Chemical Wedding aka Crowley (2008)

What can I say...? I officially apologise for this review.

I personally think that this is, all in all, a great movie - then again, I've been studying Crowley's stuff since I was 15. So... to put it bluntly: Someone without any background knowledge on To Mega Therion and his works will probably think "WTF?" throughout the whole movie.




We get treated to an amusing, nifty opening scene of rural England to the sounds of...well, jolly music, of two young men visiting a boarding house, where Aleister Crowley (aka Good Ol' Uncle Al) is residing. "Do what thou will shall be the whole of the Law." - "Love is the Law, Love under Will." (I apologise to the hardcore Thelemites who might be reading this - although I seriously doubt it that there are any -, if I didn't capitalise the right words. I always forget that stuff... Crowleyanism just isn't my thing). Yadda yadda - apparently, one of the young men is seeking initiation through The Beast.




Chatter ensues, including Uncle Al telling the story of Isis and Osiris. For those who don't know it, here's a recap:

Isis and Osiris were together. Now, at some point, because of something else, Seth killed his brother Osiris and cut his carcass into little pieces, all of which he scattered over the land of Egypt. Isis (with the help of her sister) gathered all of the parts of the body and resurrected Osiris. But the phallus of Osiris was missing, and Isis changed into a birth and used a reed to become impregnated by Osiris. The resulting child was Horus.

This, conceived as a "virgin birth", is considered to be a great act of Magick****. It's one of the basics of the whole Moonchild concept. Well, you either have read Crowley and know what I'm ranting about or you don't.




The young man, to whom this is relayed through the old man, tells Crowley that he doesn't have the money to arrive later that week for his initiation, but apparently, a letter which has arrived should solve that - by one Jack Parsons. You can't imagine how much I had to giggle. Apparently, "the head of our Californian* brethren seems to have fallen under the spell of a writer of science fiction." They invoke his (Crowley's) Scarlet Ritual to produce such a Moonchild.

JACK PARSONS!

After that is out of the way for the movie to begin, Crowley dies, curses someone on the way out.

Let's start with the plot:

Professor Haddo teaches classical history and literature (I hope I got that right, but over here in Austria, it would be classical history and literature... if anyone is out to correct me, please do so) at the University of Cambridge. He also dabbles in the occult (Hermeticism** springs to mind, mixed with a dose of Thelema***). Dear Professor Haddo is what you expect from a teacher of the humanities who's interested in the occult: He stutters, is overweight and seems to have... issues.



One of the people he regularly interacts with outside of his academic circle is a guy named Victor - and Victor is also interested in the occult, particularly the Crowley-brand of the Art.

Victor is sort of cool, actually.

This is the basis for the bond between the two men. Victor also works in a project meant to create some sort of supercomputer based on quantum mechanics. This computer is not just a computer, though - it is a highly sophisticated virtual reality simulator. As you might (or might not) know, quantum mechanics/physics/electrodynamics is a very, very complex field - one that, these days, has quite a lot in common with Magick****. And no, I am not referring to the David Copperfield-kind here. See footnote.




Anyways, back to the plot. The supercomputer has to be tested, but before the official, backed up and nice testing begins, Victor and Prof. Haddo conspire to use the revolutionary machine for themselves. Haddo is put into the VR-suit, Victor types in the coordinates for the information Haddo should receive... and voilá!





We got us one professor possessed by the spirit of Aleister Crowley... an Aleister Crowley who wants to produce a Moonchild during his time in Haddo's body.




Now, the thing is that: In order to get all of this, you have had to somewhat understand the introduction of the movie, the one playing in 1947 (yes, that's actually when Crowley died... although he didn't die of a heart attack due to a letter from Parsons*****) - otherwise, it won't make any sense to you. You won't understand the significance of the colour Red (the Scarlet Whore), the little quips from Crowley, the whole sex-magick stuff (I am wondering if we're talking about IX° here...)... everything.
The remark about Mathers' mother's hair colour will seem completely unimportant and random to you. If you don't remember from the introduction that Jack Parsons has begun the Scarlet Ritual (remember?) in order to produce a Moonchild and do the maths (all two things based on things that are mentioned only once or twice, all in all), the whole movie will seem a bit pointless, and the "big reveal" at the end (which hasn't been a reveal for anyone who knows that sort of irrelevant stuff) will seem a bit hazed and inconsequential to the viewer.

