How Hellraiser director David Bruckner turned me into a movie villain after a negative review
Back in 2008, David Bruckner and his co-directors reacted to my harsh critique of their debut, The Signal, by writing me into a sequel—as the bad guy
Film Features David Bruckner
The relationship between filmmakers and critics can be a complicated one. Directors can spend years getting something made, and may become understandably defensive when a critic fires off a review that dismisses, misinterprets, or condemns that project. Conversely, critics consider themselves analysts of form and/or function, and temperature-takers of the merits of a work. When their critique is rebuked it can feel like their role as cultural commentators is being challenged. Of course, each party can learn from the other, but like with any relationship, their dynamic requires mutual respect, humility, and a level of compassion.
Back in 2008, I reviewed The Signal, the debut film by co-directors David Bruckner (Hellraiser), Jacob Gentry (Synchronicity), and Dan Bush (The Vault). I didn’t especially like it, and said as much in my write-up for the website IGN. But over time, I would become friends with Gentry, and professionally cross paths with Bruckner a number of times. One night at a private event—and after a few adult beverages—Gentry confessed that he and his collaborators had read my review, and it sparked what I considered an extremely funny moment of inspiration. When I spoke to Bruckner recently for his exceptional new Hellraiser adaptation, we revisited this moment from earlier in our careers to get the aftermath of my review officially on the record.
The A.V. Club: A few years ago, I met Jacob Gentry. We got to be friends, and he mentioned that a review that I wrote of your film, The Signal, had inspired an element for a potential sequel. I was hoping you would talk with me about that.
David Bruckner: I was really hoping you would bring this up. Because you and I had only sort of acknowledged this once, which I think was at Fantastic Fest in 2018. The Signal was 2008, and we had never released a movie to the public. Jacob Gentry, myself, and Dan Bush were three directors that were part of this triptych movie that we had made—very, very indie. We weren’t used to getting reviews. And Todd, your first watch of The Signal, you did not enjoy it, which is fair. And your criticism was exquisite. And so we began to brainstorm a Signal sequel. And occasionally we would refer to Todd Gilchrist, like, how do we make Todd Gilchrist happy? And this mutated in our writer’s room into a character known as Gill Toddchrist. It was a joke for us. And then he found his way into the script—and he became amazing. And it became very funny to us that he was just fantastic. One tidbit about Gill was that he was a sports fan, and he really liked giving the play-by-play of “Signalized” individuals in the street. So he could talk whoever he was around into what was about to happen, and had an uncanny ability to predict how it would land. And then I found out you and Jacob met later and became pals, and was very happy to hear that there was a conversation that that happened.
But The Signal was the first movie that ever got out there, that I made with my friends. It was about a signal that erupted across all media devices. It manifests visually as a weird kind of a squiggly Rorschach [image] and knocked out all digital communications. And suddenly people start to act funny and they become agitated. Their fears and their desires suddenly go through the roof, and the next thing you know, violence is breaking out in the streets and it becomes this kind of apocalyptic scenario. We made this movie before social media, and it’s basically Twitter incarnate. And we did write a sequel at some point. I don’t think the world knew what to do with The Signal, and it was a bizarre film. And there were things about it that really worked, and there were things where we were really out on a limb just trying some stuff. But we did conceptualize a TV series at some point that we took out that we’ve been unable to sell. So, who knows? Maybe there is life yet in The Signal, but to me it’s still relevant. It’s super fun. It kind of over-the-top, zany violence. But there’s a lot in it about communication and how our perspectives are siloed. And there’s a real psychedelic quality to it that can be pretty frightening.
AVC: That’s such an interesting idea, and it sounds more relevant than ever. But also, the notion of being the villain in a horror movie was quite frankly, very exciting to me.
DB: Well, I’d also say, it was a learning experience for us about having thick skin. Since then, I have come to realize that everyone’s going to have a different take on the stuff that you create, and you just have to roll with it, and actually, you learn to embrace the fact that not everybody’s going to get it or experience it, or some people are going to see the seams in something depending what their experiences are. And look, I’m a moviegoer. I’m as critical as anybody. But I do have to say that there was an arc for us in learning about that, because even though Gill started as a villain, when I say he was amazing, he did incredible things! Like, he became to us a good guy. So we weren’t just sending up what you had written. We were, I think, working through our own experience of just putting something out there. So yeah, I’m really glad we could talk about this.
AVC: Me too. It feels very therapeutic. But I love the idea of that interaction—and if it’s at my expense, even better.
