Clive Barker

It's Clive Barker, so it must be worth watching

Clive Barker is a multi-talented horror artist. Mainly a writer, but also a screenwriter, director, producer, actor, painter, illustrator... Although most of you know him as the author of "Hellraiser" movies, for me his life achievement will always be a collection of short stories Book of Blood and video game Undying. Salome from 1973 is the first cinematography attempt of then 20 years old future king of horror. This is short 18 minutes black and white silent film. Maybe more of a visual performance than a real movie. This low-budget or, more accurately, a no-budget film is made in some basement with just a few friends. Using just one light source in complete darkness Barker concentrates more on building an atmosphere than telling a story. Considering when it is done, his age and budget and fact that this is his first amateur attempt of filmmaking, it is very ungrateful to try to rate it objectively. For true Barker fans and film students, this is a must-watch film, which will almost surely leave a positive impression. For the majority of the rest, this will probably be unwatchable crap. To me, this is

<3 Barker <3 /10

Great but boring

This is Barker's second movie attempt. Like Salome, this is short, black and white silent film, but this time a bit longer, printed in negative and combined with animation. Barker claims it's based on Faust. Technically it's very experimental and inventive, and special effects are fascinating considering almost no budget. Some elements from this film he later incorporates in Hellraiser. Although I'm impressed by results amateur achieved without a budget, relying only on his imagination, cleverness and small group of friends, it would be lying to say I liked it. It's so boring that I barely endured till the end. I must admit that the skinning scene is unbelievably convincing considering circumstances. When I found out how it's done I was sincerely stunned.

4/10

Although you can clearly feel spirit of Clive barker, this is most probably the worst flick he was involved with. Idea is decent, but story is poorly developed, acting is lousy, directing terrible and music completely inadequate. There are movies that are so bad they are good, but this one is not one of those. It's not even funny, not even slightly. Simply complete catastrophe.

2,5/10

Clive Barker is one of my favorite authors and his probably most famous work are stories published in six Books of Blood. First three definitely belong in horror hall of fame. This is adaptation of second story from third book. To what extent is this adaptation faithful to original story I can not say with much certainty because I read Books of Blood last time 17 years ago, but this movie inspired me to read them again as soon as possible. Considering fact that Barker personally adapted story for screen I believe that faithfulness is not too questionable. Story is great and it will be obvious to everyone who ever read any Barker's work that he is behind this plot, even if they did not read this particular story. Acting, directing and effects are decent and atmosphere is right. But Rawhead himself is complete failure. Monster is so unconvincing that he nullifies all horror effects other elements of the movie achieved. They should have used good old tricks to avoid showing it directly. They could have show it in dark, just glimpse of it, or its shadow, or even shoot its scenes through its eyes. If my memory serves me right, in original story that's exactly the way it's done and story is written from monster's point of view. This way they would amplify horror and avoid spoiling everything with stupid and unconvincing monster mask. Overall, this is must watch for fans of Barker and 80's B production, but the rest of you should skip it.

6/10

Clive Barker is one of my favorite authors. Book of Blood, The Damnation Game, Weaveworld are books I'll always cherish, and Undying will forever be my dearest video game. Although in my opinion The Hellbound Heart is not even close to the best story he has written, adaptation of this book is move that made him famous and forever carved him in legend. In this movie story isn't questionable because Barker personally adapted his own novel into movie scenario and directed it. In technical terms, the film is pretty bad, but considering that it's Barker's movie debut done with really small budget result is surprisingly good. Barker and his friends improvised many things on their own in inability to pay professionals. In spite of all its flaws, Hellraiser became cult movie and opened the door to franchise that lasts to this day, 30 years later.

7/10

Nightmare of the king of horror continues. Hellbound is direct sequel to Hellraiser and, in my opinion, it's a bit better than the original. Opinions are divided about which one is better, but it is certain that the sequel is more complex, bloodier and, thanks to the success of the original, it had a much bigger budget. While in the first movie Cenobites introduced a hint of horror to our world, this time we join them on their field. Morbidly imaginative display of Hell that will forever be carved into your memory. One of the best horrors of all time, which, in my opinion, belongs to the domain of general culture.