I can see why this movie doesn't score that high in the average horror review. First of all, there is little bloodshed/gore/horror. I wouldn't exactly call it a horror movie, but I don't know what other kind of genre it would/should belong to. Seriously, it's...




Second - and I think that's the most important aspect of this movie - I don't think the average horror movie fan is that well-versed in Western occultism, especially the works of Aleister Crowley. In order to understand the movie, you really ought to have read... uhm... quite a lot by Uncle Al; you have to know about his life, his philosophy, the concept and philosophy of Thelema, Western Hermeticism, the OTO, Crowley's life, his relationship with Parsons, the whole Scientology-OTO-thingie, politics of the occult world before WWII... and I don't want to insult my few readers, but most of that stuff is known only to serious students of the occult. Anyone can read a book by Crowley, but there aren't that many who actually understand what he was saying.

Hell, even the name of the protagonist is an inside joke. Joshua Mathers. It's so obvious it's not even funny anymore. Or is it really just me who notices those things? I mean... seriously. Joshua. Yoshua. Yeshua. Jesus. Moonchild. And 'Mathers'? Please. But nice touch, really.

Note also that the name of the guy who gets possessed by Crowley, Prof. Oliver Haddo, was one of the pen names of The Beast.

It's stuff like that that can make the movie really enjoyable (also consider the trick of Prof. Haddo with turning water into wine). Without... hrmph.

Without that amount of background knowledge, the movie will seem incoherent, weird, even pointless at times.




That said, I enjoyed it immensely. Quotes from Crowley's works and references to it are abundant, even if they're sometimes mangled a bit for the "average" audience. Trying to view this movie as a non-occult person, I'd say that the dialogues are terrible, at times nonsensical and that there is no horror involved in it. However, as someone who is intimately familiar with Crowley and his work, I was enjoying every single minute of Chemical Wedding (although it still hurts my soul that it's "Chemical" Wedding instead of Chymical Wedding... that would have added a nice touch).

Frankly, I can't tell you a lot more about this movie without delving deeply into the realm of the occult and of Crowley's Thelema. And frankly, I don't think that you would be interested in reading that. In the end, it would boil down into me talking lots and lots about ...weird stuff.

Something I definitely have to criticise is the inclusion of Kal Weber as the theoretical physicist Joshua Mathers. Whilst the character in itself is a plausible concept, and the name will get many chuckles from occultists and magick-workers, the movie could have done without him. There is a love-affair between him and a female, redheaded student at Cambridge which was just unbelievable. Maybe it's me and my knowledge about how such affairs turn out in the end (not good for the party that already holds a degree and is supposed to teach and work instead of fucking young students)... but seriously. The role of Yoshua could have been done better - much better, considering the whole Moonchild-thing.

Besides for the constant occult references that only a small part of the viewers will get, the theoretical physics-jargon was also something that one shouldn't put into a movie made for the average viewer. References to Einstein's famous e=mc² abound, as do terms from theoretical physics that the average viewer just won't understand. I'm in the lucky position to know a bit about occultism/Magick and less about theoretical physics, but hey: If you make a movie, don't expect that everyone knows that kind of stuff. I got a good chuckle out of some obscure references to quantum physics, but I bet all my books on the fact that most people won't. Ever.

I hate to have to reference movies outside of the horror genre, but I guess that Chemical Wedding suffers from the same things as Dante 01 or PI: If you're not into the occult, the qabbala and Magick, you won't get much of what those movies are actually about.

Hence: Two different ratings for this one.



cyn-score: 8.75/10 for making me get up and get back into doing more workings.

normal-score: 4/10 for being an incomprehensible pile of spent time wondering about what these people are babbling about.

(See? I can do both, normal reviews and "HOLY CRAP IT'S A CROWLEY FLICK!")



Anyways, I hope to see more movies catering to an audience such as myself.



* I wasn't too sure whether to spell it like that or make it Caliphornian, or Caliph/fornian, or any of those combinations combined with "fornication". Pardon the pun.

**=0 Uhm... google?

*** Knock yourself out.

**** Oh come on, you know the definition. Don't make me pray it. Please... *sighs* Okay. But only because it's you.

You've been warned.

I) DEFINITION.

Magick is the Science and Art of causing Change to occur in conformity with Will.

