Hellraiser II: Renascido das Trevas

Thus far and no further is how I view this film - while 'Hellraiser' was a smooth and well-handled interpretation of 'The Hellbound Heart', this serves as an interesting extension to that story. OK, the acting is largly dire - but is this not a horror movie tradition? The film excels in its MENTAL imagery, not physical: Tiffany's disturbing visions of babies with their mouth's sewn shut as Leviathan plays with her fears; Channards violent, acid flashback-style memories... they are all insightful and well-thought out as they deal with that which cannot be tamed easily - the human psyche. Director Tony Randall has a lot to live up to following Clive Barker's '87 epic, but he takes the reigns of the story with good grace and presents a slick and progressive tale - although I do agree with the general consensus that the Cenobites should NOT have been humanised.

All in all though a great film, fantastic visuals - the fall of Leviathan at the climax has to be one of the most gripping and explosive deaths of a movie monster in horror film history - and one which should have ended the tale.

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.

Even if the story's weak, bringing back the surviving (or not surviving) cast members of the original, can make a sequel better. Everyone thinks crazy old Kirsty Cotton is making up stories of demons from hell (which happened to be her attic), but we all know better, don't we? She's now in a mental institution with a girl with a penchant for solving puzzles, under the guidance of a sadistic doctor with a penchant for a skinless Julia. Part of the story is just a re-hash of the first with different characters in similar situations. This time around we go to hell and find that it's like an Escher painting with a giant "Lament" diamond spinning in the sky. Not as good as the first film, but pretty close--a bit gorier and disturbing (but after "Hellraiser", I was expecting this) The acting is similar to the first film, but the special effects are a bit more elaborate this time around as the budget was bigger due to the success of it's predecessor.

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.