8/10

Nightbreed is an adaptation of Barker's novel Cabal from 1988. As I love this book very much, and Barker personally adapted it into screenplay and directed the film, I'm probably not able to observe it objectively. With exception of, from today's perspective, outdated special effects, this movie is perfect fantasy/horror action. Twenty years ago, when I first read the book and saw the movie, I was amazed. Now after watching it again I'm giving it strong eight. Role of main villain is played by David Cronenberg, and some fantasy and horror writers, including Neil Gaiman, also have brief appearances. Unlike the book that is genius, the film does not have a particular depth or characterization, but it has a phenomenal atmosphere and very interesting and original "monsters", as well as great music. I recommend you to watch director's cut and make sure you read the book.

8/10

True Barker. True Horror. True Masterpiece.

Probably the best Barker's movie and one of the best horror thrillers I've ever seen. Movie after which the mirror in the dark will be one of the most horrible things that you might encounter. Story is intelligent, which is rarity in this genre, psychologically and sociologically well-founded, and together with fantastic Virginia Madsen in the lead role and excellent direction and music, it builds an atmosphere where explicit scenes are not necessary to maintain horror and tension at a high level. Perhaps the film would be even better without gore. Within the genre, this film is perfection and it's one of the rare films that I remember in detail for decades after watching. I just saw it again after more than twenty years and it thrilled me like the first time.

9/10

Unfairly underrated

The third movie in the "Hellraiser" franchise got mostly bad reviews from the fans, but I think this is totally undeserved. It is different from the first two, but not the worse. What's more, to me it's better than the first one. The story is more complex and rounded, effects are better, there are several really memorable scenes, and Pinhead got a bigger portion of the screen-time than in the past, which allowed Doug Bradley to shine. The movie, of course, has its drawbacks, such as a meaningless slaughter in the nightclub, that conflicts with the rules set in the previous films, but I think that on the beam scale quality side heavily outweighs the one with flaws.

7,5/10

Cats Rule

"sleep'walk'er n. Nomadic shape-shifting creatures with human and feline origins. Vulnerable to the deadly scratch of the cat, the sleepwalker feeds upon the life-force of virginal human females. Probable source of the vampire legend." - Chillicoathe Encyclopaedia of Arcane Knowledge, 1st edition, 1884

The first half of the movie is quite promising and I was glad to finally have the opportunity to see the horror that is also a quality movie. Adapted from the story by Stephen King, directed by Mick Garris, with a bunch of familiar faces, among which are Leo from "Charmed", Shelly from "Twin Peaks", enchanting Alice Krige, Hellboy, John Landis, as well as my favorite horror authors Stephen King and Clive Barker in minor roles. Unfortunately, somewhere around half, movie unexpectedly turns into completely ridiculous crap and stays that way till the end.

The epilogue, which I would like to add to the end of the film: Half a century later we see Tanya, which has since remained the old lady spinster, lying dead on the couch in a dusty little apartment, surrounded by dozens of cats. I am not saying that this would significantly improve the impression, but a bit of black humor is always welcome spice.

5/10

Interesting as the source of new information, but lousy horror

"Farewell to the Flesh" leaves the impression of a remake more than a sequel. Though technically well-written and filmed, it lacks most of the qualities that make the first film a masterpiece of the genre. It lacks originality, it lacks tension, it lacks all-pervading eeriness with which the first film so masterly ruled. Although the story is good, the film leaves a pale impression and is more of a mediocre thriller than a horror movie. The only things that are really worth in this movie are the flashbacks on Candyman's origins and performance of Tony Todd, for which I need to raise my rating from objective (I think) six out of ten to

7/10

Flesh is a trap, and magic sets us free.

