Hellraiser II : Les Écorchés

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.

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.

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.

Despite appreciating horror very much (with a lot of classic ones out there, such as 'Halloween', 'Nightmare on Elm Street', 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre', 'Night of the Living Dead' and 'The Exorcist', plus the best of Hammer House of Horror), even if not my favourite genre, it took me a while to get round to watching the 'Hellraiser' franchise. Due to having so much to watch and review, and the list keeps getting longer and longer.

The film that started the franchise off is not only for me by far the best of the 'Hellraiser' films it also for me, and quite a few others it seems, is one of the stronger horror films of the 80s, though not quite of all time. What is meant by being by far the best of the 'Hellraiser' films is that it is the only one to be above very good, the nine sequels were very variable (leaning towards the disappointing) and the latter films particularly are suggestive of the franchise having run its course.

While the original 'Hellraiser' will always be the best of the series, its first sequel 'Hellbound: Hellraiser II' is one of its better sequels. Would go as far to say from personal opinion it's the best. Not as good as the original and understandably polarising, but it doesn't disgrace it. In some ways it is somewhat of a retread in terms of story except with more gore and less clarity of storytelling, though the imagination and ambition remains.

'Hellbound: Hellraiser II' has its problems. The script is not as vivid and thought-provoking this time round, numerous times being cheesy and muddled. Will Hope is very bland in an underwritten role.

Coming off worst for me was the ending, the Cenobites did deserve a much better defeat than the slapdash and silly one that is here while the staging of the ending itself is more like an incomprehensible parody complete with a terrible, unintentionally silly looking Channard.

On the other hand, the production values mostly were fine. It's very atmospherically shot and the hellish imagery is disturbingly vivid. Apart from Channard, the effects are hardly schlocky and while prominent they are not overused or abused. The music score is an improvement here, more fitting with the atmosphere and very haunting music on its own. Tony Randel does more than competently when it comes to the direction, staying loyal to the spirit of the original. The script is patchy but still intrigues.

Same goes for the story, regardless of whether sense is a strong suit or not (it isn't), which is most notable for Pinhead's very intriguing back-story and more of the Cenobites. Do prefer the mysteriousness they had in the original from being catalysts rather than being heavily focused on, but they are genuinely frightening, still look good and seeing more of and to them made them more interesting. While the ending disappoints, the twist is a clever one. Like the original, 'Hellbound: Hellraiser II' is genuinely disturbing while having tension, suspense and dread, the creativity of the set-pieces and deaths still remaining. The inmate skin flaying especially will be embedded in my mind forever. The gore is more in quantity and more graphic, but it didn't feel that pointless to me even if some parts serve more purpose to the story than others.

Characters have personality and don't do anything that makes one infuriated by them, the detail to characterisation that was present in the original is here too. Cannot say anything bad about the performances, apart from Hope. Imogen Boorman brings nuance to a role not easy to pull off, while Clare Higgins and especially Kenneth Cranham are deliciously evil. Ashley Laurence is appealing and Doug Bradley shows why Pinhead is justifiably a horror icon.

To conclude, worthy sequel. 7/10 Bethany Cox

Hellraiser was always going to be a hard act to follow (especially with Clive Barker handing over so much control to others). This first sequel starts promisingly enough though, beginning on the same night as the original ended. It features the return of Ashley Laurence's heroine Kirsty and the resurrection of wicked stepmom (no, really) Julia (Clare Higgins). However about two thirds into the movie any attempt at story progression, character development or coherency goes out the window and instead the film throws up albeit interesting imagery and ideas seemingly at random. That's not to say that Hellbound : Hellraiser 2 is a totally bad movie, it just seems like such a wasted opportunity. If the next sequel would have followed on more directly (instead of going stateside and bringing in different characters) maybe the ideas about Hell and Leviathan could have been explored and developed more fully. However without this safety blanket, much of Hellbound seems confused and half baked. Kenneth Cranham lends weight to the role of sinister Dr Channard but as soon as he's made into a cenobite the film goes into high camp and I wonder what happened to the sombre tone of the original. Clare Higgins seems t be enjoying playing her return as Julia like a Hollywood bitch on drugs and it's interesting to find out something about the origin of the cenobites albeit briefly(and at least Pinhead's human origin is something that does get explored further in Hellraiser III). If you like the first film, it's probably worth checking this one out and you may want t view it more than once to catch everything in it but just don't expect another Hellraiser like the original.