I take a look at Roger Ebert's review of HELLRAISER and wonder "Was Ebert Right?"
Roger Ebert's original HELLRAISER review
When I was first getting into film, my father introduced me to the show SISKEL & EBERT and their reviews (we lived in a suburb of Chicago so they were "our" movie reviewers. I jumped in head first and ate up everything they wrote. I was more into Ebert as I always felt Siskel was more of a sports guy than a movie guy but I still read everything he wrote. (I wrote all about my time with SISKEL & EBERT in a THE VIDEO STORE DAYS column)
Some of the things I loved reading were their negative reviews. The more they hated a film, the more I was intrigued by it. I was very intrigued by the way Ebert would shit on horror flicks. Sure, he liked his fair share of these films in the 80s but he hated far more than he liked. His review for FRIDAY THE 13TH PART 2 is legendary. The way he would shit on these films was sometimes more entertaining than the films themselves and any film he gave a zero star to 1 star review immediately went to the top of my "Must Watch" list. If he hated it then there was a very good chance I would enjoy the hell out of it. (I am not a big fan of I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE but his review always makes me want to see the film again.)
Having seen HELLRAISER (1987) on the big screen recently, I was reminded of what Ebert wrote on the film in 1987. I thought I could break down his review and give my own opinion on his review and maybe about how he might be wrong on some of the things he says. Please note: I am not trying to slam Ebert for his opinion of any film. He has every right to love or hate a film, as does everyone. I just wanted to have a little bit of fun with his reviews.
Meanwhile, Larry and Kirsty eventually, after a long, long, long time, realize there is something amiss in the upstairs room. It is not such a large house that a whole room could easily be forgotten
On my most recent watch, I noticed this more than I have before. Sure, the house is a tri-level house but you would think either Larry or Kirsty would have walked into the room at least once (Larry does but not on his own.) I have a small house but I make sure I check each room before I turn in for the night. Something might have fallen over while I am at work and I don't want it lying there for days. The Cotton house is an old house so there would be creaks and whatnot that would be investigated by new homeowners.
Who goes to see movies like this? What do they get out of them?
A lot of people do. I know many of them and I talk to even more online every day. Now, I can understand this question at the time it was posed. Watching horror films in the 80s was different than watching them today. I remember my parents having very little problem with many of the horror films I watched from that time but they did have some I wasn't allowed to watch until I was a bit older. The two HELLRAISER films were on the list as was I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE and FACES OF DEATH.
As for what people get out of a film like HELLRAISER? Lots of different things. You can watch it as a straight up horror flick. There are scares and gore and sex. Everything we would come to love in the 80s. You can watch it as a fan of Clive Barker's writings. Before HELLRAISER was released in theaters, Barker had already released the six BOOKS OF BLOOD, WEAVEWORLD, and THE DAMNATION GAME (he also released the novella HELLRAISER is based on, THE HELLBOUND HEART), so there was a sizable audience that wanted to watch this film. The film was a sizable hit for New World Pictures, the company that funded the film. It cost $1 million to produce and made $14.5 million at the US box office so there are plenty of people who go to see a film like HELLRAISER.
There is one more thing about this subject I want to point out. The rise of the video store in the 80s led to a film having a lot more eyes on it than it got at the box office. Many people wouldn't go see a film like HELLRAISER in the theater because they might be ashamed about watching it. They didn't want their friends to judge them on watching a film where a skinless man eats people to get his skin back. BUT at home, the sky's the limit. It was easy to rent a film without people seeing what you were renting. Some people treated horror films like porn and we all know the shame people felt when renting porn. That and kids could watch them too. I had a friend whose parents watched every horror film that hit our local video stores so he had access to them after his parents went to bed. His house was a very popular sleepover location, especially after a horror film we wanted to watch was released. Horror films were gold to a group of 9-year-olds. So, many people were watching these films as they have stayed popular for decades.
I like good horror movies because I enjoy being surprised (and sometimes even moved), but there are no surprises in “Hellraiser,” only a dreary series of scenes that repeat each other.