Legendary Clive Barker skillfully combines the elements of detective story and horror into a mystery thriller that, although of mediocre quality, remains carved into memory. This is not a typical horror that will upset your stomach and raise the hair on your head, nor a thriller that will keep you on the edge of your seat, but a dark adventure that leaves an impression similar to reading Barker's books. The relatively well-known cast gives quite believable performances and there's just enough amount of demonic and gore scenes not to disappoint horror fans. I am satisfied.

7/10

Origins of the Box

Even if you haven't experienced it, I'm sure you can imagine a feeling when you assemble a powerful computer from high-quality components, plug it into power, press the button and ... it does not work. All parts seem to be in place and you have no idea what the problem is. Such an aftertaste this movie left on me. The story is great, perhaps the best so far, but the film wasn't interesting to me. Technically, I have no complaints, everything is well done, but it does not achieve the effect. For some reason, the film simply does not have the strength characteristic of Barker. It's worth seeing for the sake of continuity of the franchise and that's all.

5,5/10

Two of my favorite writers

"Quicksilver Highway" is another in a series of films, typical for the eighties and nineties, in which several unrelated "horror" stories are more or less clumsily connected by the common narrator. This time we have two stories of cult authors directed by Mick Garris.

The first story is an adaptation of "Chattery Teeth" by Stephen King, about the traveling salesman who picks up a maniacal hitchhiker. Although the atmosphere is pretty good, and Silas Weir Mitchell nailed the role of the maniac, the story itself is stupid, and I could not have guessed that it was Stephen King, not in a million years. It's not a crap, but it is pretty lousy.

5/10

The second story is an adaptation of Clive Barker's "The Body Politic", about the hands that decide to become independent of their owner. The very premise is horrifying, and Matt Frewer in the leading role made it frighteningly convincing. To this story I really have no objections. Everything from the scenario, through acting, directing, sound and effects, is well executed and leaves a really strong impression. Unlike the first story, this one can rightly be called a horror.

8/10

Overall impression:

6,5/10

Boobyman: Tits of the Breasts

The third installment in "Boob... I mean, in "Candyman" franchise cannot be compared to previous two in any respect. The story is weaker, the dark and tense atmosphere disappeared without a trace, and in the main and larger supporting roles are good tits. No, I didn't express myself wrong. In the main roles are not actresses with good tits, but virtually tits, while the actresses are there only to carry them around the set. And no, it is not me who is obsessed with breasts, but the director. All female roles are entrusted to beautiful women with big boobs, and the cadres are such that most often tits are in the foreground, while their owners are more or less background. I guess the poor ones figured out they were not able to make a good movie, so they decided to distract at least the male part of the audience and somewhat cover up its numerous shortcomings. I can not say that it did not work, because it is, and I can not say that I did not enjoy nice boobs and their sweet sexy owners, but that does not change the fact that this film is disgrace for the franchise and for the reputation of Clive Barker, who I hope had nothing to do with this failure.

5/10

Why don't you visit us, Joe?

The fifth part of the "Hellraiser" franchise rather stands out from its predecessors. "Dimension Films" has decided to save money for writing the original script by using a horror scenario unrelated to this franchise that they already own and just add Barker's Cenobites. This turned out to be a great move because the story is much more complex than before and brings the original and interesting combination of Neo-noir mystery and horror. The whole atmosphere is a total mindfuck, the camera and the directing are great, and the movie could have been a masterpiece of the genre, if it only had a higher budget. At times I had the impression that I was watching a cheap remake of a really top movie. Objectively, "Inferno" probably does not deserve such a high rating, but I just can not help feeling its potential, unrealized only because of financial reasons. And that's why I am rating it eight for effort.

8/10

Ultimate horror adventure

Without competition the best horror I have ever experienced. Barker is one of my favorite writers, and movies do not fall far behind, but this game exceeds all of his books and movies combined. The only horror that ever really frightened me in my adulthood. There are no horrors with such all-embracing creepiness like this masterpiece, and nothing ever left me so deeply frightened. Even after 15 years, this is still my favorite game and it still creeps me out every time I play it, no matter that I know every second of it by heart. Something that every real horror fan must experience.

