My first post in this series was about Clive Barker’s “The Hellbound Heart.” It felt wrong to group this book and the movie it inspired in the same review, so I will be talking about the movie “Hellraiser” today. First of all, this movie was written and directed by Barker himself, and came out one year after the book was published. That is more than many movie adaptations can say. Generally, movie adaptations have a bad reputation for being way worse than the books and getting nothing right *cough cough Percy Jackson*. I had hope that this wouldn’t be the case since the author himself was heavily involved. Boy was I wrong. 

     I know that it won’t be completely the same. There are some things that just don’t work on screen as well as they do on paper, not to mention budget limitations, but I expected more. It is closer to the book than most adaptations I’ve seen, but some parts were still lacking. There were just some odd changes that didn’t seem to have a reason to be different. For one, the name of one of the characters was changed from Rory to Larry. His relationship to another character was also changed. The character in the book, Kirsty, was a family friend who had a crush on Rory and was jealous of his wife. In the movie, Kirsty is Larry’s daughter and Kirsty’s stepdaughter. I think what made the book so interesting was the way that the relationships brought out the story’s themes in the characters. Kirsty’s desires in the book drove most of her actions, which makes sense in a book about desire and pleasure. 

     My biggest critique of the movie was it relied more on the shock value of violence more. Yes, the book was violent and disturbing, but the movie lacked the same artistic flourish that made me like the book. The movie acted as a way to show gore rather than explore the concept of pain, pleasure, and desire. The violence in the movie was also shot strangely. I know you can only get away with so much because of ratings, but the scenes were quick and repetitive. It felt like it took away from the cruelty and disturbing aspects of the cenobites. Speaking of the cenobites, they barely were shown until later in the movie. The book had them described in detail early on, but the movie only had quick shots. I do think they depicted them well, costume-wise, though. 

     It might sound messed up to want better torture scenes, and I recognize it probably is messed up. I am just a big fan of psychological horror. The book was slow and detailed and used all of the senses to affect the reader. It was physical and mental, which was a refreshing change from a basic slasher. The differences in the movie just seemed out of character. The whole thing with the cenobites is that they don’t differentiate between pain and pleasure. They are disturbingly creative with what they do. The movie just lacked that creativity, making the cenobites less scary. I understand that it could be difficult to recreate in a purely visual form, and not many people necessarily want to see that, but I think it is part of what makes this story distinct and interesting.

All in all, I would actually suggest this movie. It isn’t necessarily bad, just not what I like.