DB: I think that we have to have honest discussions about our experiences with the movies. I mean, I’m somebody who reads reviews, not just from my own stuff. The first thing I do after seeing a movie is jump on and read what my favorite critics are saying about it. And that’s a doorway that I have into a conversation about what it is, and you get into analyzing your feelings with experiences. Obviously, part of it is discussing the things that don’t work for us. But one day, I’ll give you all the details on Gill and where it went. And I think you’ll find that he was quite a current character and he was amazing—he evolved into wonderful places, and was not a villain in any way.
57 Comments
“his exceptional new Hellraiser adaptation,”Pfft. I don’t even think you believe that.
Maybe he takes exception to it.
I dunno, I’ve heard some say they really like it and some say it’s just okay.I haven’t been able to see it since it hasn’t be released in Canada yet.
It’s way too slick, it removes almost everything interesting about the original and turns it into basically a well-done teen slasher with pain demons. It seems like everyone who made it was scared of the heavy sexuality in the original. Even the cenobites are too cleaned up, they look like action figures instead of the gooey, disturbingly sexualized characters of the original. It’s not BAD, but it’s definitely not exceptional. The only thing it has over the original is that it stays at the same general level of quality for the whole thing as compared to the original which nose-dived in the last act.
The Cenobites in the new film are dressed in their own, mutilated flesh, and are mostly done with practical effects. I don’t know how you take that as less “gooey” than the original. The interpretation is quite different from the original film, but at least they avoided making the Cenobites just generic demons from Hell like every single Hellraiser sequel did.
I think it’s partly the lighting and partly the designs. They just look way too “clean.” Some of them are OK in concept, but they end up looking really plasticy like action figures or something. Maybe they were going for something futuristic or something, but somehow they look a lot fakier than the originals. Well, besides Butterball, he was always the weak link in the original Hellraiser.I am not saying it’s not better than any of the sequels, but this is a franchise notorious for terrible sequels. I’ve only actually seen 1-3 and this one. It’s probably better than 2-3, but I don’t think it holds a candle to the first one. Well, at least the first half of the first movie, before it turns into “final girl shoots cenobites with lasers.”
I’ll defend Hellraiser 4: Bloodline, that last theatrical release, as it has some really good concepts and the actor who plays Merchant is pretty decent. Sadly, we’ll never see Kevin Yahger’s original print/movie because the studio wanted to make too many cuts and had his name removed from the credits.
That said, there’s some decent kills here and some of the best dialogue from Doug Bradley’s Pinhead. Sadly, the movie feels rushed due to said cuts.1, 2 and 4 are my favorites in that order
True the other cenobytes were really just background decoration. It was always just Pinhead but at least Hellraiser 2 did reveal their tragic origins as some mixed-up kids who made a few poor decisions.
What bothered me was that there were no human characters who were actually into S&M and wanted to open the box. A character even straight up says that the whole “angels to some, demons to others” thing was a trick, and the Cenobites only bring pain, or some horseshit. So it’s really just Wishmaster. All the gross vitality of the original concept is totally drained out of it.And yeah, the Cenobites looked like cosplayers. Just completely awful
No human characters who wanted to open the box… Except the character at the center of the story whose desire to open the box implicated a handful of innocents.Rewatch the original and tell me again the Cenobites look more like cosplayers in this one.
In the opening, maybe. But when we see that character again he totally regrets it, and wants to renounce his “wish”. Bleechh
I can think of at least 2 Cenobites in this film that are explicitly, unquestionably gooey.
It’s certainly the best one since the second one. And it’s more competently made than the first one.
Agreed. Very nicely shot and some very cool exposition on the different configurations of the box (I haven’t seen all of the sequels, so not sure how much of this lore is new).But I really hated the new cenobite designs, the incessant need to show cenobites on screen as much as possible, and the bizarre ineffectiveness of cenobites in general.Also, the character of Riley was particularly grating and unlikeable. Maybe that was the point, but I actively detested her and her hysterical choices.
He’s right; it’s exceptional. There are three great horror movies in theaters right now and it’s better than all of them.
If you are counting Barbarian, absolutely not. Smile, I agree.
Sure, taste is taste, but you can’t deny Barbarian is a well-made horror movie. The other is Pearl.
It weirdly moved away from the morality of the other (early anyway, I can’t speak for the lousy sequels) films. People are being punished horribly by Cenobites without them seeking the power out, which is weird.Ultimately, it is instead a somewhat heavy-handed take on addiction.It’s okay.
The Signal is actually quite good by the standards of low-budget horror anthologies. Southbound (which Bruckner also contributed to) is a decent step above it though. I would certainly take both of those over VHS Viral. Actually, the most recent VHS also has only one standout segment, and that one doesn’t even fit the 94 conceit.