(Illustration: It is my Will to inform the World of certain facts within my knowledge. I therefore take “magickal weapons”, pen, ink, and paper I write “incantations”—these sentences—in the “magickal language” ie, that which is understood by the people I wish to instruct I call forth “spirits”, such as printers, publishers, booksellers and so forth and constrain them to convey my message to those people. The composition and distribution of this book is thus an act of Magick by which I cause Changes to take place in conformity with my Will.)

In one sense Magick may be defined as the name given to Science by the vulgar.

II) POSTULATE.

ANY required change may be effected by the application of the proper kind and degree of Force in the proper manner, through the proper medium to the proper object.

(Illustration: I wish to prepare an ounce of Chloride of Gold. I must take the right kind of acid, nitro-hydrochloric and no other, in a vessel which will not break, leak or corrode, in such a manner as will not produce undesirable results, with the necessary quantity of Gold: and so forth. Every change has its own conditions.

In the present state of our knowledge and power some changes are not possible in practice we cannot cause eclipses, for instance, or transform lead into tin, or create men from mushrooms. But it is theoretically possible to cause in any object any change of which that object is capable by nature and the conditions are covered by the above postulate.)

*****Jack Parsons. Look him up.

Whisper (2007)

The devil's work is child's play...

Cor 11:14 - And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.




Stewart Hendler surprises with a, forgive me the repetition, surprisingly good movie. The plot?

A group of three men and a woman kidnap a child, one David Sandborn (played by a convincing Blake Woodruff). But it's not that easy - one of the kidnappers, Max Truemont (as portrayed by Josh Holloway), has just been released from prison, and together with his fiancé Roxanne (Sarah Wayne Callies), he wants to build a new life for both of them by opening a diner However, he isn't granted the $50,000 loan he was building his plans on, and so the future looks more than bleak. But he wants to fulfill this dream, and with hesitation he teams up with his former colleague in crime, Sydney, and his sidekick Vincent - they are hired by a mysterious stranger, only known as a distorted voice on the phone. Their job? To kidnap David... which isn't that hard. The hard part is not to fall prey to the vicious mind-games the child is playing... and not to listen to the whispers filling their minds with images and ideas which are far from holy...




Really, I was surprised. Although we know that something is wrong with the child David as soon as we get to see him the first time - no normal kid controls cars with his mind, and no normal kid can control black wolves to do his bidding -, we still don't know what exactly it is that he's doing... or what exactly he is. But it all becomes perfectly clear with every minute of the movie.




David is, for all practical intentions, the 2007 version of The Omen's Damien. They even look similar, and I don't think that the very conservative dress of the child actor here was a coincidence - his whole demeanor, the way he carries himself and how he speaks literally screams "DAMIEN!!!". This can't just have been coincidence - and although it works out very well, I still would have appreciated a tad more originality.




Don't get me wrong, Blake Woodruff does a great job in this movie as the creepy kid with the creepy, supernatural powers (which he definitely doesn't use for good). It's just that I got the distinct impression that someone gave him a copy of Omen and told him to do just that... because that's how it comes across. Maybe I haven't watched enough movies about evil children yet, though...




Besides reminding me of Omen's Damien (believe it or not, I constantly have to keep myself from typing the word "Damien" when I want to type "David"), there's another eerie child that Woodruff's portrayal of Whisper's main character reminded me of: Caleb Temple, played by Lucas Black, in the 1995 TV series American Gothic (which, by the way, is awesomeness incarnate - if you don't know it yet, grab yourself one of the hard to find copies and enjoy it). Some of the scenes had an eerie similarity to the portrayal of David in Whisper.

But enough of that.




The camera is ...impressive at times. In some shots, the angles used are really interesting, adding to the oppressive and dark mood considerably.

Speaking of dark... this is a dark movie. The topic in question aside, the whole movie oozes darkness. Most of what we see happens at night, and the scenes which were shot during the day make much use of light and shadow - although, admittedly, at times it's a bit unbalanced in that regard, and shadow used too liberally.




Also, the colours fit in with the mood - mostly a palette of grey, white, blue and shadow (or, to put it differently - blue, the first royal colour of shadow). And yes, I am definitely considering shadow to be a colour in this context. See for yourself if you don't believe my judgment.




