Hellbound: Hellraiser II

I enjoyed the original "Hellraiser" movie and have been watching all the movies in the franchise as they have been released. Though I have to say that with each passing new movie that the franchise spawned, the quality of the storyline and ideas just grew weaker and weaker. However, the 1988 "Hellbound: Hellraiser II" is almost as good as the original movie.

The storyline in "Hellbound: Hellraiser II", as written by Peter Atkins, picks up after the events of the 1987 "Hellraiser" movie, and it is a good continuation of the storyline. There is a good continuity between the 1987 movie and this 1988 sequel, and that works very well in favor of the movie.

It was nice to see cast members from the original movie, such as Ashley Laurence, Clare Higgins and Sean Chapman return to reprise their characters from the first movie. Just as it was great to see the Cenobites return to the screen as well; that being Doug Bradley, Simon Bamford, Barbie Wilde and Nicholas Vince. I am not sure if all of those playing the Cenobites were from the first movie, though.

Visually then "Hellbound: Hellraiser II" is good. Sure, the movie is showing signs of being 34 years old already, but the effects are still adequate today and keep the movie as being watchable.

I enjoyed "Hellbound: Hellraiser II" and have seen it about five times or so, since it was originally released.

My rating of "Hellbound: Hellraiser II", from director Tony Randel, lands on a six out of ten stars.

The best thing about 'Hellbound: Hellraiser II (1988)' is its music; Christopher Young's fantastic theme is still a stand-out in the genre. The second best things about it are the numerous flashback sequences (the picture begins with an abridged version of the prior title's finale and its key points are also recalled by the protagonist later in the film), which serve not only to refresh the audience's memory but also (quite accidentally, I'll add) to remind them how much better the first flick is than this one. The feature isn't bad but, as you can probably tell, it isn't a patch on its predecessor. That's primarily because, despite its arguably more ambitious plot and accompanying aesthetics, it's simply more straightforward and, thus, isn't as interesting. Where the first flick played on the duality between the different types of evil that its two antagonists (Frank and the Cenobites) represented, this one reduces all of its villainous players to almost cardboard cut-out versions of themselves and portrays them as these much more generic 'demons' than previously seen. This removal of nuance is one of the major reasons that the villains just aren't all that frightening. The one area in which they are developed actually reduces their enigmatic nature, in turn further reducing their scariness. At this point, the filmmakers still hadn't realised the potential that Pinhead (now credited as such) had to lead the franchise as its pinnacle of pain, so he and his Cenobite cronies have arguably even less screen time than they did in their previous outing. They're also, as I've mentioned, decidedly less disquieting. Their scenes, though atmospheric, lack any sense of menace and the fact that a large portion of the piece takes place in their domain without them present makes them seem far less important than they ought to. Other issues with the movie include a messy, even slightly repetitive plot and a couple of weak characters. Having said all that, it's not as though the experience is exactly bad or anything. Its positives include some decidedly disturbing, undeniably inventive visuals and a generally ambitious, otherworldly aesthetic that must have took some skill to pull off. It's visually interesting, that's for sure, and it has a few sequences which are quite entertaining in their own right. The picture is also well-paced and generally enjoyable, even if it isn't all that compelling. It isn't scary or thought-provoking, but it's a decent attempt at dark fantasy/horror that's as ambitious as it is uneven. 6/10.

Kirsty Cotton (Ashley Laurence) survived the first attack from Hell in "Hellraiser", but her troubles are far from over. She is now locked up in a mental ward run by an occult-obsessed doctor (how appropriate) and her evil stepmother, Julia (Clare Higgins) refuses to stay dead.

This film is incredibly polarizing, I fear, because it has such strong qualities of both good and bad. The bad include special effects that really date the movie (though are still superior to much of today's work) and the introduction of a certain level of silliness that pervades the later films. The doctor as a cenobite is a bit strange in form, and opens the door for the even more bizarre creatures in part three.

There are some plot and continuity issues, such as wondering where Kirsty's boyfriend from part one went. And while the film seems to try to explain loose ends from the first film, it creates a whole lot more... the maze (presumably hell) is not adequately explained, nor is the role of the giant puzzle box. While some of this is addressed in later films, it seems that what we learn later tends to contradict what we see here.

But let us say some good things about this one. First and foremost, the Julia without skin looks incredible. It is hard to say they topped Frank without skin (from the original) but I think they did. The way she comes crawling up out of the bed... her blood-soaked flesh. Beautiful. "Right to Die" owes a huge debt to the work in this film, the same way that this film owes a debt to "Bride of Frankenstein" with its use of thunder and bandages...

We also have to give the gore creators some credit, because the insane man with the knife was pretty intense... actually, all the asylum inmates are well-played. For all the flaws this film may have, they more than made up for it with a couple of memorable scenes. While my favorite in the series is "Bloodline" (I believe I am in the minority on this), I think part two may have been the last great addition. Sequels were not necessary, and obviously everything after part four just gives the franchise a bad name.

Anchor Bay has released a twentieth anniversary edition, and I would strongly recommend it. Older features, such as an audio commentary from 2001, are available, as well as a few new featurettes. "The Soul Patrol" features new interviews with Barbie Wilde, Simon Bamford and Nicholas Vince. "Outside the Box" features a new interview with director Tony Randel and "The Doctor is In" features a new interview with Kenneth Cranham.

As someone who has met Ashley Laurence, Doug Bradley, Clive Barker and each of the cenobites, I have a strong personal interest in this film. I can say that the Anchor Bay edition is easily the best to date and any "Hellraiser" fan would be making a mistake in getting an older, inferior edition.

This is just as good as the first one. The movie went in a fast pace. In a way I liked that. The scenes of hell were really neat looking. One of the best I've seen yet. I'm not going to say who, but a new Cenobites is in the movie, but he's not in there too long. You find out a little more about Pinhead in this one, but if you really want to know his history watch the third one. Anyway I liked this one. It is different than the first one.

I recommend this movie to anyone who liked the first one and likes a really good horror movie.

Maybe it wasn't the best time for me to watch this, as I had a boil near my elbow and an expanding infection around it. That probably enhanced this movie's ability to make you feel queasy and light-headed.

I remember being fascinated by VHS covers as a kid at video stores. Horror especially got my attention. Hellbound seems to satisfy some of those morbid curiosities I'm sure we all carry to some degree. It doesn't have a rich or interesting story or characters, but it's imaginative in other ways.

There are all kinds of messed up images and concepts. It's weird that we watch horror movies in the first place. Why do we want to be scared, disgusted or horrified? I guess there has to be some sense of humour, morality or commentary on human nature for it to be properly enjoyable. But Hellbound seems to be more of a pure horror movie. I think that's why Ebert hated it and its predecessor. They're too depressing and pointless, even if the special effects are good and it establishes an effective mood.

It would be better if it explored the parallels between pleasure and pain more, which are only slightly alluded to. That seems to be a common theme in horror movies in general. It also could have showed us more about the origin and motivation of the Cenobites. And the doctor and girl's past could have been fleshed out more.

Apparently, it shares the record (with Titanic) for the most times two characters call out to each-other. I didn't notice so maybe that's a good thing. I was probably distracted by the disturbing and other-worldly visuals, wondering where it was going.

I think the original is probably better, but as horror sequels go, Hellbound is decent. I enjoyed the creative imagery. But it's not exactly upbeat or deep.