10/10

"There is no greater sorrow than to recall happiness in times of misery." - Dante Alighieri

With this line begins the sixth part of the legendary horror franchise "Hellraiser". I'm not sure it has anything to do with the film itself, but anyway I like it. The film is poorly rated on film sites and has bad reviews, but this is just another example of a good movie bashed only because it is different from its predecessors and does not bring what the franchise fans expected. Like for the previous, the fifth part of the franchise, for "Hellseeker" the original script was not written, but an unused scenario, unrelated to the franchise, that company already owned was used. The scenario was modified to fit into the "Hellraiser" universe and Cenobites were inserted, but it's totally obvious that this scenario is not written for the franchise. If any reference to "Hellraiser" had been thrown out, it would not make almost any difference, either essentially or aesthetically. Even after adjusting to the "Hellraiser" franchise, this film is still difficult to classify as horror. It is more a psychological "mindfuck" drama of a man who sinks into madness, fighting against evil within. Cenobites appear only briefly, Pinhead a bit more, and there's negligible little screen time reserved for gore and morbidity that are this franchise's trademarks. The film has a great premise and a good story development. It fails as a horror, but as a psychological drama it works quite well, and I think it would be even better if it was made as a separate film, without adapting to the franchise. Still, although I liked it, it did not thrill me. I do not know if it comes to acting, directing, camera, effects, music ... but the film lacks the strength to leave the really powerful impression. It's good, but somehow pale.

7/10

What is the point of a low-budget B horror if there is no nudity and gore in it?

In the early nineteenth century, a young monk accidentally releases two succubi, who then use the Wheel of Time and flee into the 21st century. The monk takes the dagger of St. Nicodemus, the only thing that can stop the demons, and goes after them.

Based on the film, I can assume that Barker's short story, on which it is based, is great, and the movie pretty well conjures up the atmosphere of Barker's style. Directing and editing are interesting, the effects are excellent for the low-budget horror of that time, and the sound is very effective. It was interesting, but when it ended, it did not leave any impression. Although it lasts 85 minutes, it felt more like a forty-minute episode of some low-budget TV series. It had a good premise and enough time to elaborate the story, but unfortunately, it remained superficial and pale. And fans of the genre will surely be disappointed by the complete lack of nudity and gore. I recommend it only to the true fans of Clive Barker.

6/10

"Haeckel's Tale" takes place in the XIX century, which contributes to the dark and gloomy atmosphere, but the story itself is very slow and without tension, and twist is unsatisfying. It left me with the impression of a dark fairy tale more than horror. Film culminates in one of the most bizarre sex scene I've ever seen and, if for nothing else, it's worth watching this episode. Trust me, you won't forget it any time soon.

6/10

Stephen King once said: "I have seen the future of horror... and his name is Clive Barker." Barker is one of my favorite authors, not only within the horror genre, but in general, and I personally prefer his dark fantasy over his classic horror stories. Perhaps that's why my experience of this episode is so much different from the reaction of the majority. After a decent, but within Barker's opus disappointing, episode "Haeckel's Tale", directed by John McNaughton, the second season brings us a beautiful and atmospheric "Valerie on the Stairs". I assume that bad reactions to this film come from fans who identify Barker with "Hellraiser" franchise, as well as those who just do not like him, but I think that fans of "Weaveworld", "The Thief of Always" and even "Books of Blood" will be pleasantly surprised by this episode, if not thrilled as I am.

I think Mick Garris successfully transmitted the magic atmosphere of Barker's text to small screens and this is one of the few episodes that hypnotized me. Photography and lighting are great, and the performance is convincing. Clare Grant will make you associate ghosts with falling in love instead of rattling chains in the attic, Christopher Lloyd was born for this kind of roles, and a pleasant surprise is Tony Todd, known to Barker's fans for leading role in "Candyman". Nearing the end, episode becomes a little silly and naive, but it's saved by excellent metaphorical ending, with a twist that, although quite predictable, fits the story perfectly. To me, this is the best episode so far.