Another thing that might put viewers off is the religious/mythical background for the story which is told. I know a lot of people who'd rather watch their least favourite flick another time rather than watching a movie with religious symbolism present - Dante 01, of which a non-horror review is due soon, is one of the prime examples for this, but I've heard of people who refuse watching Rosemary's Baby or assorted stuff just because of the present YHVH/Satan dualism. Although I'm not a big fan of that particular religious paradigm myself, I enjoy movies with that sort of undertone. But maybe that's just me with my spleen when it comes to religious/supernatural movies...

But one has to admit it: Sound and imagery work in subtle favour of aforementioned religious/mythical background of Whisper.





6.75/10 children that really, really shouldn't play with crayons...

Darkness (2002)

Uhm. Yeah... Come on, cyn, think of SOMETHING to say...

Darkness is, as the name might cleverly suggest, a very ...dark movie. Dark and wet, to be precise. There's a lot of raining going on, lots of water... lots of... darkness...

To be honest, I don't know what to write about that movie. It's... I don't know. Nondescript maybe? No, that doesn't really cover it, but it conveys some of my feelings.

Uhm.

Let's try to make cyn talk a bit more about this movie. First of all, it features Anna Paquin of "True Blood" fame. I personally call her "annoying bitch", because seriously, in every single episode of "True Blood" aired as of now, she managed to annoy me. Royally. Luckily, she plays a less annoying character here - a teenage daughter who has some issues. I guess it says a lot about my opinion of her character in "True Blood" when I think an annoying teenager with issues is, well, less of a nuisance. Also, Regina is less of a stupid name than "Sookie Stackhouse". I mean... come on. "Sookie"? *shakes head*

So... she's in the movie and plays the teenage daughter of Mark (Iain Glen) and Maria (Lena Olin), who, together with said daughter and their young boy Paul (some kid), move into an old house in Spain. The family itself is American, with only Mark originally being from Spain. He suffered some weird traumatic event during his childhood, after which he and his mother went to the USA, whilst his father, Albert Rua - a famed doctor - stayed behind. Albert also helped to arrange that Mark and his family can move into the house (which had been uninhabited for fourty years)... but soon after they move in, weird things begin to happen - the lights go out daily, Paul develops a fear of the dark, Mark suffers from increasingly high levels of psychological stress (which seems to be tied to the darkness, somehow)... and ghostly children, who actually look kind of creepy, are watching the family... watching and waiting - for the eclipse...

Great, now I managed to give a plot synopsis. Kudos to me.

The problem with Darkness is... well. I don't know. It's aesthetically pleasing at times. At other times, it's just bland. There are a few scares... but, well. Uhm. I am grasping at straws here... there just is nothing special or memorable about this flick.

Also, the story is confusing. I was constantly trying to figure out why the plot is happening. Ghosts? The supernatural seeping into our world in a Lovecraftian way? A haunted house? WHY?! So... whilst I was guessing and trying to make sense of the plot, I sort of enjoyed the movie. Not immensely, but it wasn't bad either. Just something to fill a boring Saturday afternoon with procrastinating.

Problem? The very second we get an explanation for the things that happened (and continue to happen), it gets lame. Lame and boring. Plus, the explanation doesn't work. It just doesn't. Nope. *shakes head*
There should be a rule for scriptwriters: If a movie like Dracula AD 1972 has a coherent plot and manages to capture the audience and your movie can't... you're doing it wrong.

As I already mentioned in passim, the movie has atmosphere. What it doesn't have is a good story with a good plot based on a good script. Hell, we get a freaking "evil occultists sacrifice children in order to do stuff that is vaguely connected with darkness"-plot! Which, as I already said, just doesn't work. You see, evil occultists usually want to reach some sort of goal with their evil doings (I know this sounds farfetched, but trust me on this). "Darkness" is not a goal. I can't stress this enough. Yes, I'll admit it, plunging the world into primordial chaos, darkness and silence sounds nice to me, but just doing some stuff vaguely reminiscent of "evil doings" and blabbing about it is ...pointless. Pointless and a bit stupid.

You see, I can get passionate about this movie. The portrayal of occultism is abysmal, and the stuff the writers "know" about occultism and symbolism is abysmal as well. I'll grant them that the connection to the Egyptian conceptualisation of darkness as a sort of primordial, chaotic thing (think of Apep, the snake that the sun-god has to defeat every night) closely linked to water was very beautiful. I like spotting references to ancient cultures in my movies. What I don't like is being stabbed in the eyes with incompetent portrayals of "occultism".

