"The Scarlet Gospels" by Clive Barker (Book Review)

Here is my spoiler-free review of Clive Barker’s latest novel, “The Scarlet Gospels”.  However, please be advised I am going to spoil the shit out of the first two “Hellraiser” films, which if you haven’t seen by now…well, shame on you!

Let me get this out of the way first: I ADORE Clive Barker’s masterpiece of horror cinema, “Hellraiser” (1987) and its sequel, “Hellbound: Hellraiser II” (1988), as well as his novella “The Hellbound Heart” which was the basis for it all.  In those works Barker (and screenwriter Peter Atkins) established an amazingly rich, Lovecraftian type of mythology that was light years ahead of any other piece of horror fiction at the time.  Unfortunately, as the franchise continued on after the second film, they eschewed the mysteries of the labyrinth or the history behind the “Order of the Gash” in favor of making the character of the lead Cenobite, “Pinhead” (played brilliantly by actor Doug Bradley) into the next Freddy Krueger instead.  And with each new sequel (there are currently 8 films in all), the series got further and further away from everything I loved about the first two films.

Flash forward to a few years back, where I was ecstatic to read that Barker was working on what would be the definitive “Hellraiser” book, that would not only explore the dimension the Cenobites exist in, but also delve into the origins and ultimate demise of “Pinhead”.  Finally, I thought, we were going to get what I hoped would be a return to form that would erase all the nonsense and terrible deviations from the original film that came after Barker left the film franchise.  This, for me, was going to be the horror novel of the decade and as big an event as the return of “Star Wars”.

Naturally though, when one gets their hopes up that much, there is no way for something to meet those expectations and sadly that’s what happened with me and “The Scarlet Gospels”.  The plot is really (and tragically) very simple in that Pinhead sets about murdering the world’s greatest magicians (and by “magicians” I don’t mean the stage kind) and stealing their secrets as a way of empowering himself in order for him to become powerful enough to overtake Lucifer and establish his own rule over hell (and destroy all life on Earth and Heaven too, blah, blah, blah).  Enter another Barker literary creation, detective Harry D’Amour (who some might remember as the lead character in Barker’s film “Lord of Illusions”, played by Scott Bakula) who, along with a group of magically gifted friends, enter into Hell in order to recover a close psychic friend of his kidnapped by Pinhead.  Does Pinhead have diabolic plans for the psychic or is it all in an effort to lure D’Amour into hell as part of some trap?  For that I’ll let you read the book to find out (just prepare to be underwhelmed).

I have so many problems with this novel that I really don’t know where to begin.  First off, I was horrified to see that the “Hell” in this novel was not the extra dimensional realm seen in the first two films, but rather the Christian concept of Hell, complete with demons sporting tails and Lucifer himself.  Now, Barker had written a novel in 2007 entitled, “Mister B. Gone” about a demon escaping the more traditional Hell and venturing out into our world, circa the 1300’s.  Much of the descriptions of Hell in that novel seem to mirror those in “Scarlet Gospels”.  Perhpas Barker saw this novel as a way of tying in several of his past works into one grand story?  I don’t know what his reasons, but this is certainly not the Hell I wanted to read about.  One of the things that I so loved about “Hellraiser” was the fact that not only was “Hell” (aka “The Labyrinth “) something entirely original and wholly separate from the conventional portraits of Hell, but there was also never any mention of Christianity (other than the classic “Jesus Wept” line) in the sense that figures like Satan or even Christ were not a part of the Cenobite’s dominion.  But with “Scarlet Gospels”, all of that mythos from the original movie is thrown out the window.

Then there’s the characterization of Pinhead in this, which is such a huge digression from what Pinhead was initially created to be.  In the early films, Pinhead was a secondary character who was merely (and gleefully) following the order of things by apprehending & torturing anyone who dared to open the puzzle box that secretly summoned him.  In fact, Pinhead wasn’t created to be the villain in either of the first two films, as the human characters of Frank & Julia in the original (and then Julia & Dr. Channard in the second film) were the real antagonists.  Pinhead also had what I like to call his “Return of the Jedi” moment at the end of “Hellbound”, where he, much like Darth Vader, is reminded of his humanity and dies in an attempt to save the main character.  But that history is irrelevant to whomever this Pinhead is which sadly is more like the “Freddy Krueger” wannabe Pinhead of part 3 than Barker’s own Pinhead.  He’s so thinly written in this novel that he comes off more like a megalomaniacal comic book villain wanting to destroy the world and seems to exist solely to be the baddie for Harry D’Amour to thwart.  There’s no history to him.  No real understanding why he suddenly decides he wants to remove Lucifer from power.  Were just told he’s “evil” and that’s all we have to go on.