9/10

"Don't you think for a second you are not in danger"

"Deader" is another in the series of "Hellraiser" films filmed under scenarios that originally have nothing to do with this franchise, but are subsequently adapted to fit into it. In my opinion, this is so far the best "Hellraiser" installment, and I think it would be even better if it was made independently from the franchise. The elements that are inserted to link it to the franchise are obvious and unnaturally sticking out from the rest of the story. The story itself is typically Barker-ish dark and creepy, but also quite realistic, which makes it more terrifying and tense than horror based on fantastic creatures and situations. Excellent directing by Rick Bota and several masterly positioned jump-scares additionally increase the tension. Kari Wuhrer carries the entire movie on her shoulders and I really don't understand, with such a convincing performance, combined with her looks and sex appeal, how this actress is not much better known.

On IMDb, this film has 4/10, which is probably due to the disappointment of Pinhead and Cenobite fans, because "Deader" essentially has nothing to do with Barker's mythos. If I was not dead set to see the entire franchise, this rating would probably deter me from watching it and I would miss one of the best films of the genre I've seen in recent years. I am very satisfied and I'm giving it a strong eight.

8/10

"Like a bad horror movie, isn't it?"

Another one in a series of scenarios that are obviously not originally written for the franchise, but subsequently adapted to fit into it. Not particularly successful this time. Frankly, I was bored. I can not specifically point a finger and say, "This is bad." Nothing in this movie is particularly bad, but nothing is particularly good either, so it's all together forgettable and leaves no impression. The premise is interesting, but it is developed to the unconvincing and unexciting story. The music is not annoying, but it's not catchy either, and by no means contributes to the atmosphere. But there's really no atmosphere, or tension, or fear... Not even decent jump-scares. The acting varies from bad to mediocre, and even famous names such as Lance Henriksen, Katheryn Winnick (Lagertha from the "Vikings") and Henry Cavill (the last Superman) are totally unimpressive. I did not even recognize Lagertha until the end credits. In short, to answer the question from the headline: No, it isn't LIKE a bad horror movie - it IS a bad horror movie. However, the premise brings refreshment in the franchise, there are beautiful and naked girls and some nicely done gore, and I liked the final twist, so I can not completely bury it (pun intended).

5/10

Great atmosphere

When I like some author I have no peace until I read all of his work and see all adaptations. Looking for adaptations of the eeriest horror author Clive Barker, I ran into this short animated film. However, this time Barker is not the author, but he gives his voice to one of the teddy bears. But if he agreed to participate in this project it is probably worth watching. And it is. The atmosphere of this film is fantastic, and regarding the overall impression... WTF I just watched?!

7/10

"Welcome"

A collection of horror stories "Books of Blood" was my first encounter with the genius writer Clive Barker, the book that pulled me into this genre and made Barker one of my favorite writers. "The Midnight Meat Train" is the screening of the story of the same name from the first volume of this collection. I held these books in my hands last time many years ago, so I can not bring them to life in detail, but I would say that the film very faithfully adapted the source material, not only with the story, but also with the general atmosphere. The camera and directing have captured the spirit of Barker's prose very nicely, and Bradley Cooper and Vinnie Jones are excellent in lead roles. In particular stand out scenes of murders and mutilations, which, although over-the-top, leave a strong and quite convincing impression, and some of them turned upside down even my stomach, the stomach of a slasher lover. I would say that all aspects of this film are in place, and yet something is amiss. For quite some time I was wondering what was the reason why this movie did not buy me completely and I did not come to any conclusion. Everything is there, and again, it's not it, and I was somewhat disappointed all the way to the end. Finale pretty much saved the day and it stands shoulder to shoulder with the book, but the overall impression is still pale.

7/10

"Everybody is a book of blood; wherever we're opened, we're red."

My great love for Barker began with reading "Books of Blood," a collection of horror stories in 6 volumes. This movie is a pretty good adaptation of the title story. Don't expect it to blow you off your chair, there is no deep or complex story here, no breathtaking effects, and it's not particularly scary. The story is a variation on the haunted house theme, it's a bit confusing, and the pace is too slow for my taste. The acting and directing are decent, the sound effects are really good, but what really elevates this movie from mediocrity is the atmosphere exquisitely evocative of Barker's original, and for that very atmosphere, I recommend it.