But I'm sure that there are people who approve of the movie's plot. Ehm... make that "plot".

4.5/10 watery buildings which were built in order to enhance stuff. For darkness. Or something like that. Really, barely coherent, the thing.

Hellraiser (1987)

"Take it... the box! It's yours! ... ...it always was..."

...and so we are introduced to the main "protagonist" of the first Hellraiser movie - the box.

This is by far the best movie in the franchise - its creativity and uncompromising ...honesty (an honesty of flesh and mind, reflected in the camerawork and the imagery used) mark the, in my opinion, absolute zenith of horror in the 80s - and, mind you, I still think it's one of the masterpieces the genre has produced. There are not a lot of movies, modern or otherwise, who are able to evoke the same feeling as Clive Barker's Hellraiser did and still does.

Speaking of the camerawork and the pictures - beautiful. This is a 1987 movie we are talking about, and the suspense and effects are far better than in most modern horror flicks I've watched (and trust me, it's a lot).

That goes for the gore as well. Hooks lodging themselves in weak, human flesh... chains dangling from the ceiling, pieces of flesh on them, eternally turning, clanging, turning... flesh dripping from those hooks and chains... fingers, tenderly searching through the pieces.

And Pinhead - carressing the puzzle box - using it, so that he and the other Cenobites can use the dead one forever, in order to teach...

Enter Julia and Larry.

Julia and Larry move into his (Larry's) old family's house... which happens to be the place where Frank, Larry's dead brother, opened a gate to hell by means of the puzzle box. What Larry doesn't know, although he suspects his brother (he doesn't know that he's ...somewhere else now) of being a bit of a perverted fucktard, is that his very own wife, Julia, had a heated affair with his own dear brother. And that she still loves the nasty boy that is... was... Frank.

The lighting in the movie is beautiful, as are the pictures and the editing (but I think I already mentioned the pictures... sorry, overwhelmed with joy).



We also get treated to softcore knife play... nice. And although I don't find the actors attractive, it is quite an erotic scene - all the little details, like the 9-inch-nail (a subtle foreshadowing of Pinhead's presence?), the knife, the using of Julia, her submissive behaviour and begging... those are the things that make it erotic. In a very special way, if you get my meaning.

Larry obviously is a wuss. He cuts himself on a nail... and AAAAWWWWWWWWW I AM BLEEDING!
...how terrible.

But the blood, in this instance, is not wasted... not at all. Instead, it is used to free someone - an accursed, damned denizen of the Cenobite's Hell... Frank.


And, as you can see above: The gore is fucking awesome. Remember, this is the 80s we're talking about, and Hellraiser is still one of the goriest movies I can name off the top of my hat. It is just beautiful beyond words. More movies need slime. And slimy things.

The sound effects also are a source of joy... whispering, hollow sounds that seem to speak and may speak but don't, heartbeats... and a soundtrack that just kills you.

And Julia sure is one good girl. A good, devout girl that follows her boyfriend's - (un)dead boyfriend's - every single command.

Like... feeding him with the blood of human victims.

"Will you do it?"

"Yes... I will."

"Good..."

Something that is really striking me is that the scenes depicting Julia more often than not only show her legs - her torso is left completely out of the picture. Is it a fetish thing? Is it some sort of symbolism that explains Julia's heartless nature to us? Is it supposed to show us that she's just an object - an object willingly subjected and devoted to Frank's lusts and desires? I personally favour a combination of the three, and I am sure that there are other interpretations than those that my brain spews forth.

We also get treated to highly surreal but extremely beautiful scenes.

Pretty, isn't it?

Julia on her way to seduce guys... for what reason, you may ask? After all, she is married AND has an (un?)dead lover up in the attic...

Plus, I am sorry to say it, but the whole business-woman look is sort of hot. No, I don't think that Julia, aka Clare Higgins is hot (she is old! She has a weird look! She is... old! She has 80s hair!), but the outfit... erm. Yes. I am going to stop now. Otherwise, this might not be a proper review anymore.

This, dear males, is why you should never trust women who just want to take you home:



Remember: Women can be cruel. Especially when we're in love... and even more so when we're in love with (un?)dead sadomasochistic creatures from hell.



At this point, I want to add that I probably already watched this movie about 20 times, and I still don't know whether to classify Frank as dead or as undead. Well, one consolation - he certainly isn't alive (...or is he?!), so I only have to choose between those two options.



