Pumpkinhead II: la revancha

Right, well five years after the original 1988 original "Pumpkinhead", the world was given "Pumpkinhead II: Blood Wings" from writers Ivan Chachornia and Constantine Chachornia. Oddly enough, I never actually got around to watching this 1993 sequel before now in 2021.

And as sequels usually have a tendency of turning out, so was it also with "Pumpkinhead II: Blood Wings". This was not up to the standards set by the predecessor from 1988, not even by a long shot. Sure, "Pumpkinhead II: Blood Wings" was watchable, but it just felt like a movie with a script and storyline that was written in haste, as to not let the audience forget about the Pumpkinhead creature and cash in on the success of the previous movie.

The storyline told in "Pumpkinhead II: Blood Wings" was bland and mediocre, and didn't have the appeal or the impact that the first movie had. Sure, it can be watched and enjoyed for what it was, but it was generic and rather mundane. So the writers didn't really manage all that well here.

The cast in "Pumpkinhead II: Blood Wings" was adequate, but again, it wasn't matching the previous movie, and while lead actor Andrew Robinson was okay here, he was no Lance Henriksen. But I will say that the actors and actresses managed well enough, taking into consideration the limitations of a subpar script and some dubious dialogue.

Visually then "Pumpkinhead II: Blood Wings" was good, definitely up to the previous movie, and the Pumpkinhead creature is actually sort of the main attraction of the movie, thanks to the amount of on-screen time it is given. And truth be told, of course I watched this sequel because of the creature.

All in all then "Pumpkinhead II: Blood Wings" is a watchable, albeit mundane horror experience. The movie doesn't offer things to the horror genre that movies before it hadn't already delivered.

My rating of "Pumpkinhead II: Blood Wings" from director Jeff Burr lands on a mediocre five out of ten stars.

Pumpkinhead II is interesting because it succeeds where its predecessor failed and where that one succeeded, this one fails. Pumpkinhead II , contains better acting, a more interesting back story, while at the same time, it is noisier, less stylish and unconvincing in special effects. As a result Pumpkinhead II is no better or worse than Stan Winston's film. It is just another low budget horror which offers some charms for the monster fans.

Getting a little carried away one night, a group of kids resurrect a body which is buried on the property of the town's fabled witch. As it happens, the body they dig up is deformed boy who in the 1950s was killed by a group of town ruffians. Now with the boy's soul inside him, Pumpkinhead goes after his killers (now middle aged) and his awakeners. As the killings start to occur, Sheriff Braddock tries to piece this whole mystery together amidst an agitated and highly superstitious town. Both Pumpkinhead and the town want to kill each other, whose gonna live?

I'll give this movie credit for one thing, it increases the monstrosity from the first. Although still far from scary, this monster is far more aggressive than his predecessor, and he kills with great ferocity, clawing, gnawing dismembering his victims. On the negative side, the special effects have fallen a bit. The first Pumpkinhead may have been a slow mover, but his movements were rather fluid, and muscular and like a creature. This one moves like a guy in a suit and is shot from too many bad angles which ruins the scale of the creature.

If you liked Pumpkinhead, then I don't think you will be too disappointed in this. Maybe as a whole, it is slightly less accomplished than the original. but it's sufficient for a sequel.

while easily falling into the category of b-horror, this isn't nearly as horrible as i expected. after reading MANY reviews on IMDb and elsewhere that were scathingly negative about this sequel, i figured i'd try it out since i enjoy the original (and lance henriksen) and of course...i had to see if the bad reviews were accurate.

very fortunately (and heres the upside to going in with low expectations) this film pleasantly surprised me...not as good as the original, not incredibly connected to the original, however, it does what it sets out to do quite well. as far as the pumpkinhead sequels go..this is the one to check out.

i wish i had anything complimentary to say about volume III in this series...however...that's pure crap, stay away..and what a waste of both lance henriksen and doug bradley... but i digress.

blood wings isn't a great movie my any means, but fan of horror know that you must judge horror movies far differently from films outside the genre... and as far as horror movies go, i find this to be extremely underrated.

but tastes are like ***holes so... give it a whirl and post your own

Good in its own right, but not as a sequel. Instead, it plays more like a prequel. This film is more of a slasher, although justified since the murders are not random and well explained. The plot is not that great either, but the film was nevertheless still enjoyable.

I just wanted to clarify that this film WAS IN THEATERS!!! It was not direct to video!!! IMDb IS WRONG!!! (as usual I have VHS of the TV ads for this film!

It received a large amount of free media attention due to the current president's brother Roger Clinton appearing in the film.

Once again, this was in theaters, it was NOT direct to video.

As proof I can break out my complete VHS of 'All My Children' for 1993 and show you the ads for this film! It was in theaters!

This film is in fact a very poor follow up to Stan Winston's cult classic.

It does not contain any of the characters from the first film. The story is merely a rehash of the original. A woman in run over by city slicker teens and a witch conjures the demonic monster Pumpkinhead to kill them.

So it's just like the first film sans the good FX and photography.