And that too is also why I couldn’t enjoy “Scarlet Gospels” on its own as something apart from the other “Hellraiser” films, as there is no characterization whatsoever. D’Amour and his friends feel like they’re just superheroes going about business as usual.  Even the dialog between them comes off like some Saturday matinee serial from the 40’s.  There’s more depth in Barker’s “Hellbound Heart” novella than there is in this.  Going in, I wondered if this book could ever be made into a movie (though at the time I was thinking it would be more “Hellraiser-ly”), but in all actuality it reads like a script for a generic Hollywood horror film and could easily be made into a movie…just not a very memorable one.  Gone is the originality and pure imagination that went into much of Barker’s earliest works and in its place is a Barker who feels like he is on automatic pilot.  Sadly, it would appear that when it comes to Pinhead & “Hellraiser”, Barker no longer has such sights to show us.

"Dark Was The Night" (2014)

The plot to this film is really quite simple: the sheriff (played by Kevin Durand) of a small isolated town in upper New York state investigates a series of strange deaths and disappearances in the surrounding forests  by what looks to be some unknown animal.  He quickly comes to the conclusion that this creature is stalking the outskirts of town, but may soon make its way into the heart of it and start killing more townspeople after a blizzard moves in and shuts everything down.

In truth, I went into this expecting nothing since this is the kind of film that has been done to death and often times not told very well.  Honestly though, I found myself drawn into it, mostly because the director, Jack Heller (who also directed the terrific low budget thriller, “Enter Nowhere”), takes the material seriously, which I appreciated.  Typically in these kinds of films we’re treated to the usual stock characters, but a lot of this film feels more like a character study with Durand’s character having to cope with his son’s recent accidental death and the after effects it’s had on his family.  Durand (a Canadian character actor who usually is known for playing villains) does an admirable job here in creating a very vulnerable and down to earth protagonist who is trying to keep it all together, while at the same time protect his town from this seemingly unstoppable creature.  Lukas Haas (who famously played the little Amish boy in 1985’s “Witness”) is also quite good as Durand’s deputy recently transplanted from New York City.  He and Durand share some good chemistry together and come off as two men who feel quite real, facing something completely unreal.  And rounding the cast out is another character actor who seems to be making a name for himself in the horror genre (and one I’ve become a big fan of), and that of course is Nick Damici, who plays a local bartender who regales everyone with Native American legends that seem to fit their current circumstance.   Having Damici in your cast, no matter how big or small his part, always adds a touch of class to any film he’s in.

Now, I’m not saying the film is anything earth shattering or is in any way going to create new trends, but for what this film is, I found it to be a top notch, low budget monster film.  It certainly feels like something in the vein of Stephen King during the 80’s (think “Cycle of the Werewolf” with a touch of “The Mist”), which in itself was instantly appealing to me having grown up reading King heavily during that period.  I also appreciated the way Heller wisely keeps the creature in the shadows and out of view for most of the film, much in the same way Spielberg famously did in “Jaws” or even like M. Night Shyamalan did with the aliens in “Signs”.  It’s much more suspenseful that way as it adds a lot more life to the creature, given that as an audience member your allowed to project your own image of it in your mind, as opposed to seeing it fully throughout.  And too, most of the effects for it are practical, save towards the end, which is always a plus in my book.

If I do have any complaints (other than the blue filtered, desaturated look that is used all the external scenes, I suppose to give it a feel of winter, but in reality it becomes a little distracting), my biggest would the very abrupt ending.  Without getting into spoiler territory, I’ll just say that it felt like it should’ve gone on further, but under the obvious budgetary constraints it stops short, which was very disappointing. 

That said though, it’s well worth checking out, especially if you like a solid monster movie told with a straight face.  It’s nothing you haven’t seen before, believe me, but at least the actors are given a chance to do more with it than would normally be permitted.  It’s not too often a monster film will allow for some back story for it’s characters so that you might actually care for them when they head into peril.  Plus, for me it felt like a breath of fresh air when you consider all the deliberately bad, “made-for SyFy” type of low budget monster fare we seem to be getting so much of lately.   7 out of 10 for me.