The character I personally dub "Nyarlathotep the Younger"... for various reasons. If you're a fan of Lovecraft (as you SHOULD be), you'll probably understand why after watching the movie and... well, knowing about Nyarlathotep.



This, gentlemen, is a lady who wants to fuck a corpse (well, technically...) and is willing to do anything to reach that goal.



Behold... the puzzle box. And beware of the pleasures it holds...

...pain and pleasure combined into one - one terrifying and deadly, satisfying feeling of the mingling between life and death, pleasure and pain, love and hate... intense emotions.

Sheesh, I'm becoming all writer-y again. Working on a story and then writing a review seems to make my writing style seep over into the business of reviewing horror. Not that it's a real business, mind you, but... you know what I mean. At least I hope I managed to express myself without too many problems...

Actually, most of the movie consists of the same scenes over and over again. Julia killing/injuring people for Frank, Frank killing people to regain his flesh, Kirsty being all "something is WRONG!", Larry being an ignorant husband (as was established from the beginning)... but this doesn't take anything away from the suspense and utter beauty that is Hellraiser. In a way, this repetitiveness actually helps to establish the mood of the movie - hypnotic.

"It's me, Uncle Frank..."

"Some things have to be endured... and that's what makes the pleasure so SWEET..."



The flower... beautiful symbolism. A symbolism with so many layers that I can't even go into it without making this review into a thesis on how red flowers blooming mean lots of different things in this movie... how they describe a multi-layered reality and different meanings behind the movie and its script or even the original story by Clive Barker on which it (the movie and the script) was based on. Suffice it to say that the terms "life" and "death" only describe a minimum of the symbolism these particular scenes are infused with. I invite you to watch it and judge for yourself. Philosophy students are more than welcome to post their opinions ;)

And I also want to reiterate that the visuals of Hellraiser are some of the best and most enchanting I've ever seen.

Escaping Frank with the puzzle box, Kirsty collapses in panic. Dazed and confused, she wanders through the streets, holding on to it. When she finally breaks down, she is brought into a hospital, where she first doesn't believe that what she experienced was true - until the doctors hand her the box. And of course, as soon as she's alone with the puzzle box in the hospital, she starts playing with it. And we all know what that means: Hell is about to get raised (sorry, pun intended, although I know it's a bad one).

"The box. You opened it. We came."

Pinhead just RULEZ. If there's any entity in horror movies that is just so distanced and matter-of-fact like he is, I will have to start worshipping that one. Until such a time comes, Pinhead still is on top of my list of villains. His detached way of viewing the world of the living flesh is just... brilliant. Other horror movie villains hate, show passion and anger, or are demented. He, on the other hand, is just mildly interested. A tad curious, maybe, but that's it. And that's what makes him so awesome.


Yes. In case you didn't gather it yet, I'm a big Pinhead fan.


Ehm. On with the review at hand.

Kirsty strikes a deal with the Cenobites - she solved the box, and so she should accompany them to hell. However, she manages to convince them that if Frank - Frank, he who escaped from Hell against the Cenobites' wishes and desires - admits that he escaped, they will take him back instead of her.

Promptly, she runs back to her house, demanding to see her father... who, at that point isn't exactly her dad anymore. Frank has taken his skin. Literally. And the Cenobites want him back - they are a bit pissed off.



The beauty of this movie is that no one is innocent of guilt. Kirsty strikes a deal with demonic beings (well... demons to some, angels to others), her father is just dumb and ignorant, Frank is a veritable human monster, Julia is a soulless, murdering bitch, and Pinhead and the other Cenobites aren't exactly nice fluffy bunnies either. This is not Good vs. Evil - this is monstrosity and evil and guilt and desire and darkness on different levels.

Later on in the movie, we get to witness one truly suspenseful cat-and-mouse scene with two absolutely unique and unexpected jump scares.

Suffice it to say... the Cenobites get what they want: Dear old uncle Frank (as if there had been any doubt of that).

"Jesus wept..."

And... a truly unique ending that leaves us smiling.




Long story short: Awesome movie. Truly awesome movie. Everything just ...fits. There really isn't much more to say than that. If you haven't seen Hellraiser yet (shame on you), then go, leave the house now and get the uncut version for ultimate joy and a truly great movie.

10/10 chains with hooks lodging into flesh coming out of nowhere, controlled by Pinhead's will