How Hellraiser director David Bruckner turned me into a movie villain after a negative review

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.

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.