Hellraiser: Revelations

Having grown up with horror movies and been exposed to the numerous big horror franchises, I am no stranger to the "Hellraiser" movies, and must admit that I have been watching them ever since the first one came out. However, I am sad to say that since the third movie or so, the franchise has been on a steady declining spiral, and the stories have progressively strayed from the original idea.

This ninth movie was a bit of a surprise to me, as I came upon it by sheer luck. I hadn't even heard about it, and honestly, I thought they had finally put the franchise to rest after a number of disappointing movies. But I was wrong.

So I sat down to watch this movie, and I must admit that I was appalled to see that Doug Bradley wasn't in the role as Pinhead. That was an insult to us fans of the movies (or fans of the first handful of proper "Hellraiser" movies, at least). But still, I gave it a go.

That being said, I have got to be blunt honest. Doug Bradley was (and always will be) Pinhead. Stephan Smith Collins is a really bad substitute. I am not saying that he is a bad actor, as I am not familiar with his work outside this one movie, but he didn't have that diabolic charm and wit that Bradley brought to the Pinhead character. Nor did he have that iconic voice that we all have come to love (or fear, whichever you prefer). So the Pinhead portrayed in "Hellraiser: Revelations" was a mere cheap imitation of the original Pinhead.

As for the story in "Hellraiser: Revelations", one thing only has to be said: "are you kidding?" The story in this ninth installment was a rude insult and a downright copy of the storyline from the first movie. Sure the setting was changed and small adjustments made, but the overall storyline and plot was the exact same thing. Which leads me to ponder on whether or not this movie was necessary? Wouldn't it had been better to just let the franchise lie dormant? Surely this wasn't the best they could come up with. And also, just why did Doug Bradley pass on this? Leaves you with something to think about, doesn't it? And leaves you with a somewhat vile aftertaste in your mouth.

"Hellraiser: Revelations" dragged on forever, just retelling the story that we were introduced to in the first "Hellraiser" movie, so it was basically just pointless repetition. A way to introduce the franchise to new viewers? I don't know, but for us who have followed the growth and decline of the franchise, it was a rude slap on the face.

The movie leaves little room for the characters to develop and grow, despite the actors/actresses doing their best with their given parts. You just never really buy into the characters, and they are lacking depth and credibility.

Having seen every single "Hellraiser" movie since the very first, this one is without a doubt the most boring, pointless and far-strayed from the original plot. It is worth a watch if you want to see it just to have watched all of the movies, but that is about it. There is nothing new here; everything is just a re-write of old material. It is like brewing coffee on an old and already used coffee filter. It was horrible.

One of the things "Hellraiser: Revelations" had working for it, was the effects. There weren't a lot of special effects, though whatever little they did use worked out well enough. Personally, I could have used a lot more of the traditional wicked torture and torment that is associated with the Cenobytes and the "Hellraiser" series.

I have seen "Hellraiser: Revelations" now, and I can honestly say, despite being a "Hellraiser" fan, that I will not be making a second return to this movie ever!

In this ninth installment of the Hellraiser franchise, two friends discover a puzzle box in Mexico, which opens a gateway to Hell.

I hardly even want to write a review about this crock of rubbish, because others already have and have done a better job.

Dread Central wrote, "Not only does this entry make all the other sequels seem great in comparison, you could easily confuse this for some Hellraiser mockbuster from the folks at The Asylum." This is spot-on, as they have stolen everything good from the first two films -- Pinhead, the mattress rebirth, the homeless man -- and made them into pale comparisons.

No one has been harsher than Scott Weinberg, who called the film a "contractually-mandated piece of intentional garbage that exists for no other reason than pure, simple greed... This is amateur hour stuff all the way, and it'd be almost endearingly, stupidly enjoyable if this witless cinematic refuse wasn't dancing on the grave of a true classic of the genre." Ouch!

But seriously, what is with the chubby Pinhead who has somehow lost his British accent? The only way this even makes sense is by assuming it just happens to be another demon that imitates the look.

In 1987, Clive Barker unleashed the first film in the "Hellraiser" saga onto the masses, from his literary work "The Hellbound Heart." The first film was, and still is in many ways, an iconic, classic entry in the horror genre. The rest is history. At the time I am writing this review, the series has spanned nine films (with rumors of a TV-show possibly in the works), and countless spin-off media including a popular line of graphic novels and comics.

"Hellraiser" is a staple in horror, which is what makes this latest film so infuriating and heart-wrenching.

"Hellraiser: Revelations" is the latest in the series (beginning with the fifth film, all releases have skipped theaters and been plagued with lower budgets and even lower-grade actors and crews). Directed by Victor Garcia (from a script he also co-wrote), this mess of a film is DOA, with lame-brained acting, penny-pinching special effects, and a horrid plot that is essentially a lazy re-imagining of the original film. This is a slap-in-the-face to fans of the series, who have stuck by it even as the later sequels got worse and worse following the surprisingly strong second film. (Which is one of the rare horror sequels that had any thought to it, and is arguably almost as good as the original, despite obvious differences in tone and scope.) Beginning with the third film, the series took a nose-dive, although one or two entries, notably the fifth film, were watchable and enjoyable. This one, however, is the worst of the bunch.