NO SURPRISES, MR. EBERT? Are you telling me you have seen a skinless man smoke a cigarette? Are you telling me you have seen a woman with her throat split open making it look like she has a vagina in her neck? Have you seen a man with pins in his head lead a group of like-minded individuals into the real world to kidnap someone who has played with their puzzle box? I don't think so.
Now, I will give him the second part of this quote. Well, at least the second half of the second part of the quote. There are A LOT of scenes that repeat in HELLRAISER, something I noticed when I watched in the theater. There are only so many scenes of people either walking up or down the stairs before it becomes repetitive. Barker even talks about this in his audio commentary found on many of the home video releases of the film, including THE SCARLET BOX and QUARTET OF TORMENT box sets from Arrow Video. There are times when the film is nothing more than a family drama. Ok, so he gets a point for this one.
What fun is it watching the movie mark time until the characters discover the obvious?
I mean, aren't a lot of things obvious in a lot of films? We have fun watching people find out things all the time. Is discovering your uncle wearing the skin of your father obvious? No. No, its not.
This is a movie without wit, style or reason
This is the quote that has lived rent free in my head ever since I read it in my junior high library and I thought about it numerous times while watching the film this last time. There is plenty of wit in the film. Just look at the first time we see the cenobites in full.
"No tears please. It's a waste of good suffering" - Pinhead
"Angels to some. Demons to others". - Pinhead
I mean. Just about everything Pinhead says is witty in some way. He's also very polite. While Freddy was calling a girl a bitch while smashing her head first into a tv set, Pinhead was ASKING his would be victims to refrain from crying. Like many of our grandmas have said a dozen times "He is a such a polite young man."
As for the film having no style: Did we watch the same film? HELLRAISER did not look or feel like any other horror film in release at the time. The mixture of the real world and the "hell" fo the film make for an interesting film. The real world stuff is purposely boring so the horror stuff stands out more. The reason thing is subjective. It may not have any reason to you but there are a lot of people who have a lot of reasons to have the film in their lives.
the true horror is that actors were made to portray, and technicians to realize, its bankruptcy of imagination
Clive Barker's writings are not for everyone but I would never say they are bankrupt of imagination. There is plenty of imagination on display here. It may not be something you want to see but saying it is a "bankruptcy" is harsh. As for the actors and technitions, they loved making the film. Barker enjoyed directing the film, the actors enjoyed (for the most part) acting in the film, and if you tell me the make up and effects people didn't enjoy bringing Barker's visions to life didn't have fun, I would call you a liar. There is a lot of fun on the screen and it was brought to us by people who are really good at their jobs.
Maybe Stephen King was thinking of a different Clive Barker.
There is, and will ever be, ONE Clive Barker.
So, Was Ebert Wrong about HELLRAISER? Kind of. Not liking the film is one thing. You can hate on a film all you want and you will be right but some of the things he said in the review are suspect. Saying the film has a "bankruptcy of imagination" is not factual at all as well is saying the film is "without wit, style or reason" is also wrong. Ebert was a guy who didn't have much respect for the genre so he is right to himself, and many others who think like him, but to us it is a motherfucking classic. I will say the film is pretty loose with its time and place (some scenes that should be longer are rather short while scenes that should be the bare minimum are given time to breathe. The last act of the film where Kirsty has to offer up Uncle Frank as an out for her being taken by the Cenebites is very clumsy. Had Barker given this act a tighter edit, it would have moved a lot smoother. Everything seems to go way too fast like Barker just wanted the film to be over with but some things should have been left out. Like the scene where Kirsty hides in the room across from Frank's room. Julia opens the door but barely steps into the room. As soon as she closes the door, Kirsty exits her hiding place, leaves the room, and then stands outside of it out of breath. She ran like ten feet and she is out of breath. Is she Homer Simpson? I wonder if there was something else there that Barker took out like a scene in between these scenes. Other than that, HELLRAISER is a film every horror fan needs to see at least once. You owe yourself.
){kind=link}
0 Comments