MovieChat Forums > Hellraiser (1987) Discussion > What makes this movie so good?

What makes this movie so good?

posted 9 years ago by mmoore325
14 replies | jump to latest

This is certainly one of my favorite horror movies, and I can't seem to grasp why. I can't count how many times I've watched it. I love quoting the dialogue when I watch it. When I saw it for the first time, when it was over, I was SO disappointed, like "NOOOO! I want to know MORE!" I can't really stomach gore now, but I could as a teenager, so I guess that's one reason. I just thought the story was cool, and it was so twisted and dark AND funny. Pinhead is one of the best horror characters, ever.

It's also on my short list of movies that I never wanted to end, period, regardless of genre: The Dead Zone (1983), Wall Street (1987), Beowulf (2007), The Empire Strikes Back (1980), Hannibal (2001), Creepshow (1987), American Gangster (2007), Master and Commander (2003), Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011), The Social Network (2010), Jeepers Creepers (2001). I mean, when I watched these movies, the time just flew by and I was so engrossed, I just did NOT want the movie to end (and it's not like I was hoping for a sequel).

So, why do YOU think Hellraiser is such a great movie, and are there other movies where you just didn't want them to end?

~ Hello Ellie. Still waiting for E.T. to call?

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] KingCobra686 9 years ago

My favorite element of these movies is that they didnt make Pinhead into a generic movie monster villain (in the first few at least). Frank is the real villain, not Pinhead. Pinhead is a mysterious warden that shows up to take people away, not a main antagonist that will inevitably be confronted.

To me, this makes a huge difference. Horror movies are always put in a complicated situation where they have to make the villians scary and powerful, but not too powerful. If you make the bad guy too powerful like Freddy in the dream world it makes them scarier, but you inevitably have to write in cheesy weaknesses so that they can be taken down by the protagonist. If you go the other way and make the villain too weak, it makes them not scary at all.

Pinhead and the Cenobites exist in the perfect character role where they can avoid all of those flaws. They are all powerful and don't have any major weaknesses, because it is not part of the plot for them to be defeated. When they show up, you know that they are about to take someone down big time and its more impressive knowing that they arent going to be defeated by some cheesy main character in half an hour.

[–] alatorre19 9 years ago

Because it's so different from the other horror films of the 80's like Friday the 13th and A nightmare on elm street. It's one of the first body horror films to be well known and introduced a horror villain in Pinhead who was original and not a ripoff of Michael Myers like Jason was.

I liked it because it was a horror movie that catered to adults more than teens even though I saw it for the first time as a child

[–] HellboundHero 9 years ago

I think the sadomasochistic aspect is what interests me the most. The idea that every horrifying, painful, gruesome, depraved thing the cenobites do to you is a reward that is meant to elevate you to the heights of infinite ecstasy, and that it will never end. There's so many more layers there than a masked psycho stabbing a woman with a butcher knife. That's just painful pain. Hellraiser is pleasurable pain. It's a paradox, it's twisted, it makes you think.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] HellboundHero 9 years ago

I don't really see them as being the same. Pinhead is an explorer or a theologian of sadomasochism and his actions aren't inherently malicious. Freddy is a serial killer out for revenge and while he does take sadistic joy in killing and torturing his victims, he doesn't care if they're awoken to some new level of consciousness where pleasure and pain become indivisible.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] HellboundHero 9 years ago

I don't think any of the movies flaws are so bad that they ruin the movie. Maybe I'm just more forgiving of low budget movies by first-time directors.

I like the visual style, the atmosphere, the story, some of the performances, the score, and the design and concept of the cenobites, and that's enough for me.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] HellboundHero 9 years ago

I don't see what's so bad about the acting.

[–] PrimeMinisterOfTheSinister 8 years ago

I disagree about the acting. I thought all of the actors did a great job. Your other complaints are valid. Some of the make up is really good and holds up, as does Frank's rebirth, but the glowy effects are terrible. They were pretty terrible back then, too, really. Some of the dialogue isn't very good and it's not very clear that it's set in New York. Still, it's a unique movie that did a lot of things that hadn't been done before. It has a lot of great visuals and there was nothing like the Cenobites before. The story is also interesting. I think 7 out of 10 is a good score for it. It's good but it is flawed. They had almost no money and Clive Barker had never directed anything before, so you can cut it some slack.

PS: It's dimensions, not "dimentions".

[–] ItchyGirl 9 years ago

Well in a way (despite the sequels) it didn't quite end--there was that "movie quote" in Basic Instinct. Sort of continued--which I mean in a good way.

[–] FlorisV 8 years ago

-Great imagination
-Fantastic design of the Cenobites, both visually and story-wise, they are mysterious and intelligent
-Good story, it's kind of a classic Greek tragedy
-Very sensual film in a way, with a strong sexual theme of boundless lust and curiosity
-Classy musical score
-Great oneliners
-The ultimate femme fatale, Julia
-Andrew Robinson, who is always a bit creepy
-Good visual effects and shocking gore
-Great atmosphere and sound effects