Hellraiser II: Renascido das Trevas

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.

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.

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.

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.