Two spoiled young men, Nico and Steven, vanished sometime ago during a wretched trip to Mexico where they partook in prostitutes and copious partying. After murdering a prostitute, and after being given the mysterious puzzle box by a vagrant, Nico solved it, summoning "Pinhead" (played by a new actor... more on that later), whom dragged him to hell. Steven brings Nico back from hell via sacrifices, and later shows up to a house where he and Nico's family are having dinner.

At the house, Emma, Steven's sister, finds the box, and eventually the families begin to experiences strange and bizarre things over the film's anemic 75-minute running time, before a series of lame-brained twists that I won't spoil ends the film in an abrupt and very anti-climactic climax.

First the acting. I haven't really seen any of the actors in this film before (which I'm guessing is due to the almost non-existent budget preventing us from getting any name-actors), so I don't have anything to compare them to. But the acting was uniformly foul. All emotions by all parties seem forced, and our two leads (Jay Gillespie and Nick Eversman) are about as believable in their performances as a sheep wearing a dollar-store werewolf mask trying to blend into a pack of wolves. They simply cannot act.

Technically, the film is a mess. Garcia's shot-choices are bland, boring, and scream "inexperienced film-school student", and the lighting is atrocious. I was shocked to learn the cinematographer was David Armstrong, whom proved himself to be a capable DP on numerous other films, including six of the seven "Saw" films. Here, all of the lighting and shots seem hastily thrown together, and you could tell Mr. Armstrong didn't have enough time or motivation to work with. I study film and video production at college, and I've seen student-films shot on standard-def camcorders that look better than this from a technical standpoint.

The effects are also lousy. The cenobites looks soul-lessly designed, and their costumes looks like cheap rental-store robes. Pinhead's new design doesn't work and has too much shadow-work around his needles and creases/cuts, making him look a bit goofier than the eerie paper-white look of past films. Gore effects are phoned-in, with cheap, obvious prosthetics. The few CG-type effects are hilariously cheap looking. The set-design is bland and uninspired as well. Especially in the Hell scenes, which haven't been updated since the original film. Hell's still just a mass of swinging chains and pillars, which worked in the original film due to some excellent shots by Barker and the fact we hadn't seen anything like it before, but looks silly and cheap nowadays.

And onto the biggest complaint most people have... and a very justifiable complaint it is. Doug Bradley, whom portrayed Pinhead in all eight previous films skipped out on this one. He wasn't pleased by the script or the next-to-nothing paycheck, so he bailed. Our new Pinhead is portrayed by Stephen Smith Collins, with voice-over work by Fred Tatasciore. And good-lord, is the performance(s) bad!

I already mentioned the new makeup for the character's head didn't work as well as in previous films. But I could forgive that if the performances for the role were good. They aren't. First of all, Collins, who does the on-screen acting just doesn't look the part. He looks more like a light-weight professional wrestler with his head-shape. And his body language doesn't have any of the poetry or art of Bradley. He performs the role as though he had no rehearsals or prep-time, and is timidly being told what to do by the director off-screen. He seems in over his head. And Tatasciore's voice-over work is laughable. Gone is the booming voice of past films, which was dripping with darkness and emotion. Now, Pinhead sounds kinda like Don LaFontaine (the man known for providing voice-over work as the narrator of just about every movie trailer before his untimely death) trying to whisper with a bad Eurpoeon accent while suffering a sore-throat. It's just... awful.

This film is undoubtedly a career-killer for most involved, and it may just kill the franchise. It's beyond awful, and I give it a 1 out of 10, not just for being a bad film, but for being a tarnish on the classic original's legacy. Avoid this, I saw it for free on Netflix, and I still feel like the studio owes me a refund!

Every review of this movie has ripped it to shreds. Some reviews were fair, however. I'm one of these people who looks deeper into what he sees before him rather than the surface. While it is true that this film is by no means a masterpiece, it certainly isn't the biggest cinematic monstrosity of all time ("Children of the Living Dead" owns that title).

First off: Doug Bradley's absence. I'm a huge Doug Bradley/Pinhead fan, and there will never be anyone to play Pinhead better, but you have to look at what the new guy was up against. Very short shooting schedule and immediate fan ridicule pretty much doomed this poor guy. Overall, I felt he did a decent job with what he was given.

Second: special effects. Come on people, it's a direct-to-DVD movie. Are we looking for 'Star Wars' visuals here? Honestly, I felt the effects here were a bit better than they should have been.

Seriously, if you're a fan of this series, leave high expectations at the door and just give it an honest chance. You never know, you might end up liking it.

None of the films have been as good as the first three in this series. This one is no different.

Most of the acting, especially by the lead antagonist, Nick Eversman, is terrible. The effects and gore are nothing more than copies of scenes from the other movies with nothing new added to make it any more interesting.

I love the original Pinhead character, played by Doug Bradley in all of the other films. Stephan Smith Collins who portrays Pinhead in this sequel tries to recreate him but manages doing a poor man's imitation, instead of bringing anything new to the screen.

To future writers of any more sequels: STOP! Either come up with a new lead so we don't miss Bradley's performance so much or reboot the series from the start and try to come up with something new. Maybe consult with Clive Barker to see where he would go with it. Or better yet, put together some real money and have him write it instead.