6/10

"The dead have highways, running through the wasteland behind our lives, bearing an endless traffic of departed souls. They can be heard in the broken places of our world, through cracks made out of cruelty, violence, and depravity. They have signposts, these highways, and crossroads and intersections. And it is at these intersections where the dead mingle, and sometimes spill over into our world."

"I suppose that is the worst part of it all. You live with the notion that the thing that causes you the most terror could come back at any time."

Perhaps this film does not deserve such a high rating, but as the adaptations of my favorite horror stories are too often tragicomic, one that really deserves to be associated with Barker's name had to acknowledge with a higher mark.

Three young people decide to do a thorough study of human fears, but interviewing volunteers with traumas from the past is not enough for their "leader", so he decides to take the research to the next level, experimentally facing his subjects with their greatest fears.

The movie is R-rated for "strong bloody violence, disturbing sadistic content, graphic sexuality, nudity, and language", but it doesn't come down to these elements like most classic slashers, but they are there to spice up and amplify a pretty good psychological horror-thriller, which is based on a strong story, good characterization, and a tense atmosphere. Another big plus is that it starts slowly and casually, in the style of "Kinsey" (2004), gives us half the movie time to get to know the characters and bond with them, and only then does the drama gradually grow into a thriller and then into a horror, so once we get attached to the characters, the horror elements are really effective.

8/10

An interesting addition to the franchise

Lucifer recruits a Theology student to solve the puzzle and summon Cenobites, to support him in the war against Gabriel and his angels. But while manipulating an innocent girl, he doesn't even suspect that he was being manipulated too.

This is a twenty-minute fan-movie shot with practically no budget and all participants on both sides of the camera are complete amateurs with no film experience. Within that frame, this is quite solidly written and shot, and the costumes and effects are great. The rating on IMDb is 3.9 and, in my opinion, it is quite objective, but it deserves at least eight for the first attempt by complete amateurs.

6/10

"Fear is the place we go to learn"

Three years after "Hellraiser: Prophecy", Jonathan S. Kui returns with another fan-movie, which builds on the previous one and gives the "origins-story" to the main character from "Hellraiser: Deader" (2005). The budget, as with "Prophecy," is negligible, and so is the experience the creators have gained in the meantime. The movie is technically slightly better, but the story is confusing, uninteresting and redundant. While "Prophecy" is worth a look for a good idea and effort, this one is a waste of time.

5/10

Horror to my liking

Mary is a medical student who, in the absence of money, becomes involved in the world of underground surgery. Her clients are freaks who, for a variety of reasons, want to modify their bodies. While doing these procedures, she gradually alienates herself from her "normal" life and delves deeper into the morbid world of body modification.

This Canadian indie horror was written and directed by Soska twins, who also appear in the movie. In a sea of bloody ridiculousness that prevails in the world of horror, this is a real refreshment that rightly can be considered a horror. In style and atmosphere, it is somewhat reminiscent of Barker, and as a dedication to this giant of the genre, one of the characters bears his last name.

8/10

Fake Pinhead

On its own, regardless of the franchise, this is a mediocre low-budget slasher, which is not boring, but not particularly noteworthy. Within the franchise, this is complete nonsense. It recycles what has already been seen, with an emphasis on the first film, and does not bring anything new. For those who, like me, have seen all (or at least some) previous parts, there is no tension or fear, but only a series of multiply repeated nastiness that has lost effectiveness a long time ago. Even Doug Bradley, who plays Pinhead in all the previous parts, many of which are pretty bad, turned down the role after reading the script.

3,5/10

Cute

A five-minute "horror" anthology in which Clive Barker, Elvira, Adam Baldwin, and Samantha Newark recite four creepy poems by Darren Field, followed by short videos. Cute to the fans of the above mentioned, but not particularly impressive.

6/10