"Insidious: Chapter III" (2015)

I’ll say this, that when Blumhouse first started coming out with some of their supernatural thrillers (like the original “Insidious” and “Sinister”), I was all on board. After having endured ten years or so of so-called “torture porn” films, I was happy to see mainstream horror moving away from that and towards something that would hopefully leave more to the imagination. The problem is, I think many of these filmmakers have hit the limit as far as imagination goes for this sub-genre and “Insidious: Chapter III” feels like a glaring example. 

While I will commend the film for trying to use a more subdued approach with this entry (especially after all the confusing and chaotic plot lines in “Chapter II”), the biggest problem is it never seems to provide any genuine sense of creepiness that the original (and to a lesser extent, its sequel) had in spades. In fact, by this point it all feels like an old hat, and first time director Leigh Wannell seems more focused on creating jump scares than telling a cohesive story. I never really felt like I knew who the main character was, as the first half seems like it’s following Stefanie Scott’s character, while the second half switches focus by giving us a back story to Lin Shaye’s psychic character from the first two films. Add to that a ghostly villain who we never really learn anything about, nor what his intentions are, to where all we do know about him is he’s bad (and that he has a breathing mask, which seemed an odd choice for a ghost to be wearing).

Then there’s the script, which is not only thin in terms of plot, but the dialog is atrocious at points (poor Lin Shaye having to say cringe worthy things like, “Bring it, bitch!”). Could James Wan, the director of the first two, have been able to do more with it? Possibly. Wan certainly has more experience working with actors, but with a dud of a script like this I think even he’d have a hard time getting them to sell such awful lines. Although, Wan does like to move the camera around, which in films like these heightens the tension, creating a sense that anything could appear at any given moment. Wannell on the other hand, keeps most everything steady (a little TOO steady), and because of that I never felt on edge. I really wish he had used that more in his favor, by suddenly turning on his audience (though he comes close to it in one scene). As a result, I was mostly bored with the overall product and by the film’s end, I was left hoping that this will be the concluding chapter!

"Terminator: Genisys" (2015)

Today is the 14^th anniversary of “Terminator 2: Judgment Day”.  With the exception of “The Phantom Menace”, I can’t think of any other film that I was so stoked about seeing.  At that point in my life, I had a huge hard on for anything James Cameron did, as he was a movie making god in my mind and with all the previews and advance buzz, I just knew T2 was going to end up being a religious experience for me.  And lo and behold…it WAS!  Unlike “Phantom Menace”, T2 lived up to all my expectations and more.  I was so entranced with that film that I ended up seeing it at least a couple dozen times that summer.

Flash forward to last night, as I was walking into the theater to purchase a ticket for “Terminator: Genisys “, I was thinking about how I was feeling the total opposite of how I felt going into T2.  I came into this film with the lowest of expectations based on lackluster previews and less than stellar reviews.  Afterwards, as the end credits hit the screen, my first thought was not only how truly awful the film was, but also how I would never watch this again, even if my life depended on it.

The film seems to want to be a “soft reboot” and, much like J.J. Abrams’ “Star Trek”, the film quickly goes about trying to set up a whole new timeline so the franchise can have a fresh start, all while still retaining its continuity.  My question is which continuity and which timeline are we rebooting?  The film is so mired in all of these ridiculous time travel paradoxes to where none of it makes any sense and only made my head hurt.  I get that this is an alternate timeline to T1, but T2 is never fully acknowledged neither are the events of T3 and T4 as well.  But then again, those latter two sequels were also “alternate timelines”, as was the entire television series, “Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles”, so that makes this film the FOURTH time the franchise has been rebooted then.

And if you’re going to “reboot” so as to hopefully bring in younger viewers to the fold, wouldn’t you do it a way where it isn’t so grafted onto the original film?  Even as ardent a fan as I am of the first two films, I had no idea what was going on, so how could anyone new to the franchise follow it (and thanks to the PG-13 rating, I saw a lot of kids in my screening)?   The film is just a mess with all of its many plot holes, to where all I could do was sit there and wonder, “If they travelled back in time to go to one timeline, how would they end up in another?”  “Who sent this version of Arnold?”  “Who sent the T-1000 to the alternate timeline of the first film?” “How does Reese remember two different timelines of his past?”  “How does Skynet seemingly see all of the different timelines?”