I also looked up the cast list on IMDB for the new Hellraiser (I haven’t seen the film), and there’s no character with “Gil” in the name. So I think you’re still not an actual movie villain, Todd.
The interview says they developed “Gill Toddchrist” as a villain character for a sequel to The Signal. Not Hellraiser.
is The Signal streaming anywhere? want to check it out
https://www.justwatch.com/us/movie/the-signal-2007
There are multiple sites where you can watch it for free (though you may need to sit through ads):https://www.justwatch.com/us/movie/the-signal-2007
Loved Southbound
It could be worse. Michael Crichton didn’t like a critic of his and then created a character with his name as a pedophile with a micropenis in one of his last books.
Badass till the end!
I really hope they labeled that one “from the author of Disclosure,” just to warn people.
I was just reading up on Poe this summer and one of the theories behind The Cask of Amontillado is that he’s beefing with a writer who criticized his work.
Pauline Kael gave Star Wars a negative review in 1977, so George Lucas waited a decade and named the skull-masked evil general in Willow after her.
And Roland Emmerich’s Godzilla (1998) featured an incompetent Mayor Ebert and his assistant Gene, presumably because Gene Siskel & Roger Ebert never seemed to like Emmerich’s films.
My favorite part about that was Siskel and Ebert’s reaction: Ebert was flattered to be in a Godzilla movie while Siskel was baffled as to why Emmerich went to the trouble of putting them in the movie and not have Godzilla kill them.
And he named the gargantuan two headed monster “Eborsisk” for some reason.
Ha! Didn’t even notice that. I wonder why Lucas did that. Up to that point, Siskel & Ebert were pretty positive about Lucas’ work — in fact I think that Willow was the first film of his they *didn’t* like. Maybe Lucas had precognition!
Was revenge o/b/o films he produced not directed
You got long way to go Gill Toddchrist until you match the dastardly might of the General/Critic Roth’h’ar Sarris!
https://ew.com/article/1999/08/06/this-week-hollywood-78/
Bruckner is one of the more interesting voices in horror at the moment imo. really looking forward to what he does next – Hellraiser was about as good as reboots can get, but I’m hoping for a proper follow-up to The Ritual and The Night House
There is only one name in modern horror and it’s Mike Flannagan.
He still has a long way to go to reach the likes of other, “newer” voices in the genre: Saulnier, (Brandon) Cronenberg, Aster, etc.
They call him…the Slideshow Killer.
Sadly this movie was pretty bad.
The Signal is *so* much more interesting than the vast majority of movies. Not everything works, but that’s the nature of any anthology, and the idea of using the same scenario to careen so wildly between tones I found really surprising and audacious. I see a lot of horror movies and a great many never truly surprise me even once. I’ve been following the careers of all these directors since, and been (to varying degrees) glad I did.
9.5/10 making someone else’s art about you
Hellraiser was……boring.
The new hellraiser is absolute dog dirt. A bastardisation, an abomination of a classic.
I saw the Signal and thought it was meh. Does that mean there will be a character with my name who spills a drink on his shirt in his next movie? LOL
I’m always amused by artists who get so deeply offended by negative criticism of their work. If you’re not ready to be criticized, don’t put work out there for consumption and charge people to see it. Audiences deserve to know whether or not the thing they’re about to spend money on is worth the investment.
Very glad to see any filmmakers that can read harsh criticism, say “hey, maybe this person had some good points,” and even meet the critic in person and still be friendly!
Sometimes it really depends on the critique. Sometimes reviewers miss the point of the object they’re reviewing. Other times reviewers will try to bullshit their way through a review as they happily broadcast to the world that they have no idea what they’re talking about. In both cases I could see an author being justifiably miffed. So it’s not ALWAYS an artist that can’t take criticism.
Oh my god, fuck off, person who clearly has never put ANYTHING out there to be judged.
I mean, he was working for IGN – he already was a villain.
Todd has horrible taste and shouldn’t be reviewing anything.
I know of at least one instance an unflattering version of Roger Ebert appeared in a movie following a bad review of a prior movie in the franchise: Child’s Play 3. I imagine something like that happened with Ebert more than once.
Didn’t Lady in the Water have an Ebert?
It had a critic, played by Bob Balaban, but his name was Harry Farber. I don’t think he was meant to be specifically Ebert, but just the entire critical world that adored The Sixth Sense and then liked each of M. Night’s following films less and less.
Godzilla, as someone mentioned elsewhere.
What an embarrassing article.In order to be a movie villain you need to be in a movie. You were just a twat that these guys bitched about for a while.And 15 years later you’re just a thirsty twat.
2007 was not before social media. Is this guy high?