User reviews

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Clive Barker is still the king. He brings us to a world where monsters have politics, the 5 senses rule, and we sometimes question whether our pre-notions of pain are as accurate as we think. The Hellraiser series is a lush, nightmarish, subliminal journey into human desire, masochism, mythos and madness. Pinhead is not so much the generic, evil antagtonist as he is a source of comfort and logic sometimes. Clive Barker has often toyed with our preconceptions that all "monsters" must be blindly destructive brutes, as opposed to the endearingly rational and decidedly intelligent Cenobites. Perhaps the fact that I have Cenobites tattooed makes me biased;) But it's still a unique piece with gorgeous imagery (to some.) Angels to some, demons to others... If you haven't seen Hellraiser 1 and 2 (the rest are not so great IMHO)...you must!

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.

Disclaimer: I loved the original Hellraiser. The characters were interesting, believable and above all human. That made it all the more terrifying. The Cenobites were mysterious and undeniably evil. I had high hopes for Hellraiser II.

That being said, Hellbound: Hellraiser II is one of the biggest letdowns in movie history. Whereas in the original we had characters with believable motives (Julie was motivated by her lust for Frank, Frank was motivated by his obsession with pleasure and experiences etc...) in Hellraiser II we have bland caricatures. The bad guys are ridiculously evil, the good guys are pure and virtuous and nobody ever doubts anything. The original Hellraiser worked because we only saw glimpses of hell which allowed our imaginations to fill in the rest. There's nothing for the imagination to do here because the director felt like he should lay it all out for us. Tentacles, maggots, blades and blood galore. What's truly offensive is that the producers and director of the movie felt like they didn't need any of the basic elements used in movies and thought that the sheer amount of blood was enough to make a good movie. They were wrong. The further the movie goes, the worse it gets. By the time Kirsty and Tiffany are trampsing through hell, screaming each others' names, the movie itself has gone to hell. Seriously, we get all the clichés here. It's actually kind of admirable that they could fit it all in.

Hellraiser II is a boring, confusing slideshow of gory images with nothing to link them together, nothing to push the story along and nothing to emotionally connect the viewer to the movie. A real letdown. * out of ****

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.

" A worthy sequel", " Better than the original", "A great horror movie"....

To those people who share these sentiments, i'd like to ask you... WHAT MOVIE WERE YOU WATCHING AND WHAT DRUGS WERE YOU ON?

This movie is an utter incoherent mess of a nightmare. I consider myself to be a person who is very generous with compliments especially when it comes to movies, and i especially like my horror movies with extra gore,and i loved the original Hellraiser. But this sequel is just terrible in every aspect.

First of all, The direction of the film is horrible, with scenes and sequences that were just messily and illogically slabbed together, and illogical actions by the characters(even for a horror movie)is commonplace. The plot is as plain and simple as a blank piece of paper, which is only prolonged by the seemingly never ending wanderings of two poorly built characters with irrational motivation in the corridors of hell. It seems like the story is simply made up along the way as the movie progresses, With "rules" suddenly changing...a reflection of weak foundation.

The special Effects were a significant step down from the original, even though they were more attempts at it in this sequel. The Effect with Dr. channard looked especially cheap even for the 80's.

This movie totally destroys what i feel made the first Hellraiser successful, Which is the mystique and the Darkness of the Cenobites and the Box, by over-exposure of "hell" and by over-revealing the secrets of the cenobites(such as how one becomes a cenobite). This takes away the mysterious, menacing factor to them, and makes them almost vulnerable. What were once strong, menacing characters are now just confused children with amnesia.

And then some scenes are just corny and lame, such as Kirsty wearing Julia's Skin, which is a weak attempt at a twist; and the lame attempt at a cool ending with the pointless rotating post scene.

Whether you're a fan of The HellRaiser series or not, I can't seriously believe that a person could say that he/she think this movie is even close to being decent. Quite possibly the worst sequel of all time. This movie alone could decimate the entire Hellraiser franchise.

After the strange events of the first movie,Kirsty is sent to a Institution for the Mentally Sick, commanded by the mysterious Dr. Channard,a crazed psychologist who is willing to open the doors of hell by manipulating the Puzzle Box.In doing so,Channard brings Kirsty's perverse stepmother Julia back to life,and consequently he provokes the rage of the dreadful cenobites,the cruel and evil creatures that give pleasure and pain in the same measure.Hellbound Hellraiser 2 is an extremely well-done film,thanks to the generous budget given to newcomer filmmaker Tony Randel and a first-rate production.The special effects are simply terrific (specially considering the time in which the movie was done,1988) and they create a bombastic,scary visual.I never saw a movie with such an incredible scenery and imagery,except maybe for Dark City.Clive Barker's vision of hell is brought to life with mastery through the work of Randel and Director of Photography Robin Vidgeon. The plot sustains the tension and keeps you on the edge of your seat from start to finish,though the first half hour of Hellbound: Hellraiser II is a little bit slow and descriptive (but never boring); a great portion of the action and the terror is concentrated in the last minutes. The last thirty ones are a realistic and gutsy "tour de force" through fear,violence and suffering.This is definitively a masterpiece, but not for the squeamish.Hellbound: Hellraiser II is rated R for extreme violence and sex scenes,it runs 99 minutes(uncut version released by Anchor Bay).It stars Clare Higgins as Julia, Ashley Laurence as Kirsty, Imogen Boorman as Tiffany,William Hope as Kyle McRae and Kenneth Cranham as Dr. Channard.If you like this movie, you might also enjoy Phenomena and Suspiria.