The real question though is, “Why make this movie at all?”  I don’t think people were clamoring for yet another “Terminator” sequel about another terminator travelling back in time and once again establishing alternate timelines, forcing our heroes to once again have to stop Skynet from becoming self aware.  Nor did they want to see their favorite characters replaced by such dull actors (and those actors that weren’t dull, like J.K. Simmons & Matt Smith being criminally underused) and the one star they do bring back, playing a robot pushing 70.  Nor did they want to see some of the worst CGI effects muddying some rather uninspired action sequences (this film really exemplifies the need for studios to start cutting back on their over reliance on CG effects and start using more practical ones again, much the way “Mad Max: Fury Road” did).  Unlike 14 years ago today, where I was so ecstatic to see the return of the “Terminator” franchise and was shouting it’s praises from the rooftops, this time I left the theater praying that Arnold & this series as a whole won’t “be back’.

"From the Dark" (2014)

I remember as a kid back in 1979 watching the mini-series, “Salem’s Lot and being scared shitless by it at the sight of “Mr. Barlowe”, the “Nosferatu” looking vampire, who emerged from his coffin in the show’s latter act.  There’s always been something about that type of vampire that has given me the chills, with its hideous visage and long, extended fingers that seem to be reaching out to grab you.  Too often, most vampire films are about suave Victorian era aristocrats, who live a secret life drinking blood from unsuspecting virgins, but very rarely anymore is the vampire portrayed as decrepit & desiccated creatures who are more monster than man.  I will say that thankfully that is one thing that “From the Dark” gets right with me.

The film opens with a middle aged farmer (Gerry O’Brien) digging through the soil until he strikes something hard.  Upon digging through the mud he, he begins pulling on the object until it pops out, revealing it to be a wooden stake.  This of course resurrects a nasty looking vampire creature (Ged Murray), who promptly takes a bite out of the farmer and drags him into a nearby pond.

Cut to six hours earlier, where we see a young Irish couple, Sarah (Niamh Algar) & Mark (Stephen Cromwell) driving through the countryside, apparently on their way to a romantic getaway.  While driving through some muddy back roads, their car gets stuck in a rut, forcing Mark to seek out anyone living nearby while Sarah hangs back at the car.  Now, you’d think he would bring her with him rather than abandoning her on a deserted road at night, lest someone unsavory should come along…which of course, someone unsavory does indeed come along (though nothing becomes of it, other than seeing the vampire’s silhouette behind Sarah out the back window of the car).

Mark happens upon a farmhouse, which as we soon discover, belongs to the same farmer that accidentally resurrected the vampire creature, as he comes stumbling home covered in blood and appears to be out of it.  Mark rushes back to Sarah, tells her about the dazed farmer and how they need to help him, and the two leave the car behind and head back to the farm together.  Once they arrive the farmer has succumbed to his bat bite and has become one of the undead.  Meanwhile, our decrepit vampire creature has also shown up, with his eye on both Mark & Sarah.

Froom here on it, it pretty much becomes you’re standard siege film, as the two characters try to barricade themselves from both the farmer and the vampire itself.  There were a couple of little touches that I really liked.  The first of which is that the vampire cannot be in the presence of light – and by “light” I mean ANY light, not just sunlight.  In one scene they’re even using candles to ward it off, almost like a crucifix.  It kind of plays a little like “Pitch Black” in that regard, with night vision shots being used for the vampire’s POV, which becomes blinding if a light is shone in it’s direction.

The other thing I really appreciated that director Conor McMahon employed, was keeping the vampire obscured throughout the entire film.  Often we see it standing in the distance with its eerie stance, or in other shots it’s purposely kept out of focus, so you never really get a good look at it, thus allowing the imagination to fill in the missing details (I should note that as hard as McMahon worked to not show the vampire, I find it to be rather poor marketing that they chose to have the creature displayed prominently and in full view on the DVD cover).

On the downside, much of the action scenes are very hard to digest, as there are lots of close up shots and quick cuts that I found threw me off as to determining where in the house these characters were, or even who was doing what?  Not only that but adding in how darkly lit everything was just muddled everything all the more.

Still, for such a simple plot, I found “From the Dark” to be pretty effective at times, despite the film never fully emerging from the dark enough for me to be able to fully follow the action.

6 out of 10 for me.