MovieChat Forums > Hellraiser (1987) Discussion > If it wasn't for the acting

If it wasn't for the acting


it could've been the best horror movie ever. I really liked it that much. But gosh I can't get by the horrendous acting. I rated it a 7/10 but honestly the story is better than most of my 9 star horror movies. Why didn't the director spend a little more time to get more from the actors?

I love !

reply

I agree 100%! I'm surprised more people don't mention this. The acting is almost as scary as the Cenobites!
I will say Doug Bradley (Pinhead) and the other speaking demons do well.
But no one else sure does, not even Kirstie.

The only popular horror film with worse acting that I know of is the original "Nightmare On Elm Street".
Terrible.


I'd say this cloud is Cumulo Nimbus.
Didn't he discover America?
Penfold, shush.

reply

The only thing that really bothers me acting wise is the bad dubbing of Frank. He sounds way too stilted.

reply

You do realize the budget of this film was barely 1 million right? Time wasn't something they had the luxury of indulging.

reply

Yea, there were very awkward moments of silent expressions and poor delivery. None of the Cenobites were bad....even though a couple of them had zero lines.

reply

Chalk it up to inexperience.
Barker, while a terrific writer, had never directed before, and as both director and writer was probably also to close to the source material to notice the sometimes flat delivery of the lines.

Still an awesome movie though.

reply

I didn't think the acting was all that bad. But I suppose I was too engaged with the excellent story to pay attention.

reply