I admit to not being much of a fan of horror films , I can take them or leave them , but that doesn`t stop me from knowing what a good horror film should be. Horror films should be about irony , protestant ethics and above all - fun . That`s why HELLRAISER is my all time favourite horror film . I`m not a fan of sequels either so I wasn`t really expecting much with HELLBOUND which is just as well because this a poor film with some disturbing scenes that are just plain cruel

The script is really bad with confusing continuity with the first film . Why is Kirsty confined to a hospital ? She looked relatively well in the final scene of HELLRAISER , but no explanation is forthcoming . And - unlike stomach churning blood letting - explanations are a scarce commidity in this film , we see a woman which I take it is Tiffany`s mother pleading for someone to help her daughter then a hand clamping over her mouth . What`s that about then ? It`s got nothing do with the plot because HELLBOUND has no plot , everyone runs back and forth through corridors like a bad episode of DOCTOR WHO. Another irritant is the fact that everyone states the obvious " It`s coming ....it certainly is ..... Weird . F****** weird " and the all time classic howler " It was horrible . She had no skin " Maybe HELLBOUND was originally written for radio ? Oh and watch out for the cop out ending where Kirsty saves Tiffany

Clare Higgins and Kenneth Cranham do the best they can with the script and they give the best performances of the film which isn`t saying much. Ashley Laurence is a very attractive young woman but being drop dead gorgeous is no substitute for acting talent and it comes as no surprise she didn`t win an oscar for HELLBOUND , but the worst performance award goes to William Hope as Kyle though perhaps I shouldn`t be so critical since he gets landed with the worst lines and Sir Alec Guinness would be hard pressed to make something of the laughable dialogue Kyle has to speak

Tony Randell seems to have taken the script too literally :" It`s a dire script so this calls for dire directing " Watch out for the umpteen revealing mistakes that can be spotted and also look out for the atrocious editing especially at the end where Channard menaces Tiffany . Tiffany has a terrified look on her face then when the camera cuts to another angle she has an entirely different expression ! This happens just before Kirsty saves the day . I know I`ve mentioned that before , but I`ll mention it again because I couldn`t believe the cop out ending, what an insult. Tony Randell also seems to think horror films are all about blood and boy do we get it by the bucket load . Most infamous scene as everyone has pointed out is the lunatic with razor blade which is just sick

HELLBOUND does have one thing that makes it worth watching and that`s the music . Christopher Young deserved at the very least an oscar nomination for the haunting score , but it`s a shame we got saddled with such a poor unpleasant film

I've read and heard from many sources that this is considered as good if not better than the original. Can't say I agree. Almost as good, sure. Lacking from the first movie in this one was a level of shock factor, of course, as we've already seen much of the similar hotel before, or at least how it's done, but that said it's done very well for its time and very disturbingly, thanks to the brilliantly twisted mind of Clive Barker, my second favorite author or all time. That said I felt like his story and ideas were condensed into this movie, leaving it a little underdeveloped on the narrative side. The final Cenobites scene was painfully underwhelming and while in writing it might hold more evocation, in the movie the humanization was laughable for me. Meanwhile the main villain is a floating distribution of puns and quips, albeit a host of really cool and disturbing practical effects. Perhaps the most blasé thing about the movie for me were the skinless characters, that shock/gross element dissipated after the first scene and they lost their terror real quick. At least the gory effects and the very ending were the film's saving grace for me, and last but not least Ashley Laurence.

Hellraiser 2 is a startling film. Clive Barkers imagery of hell is profane, violent, and an oddly erotic movie from the off. The sequel continues the fantastic story, and builds on the characters we saw, whilst adding some new ones to the mix. As well as re-introducing the dead ones! As foul and degrading as newer gore porn flicks are today, Hellbound walks all over them with style and substance which has been unmatched ever since. For 1988, Hellraiser 2 is nothing short of breathtaking, and has not dated one bit. The storyline is intelligent and despite the incredible sights of hell and its inhabitants, Hellbound justifies the fantasy with thoughtful dialogue and logic and a powerful story. It also benefits that the cast in this film are mostly great actors who do a great job of suspending the viewers disbelief.

Barker gives credibility to the monster in the movie. Every beast in this film has a human side and you may even feel warmed to them when they are faced with dilemmas and dramas which question even their beliefs. There is a powerful scene in which Pinhead and his minions learn of their own past from Kirsty, the heroin of the story who is pursued by the cenobites for opening the puzzle box. Pinhead even begins to look human at this point showing the "bad guys" in a different light. Before long the demons actually become the "good guys", and temporarily co-exist with Kirsty to counter the evil Doctor's hand over hell.

The violence and gore offered by Hellbound is excessive and delivered to the viewer in such horrific, profane ways it has definitely had an impact on its viewing demographic. Barker made a great job of communicating to the director his view of the film from a novel and it's a gruesome one. So gruesome it will immediately turn away many within the opening minutes.

I recommend this movie for anyone who's into horror or those who think the genre is just Hostel and Saw. Hellbound, as indeed the original, breathes new life into the horror movie and for every pint of spilled blood, brings intelligence and style in buckets.

9/10

...And that I am also not a huge horror fan. I recently rewatched Hellraiser, and I'd also give it a 7 but the acting was bad. The acting of Hellbound wouldn't win Oscars but it's better than the first. I watched this solely based on the Amazon preview "it remains the most brutally original sequel in horror film history". I'm like damn ok bold statement. So I watched with no knowledge of the plot and therefore no expectations.

It starts pretty slow and you're hoping it's not another terrible sequel (or like the 7th in a horror series) but the second half is really what the viewers came for. The production was obviously more advanced than the first but the gruesome scenes kept upping the previous ones. Great climax but you knew the ending is gonna lead to the next one, which I didnt plan on seeing but now I'm intrigued.

TL;DR: I'm not a big horror fan but if you like shocking cinema, check this out especially if you liked the first.