, a female crew member suggested, "What a Woman would Do for a Good Fuck." Ha, fitting.
Doug Bradley's character was named, "The Priest," in the earlier drafts of the script and ultimately, simply became "Lead Cenobite" in the shooting script. This was at the time where the "Lead Cenobite" wasn't an established character yet. So the name "Pinhead" became sort of a street cred name, which Clive Barker disliked. And so later when the series was developed in comic book form, Pinhead was referenced to "Priest."
The concept of a cube being used as a portal to hell was the basis of the urban legend, The Devil's Toy Box.
Doug Bradley was originally offered the choice of roles between one of the mattress movers and the lead cenobite. Being a new film actor, he thought it was important for the audience to see his face, so he nearly turned down the role of the Lead Cenobite. And thank god, he didn't.
The film had a budget of 1 million but made 20 million at the box office. This was Clive Barker directing debut, who only made two short films prior to this.
So those are my thoughts on Hellraiser. Nowadays, people just think it's an okay film along with the onslaught of lackluster sequels that came after it. But I think it's an astonishing effort by Clive Barker. His first film is really good at building the characters and the world around them. No other writer or director would even think of creating a concept like this. That is why Hellraiser remains as an 80's cult classic.

Hellraiser on Halloween

I know I'm a little late on this but in the following week, I will showcase all four of the Hellraiser movies. Yes, I said four. I know there's like five or six more sequels but I feel that the first four are more connected story-wise as to the rest of the sequels were stand-alone scripts with Pinhead attached to them.
The thing about the Hellraiser movies is that it could've been so much more. The first, especially, had an interesting story that hooks you in instantly. And even though there are some people who are mixed on the second one, I still liked that it added more to the story on a wider scale. To be honest, the Hellraiser franchise is kind of a mess and probably would've worked better with just four movies. So without further ado, I will begin the reviews...

Bonus Trailers

Oh Yes! I am happy to announce that the new Halloween movie is in Theaters and the trailer looks awesome. So glad they'd bring back badass Laurie, it's just what I needed. You go, Jamie Lee Curtis! You go!

And I never thought I say this about a remake but the Suspira remake looks kind of good, very artsy. Dakota Johnson is perfect as the lead. And Tilda Swinton is in this movie too! Hell yes, I am on board!

Charmed (2018)

Charmed was one of my favorite shows growing up. Although it's not the best-written show ever, at least I had fun watching it. The first four seasons in particular.
From hearing that show was getting a remake is odd to me. It's been twelve years ago since the show has been canceled, so why remake it now? Even the original actors disagree with this.

From the look of the trailer, It felt as if I was watching a Disney version of Charmed. At least 90's charmed had a bit of edge to it you know. Now I will say this, I am happy to see a diverse cast this time but the thing is, it's never explored. What I liked about the original is how they go into depth about their family ancestry through their witchcraft, tapping into Irish folklore and history. Since the witches in this version are Latin/Carribean/African, why not have them as Island witches from centuries past? Why not get into the basics of Vodoo, Santeria, or Wicca beyond just having powers? If Charmed was to be more cultural, why not delve into that?

Another thing I found disappointing with this trailer is the special effects. Now I know there wasn't anything "special" about the effects in the original but it literally looks like they cut and paste the CGI images.

Now let's get to the new cast. By the way of the acting, it's kind of bland. The script's dialogue really doesn't do the actresses any favors.

Within the entire trailer, the whole plot is explained by a British guy (who comes off like a puesdo-Giles) who happens to be an advisor or some sort, while the girls are being tied up in chairs. How does that make any sense? Pretty much the entire plot is shown and explained to us, which kind of spoils everything. There is just no mystery at all. The thing about the original Charmed, mainly in the first three seasons, is that it had heart. And I feel the true heart of the show was Constance M. Burge. Without her, I think that's when the show fell off a bit in my opinion. The people behind this didn't even THINK to bring her on board or even have her to be a consultant. It's a shame when headshots remake something and don't care to have the original creator involved.
But sadly, what's done is done and just have to see the results in the pilot episode so I might share my thoughts on this soon. Wish me luck!

Heathers (2018)

The 1988 teen comedy Heathers was one of my favorite movies as a kid. Winona Ryder was at the top of her game and I was gradually a fan of hers.

The thing about the movie was that it wasn't you're typical happy-go-lucky 80's teen comedy. It was pretty dark in some places. It actually had THEMES. Suicide, teen angst, depression, corruption. Heathers is probably the best-written teen comedy of that decade and it's truly an all-time classic.
Come to my surprise that the Columbia TV streaming service is making a television series and judging by the trailer, not a good one at that.
Now what makes the original memorable is the insatiable witty dialogue in which this show fails to match. It just seems so forced and the jokes fall flat.

What they also did differently was cram in a lot of SJW agenda. The Heathers in the original was your typical hot cosmopolitan-type of girls. In this version, the main Heather is an overly confident plus-sized girl, the second Heather is a gossipy gay guy, and the third Heather is an African-American Lesbian. This could work if it was executed well. Yes, I do see potential in this, I mean what if the main Heather was this bullied girl who suddenly became popular by chance and uses her newly found puberty by showing off her hips, curves, and sexuality to get her way. But no, pretty much all of the Heathers are portrayed as obnoxious and don't seem like complexed characters.

And as for the two leads, they are tragically bland and does not match the charisma of Winona Ryder. Very, very poor choices.
Just the thought of making a series out of this just seems way out of bounds. How can you make a day to day story arc from a simplistic plot like Heathers? It just doesn't fit. And If this has a second season, where to go from here?
All I have to say is it's just a TV show with the same name. Nothing more, nothing less.
Just by the trailer, I don't recommend this.