Exoticalot People are voting emotionally.

SoTrumpBelieve Must See Movie...

Afouotos Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

Lucia Ayala It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

breakdownthatfilm-blogspot-com In Stan Winston's career, he was known as the master of visual effects. Whether that was practical or special effects, filmmakers could always rely on the creativity and quality of Stan Winston and his team. With credits belonging to films like The Terminator (1984) and Aliens (1986), it would be difficult to find someone match his integrity. As good as he was at his craft, Winston did delve into other positions of the movie industry. Being in the makeup department was his second most utilized role. However in 1988, Winston took a stab at directing a feature film and thus ended up producing Pumpkinhead (1988). Although it did not achieve the accolades that other horror films had garnered before it, Winston's directorial debut has gained much love over the years. It was not a masterpiece in every aspect but it sure entertained. The film is underrated and rightly deserves its cult following. But like every starter film comes sequels that baffle. Unfortunately not even Winston's creation was immune.In this sequel, Sean Braddock (Andrew Robinson) is a new sheriff in town who's looking to do some good. Regrettably, Sheriff Braddock is not greeted with warm smiles. A local by the name of Judge Dixon (Steve Kanaly) feels he's entitled to whatever he pleases because he's rich. On top of that, Braddock has an unstable connection with his daughter Jenny (Ami Dolenz). Meanwhile Jenny has a love hate relationship with Danny (J. Trevor Edmond), the son of Judge Dixon. Trying to fit in, Jenny heads out with Danny and his gang when they end up crossing paths with a witch who has the spell book to summon Pumpkinhead. Believing it to be a myth, Danny goes through the ritual and ends up summoning the demon he thought wouldn't appear. Interestingly enough Constantine and Ivan Chachornia are the writers of which never went anywhere after this. It's quite sad because this film has several flaws in its execution. Even weirder is that three of the writers from the original film served as creative consultants. And it's still bad.Of all things, the biggest sin this sequel commits is dating itself. The story is all too familiar dealing with characters that are in over their head and others that know things before the main leads. There really is no value to this kind of twist. Then there's the actors themselves. Aside from Andrew Robinson and Ami Dolenz, the rest of the actors are largely annoying and forgettable. J. Trevor Edmond and his gang consisting of actors the likes of Soleil Moon Frye, a very young Hill Harper (CSI: NY) and Alexander Polinsky are all very obnoxious. The overall attitude is "let's take things to the extreme", a very 90s mentality. Of course once chaos erupts, then everybody fends for themselves in the silliest ways. It's all very stock and unoriginal. Nobody cares for these people. There's also several areas that go unexplained. The reason as to why Pumpkinhead is brought to life isn't for the reason a fan might think. The good news Pumpkinhead doesn't have any particular bloodline that he follows.However the reason that is used, carries little emotional weight because it is all indirect in its story telling. There's also unclear continuity as to when and if this story is tied at all to the original Pumpkinhead (1988) movie. There's another scraggly old lady in this movie,...so is it the same witch from the prior film? If so when does this story take place? Before? After? Does it matter? Plus there's a subplot about the mayor (Roger Clinton) of the town popping in and out of a few scenes discussing whether Pumpkinhead's killings would bring in revenue from the media. Not a necessary plot thread. Poor director Jeff Burr. The Texas Chain Saw Massacre III: Leatherface (1990) was an average film at best and now he has another sequel with lackluster quality. It's obvious that Burr likes making horror films but the studios that oversee him always give him problems. Surprisingly even the minor characters are played by other familiar actors. Gloria Hendry, R.A. Mihailoff and Joe Unger are some to name a few. For a direct-to-video film, the practical effects are acceptable. Mark McCracken as Pumpkinhead has the height and the costume itself looks similar to that of the original film. It is apparent that the facial articulation and smoothness in its movements aren't as polished as before though. Even the violence and gore is alright. This makes up for some of the dull writing seen throughout. The cinematography by Bill Dill was frustrating to watch. Several times the lenses move in and out on Pumpkinhead as if to look scary when all it does is make the experience feel cheaper than usual. It won't give the viewer a sense of the surrounding and it's also a bit disorienting. The music was thankfully a plus for what it was worth. Jim Manzie a composer who worked hard with Jeff Burr to release his score to the third Texas Chain Saw film, unfortunately did not get a chance to do it in full here. The main title although recognizable doesn't sound as creepy as the original but works when it has to. Mostly.By all means it could've been a lot worse, but it is not good entertainment either. The effects aren't bad for a home video release and the film score isn't out of place. Yet a very small number of actors come off trying and the story lacks continuity and compelling storytelling.

bowmanblue In B-movie terms, the original 'Pumpkinhead' movie was a classic. It had decent actors, a solid premise and, most importantly for a monster movie, a pretty damn hideous beast, slashing and ripping its way through the cast. With its reasonable success, it was no surprise that it spawned a sequel.And I really wish it hadn't.Okay, so 'Pumpkinhead 2: Blood Wings' is every bit the B-movie that its predecessor was. However, one fact remains – the acting is awful this time around. Yes, no one really expects Oscar-worthy performances with films that primarily go straight to DVD. However, in this case the acting can't go unmentioned. Yes, there are a few decent actors who try their hardest to make the best out of the awful lines given to them, but, on the whole, the acting is noticeably substandard, even by B-movie terms. Although, I may be being unfair on the cast. The script is clunky and lame, so, I'm guessing even a cast that comprised of Robert DeNiro and Ian McKellen would struggle to breathe life into what was given to them.Onto the story – it's basically a re-run of the first. Someone dies when they shouldn't. The monster, known affectionately as 'Pumpkinhead' stalks his way through those who have committed the wrong. And you won't really care who he kills. Because pretty much every person who finds themselves on the wrong end of PH's claws probably deserves to have their bowels ripped out anyway.At least the monster himself isn't too bad (and, despite being only a man in a rubber suit, acts better than some of his human co-stars). He's pretty nasty, but somehow still not as scary as the first film portrayed him to be.Basically, you should just stick to Pumpkinhead (1). It contains everything that will ever be good about the franchise. Although, no matter how bad part II may be, it's still about a million times better of any of the further sequels (just don't get me started on those!).http://thewrongtreemoviereviews.blogspot.co.uk/

Horrorfan1995 Pumpkinhead II may not be one of the worst movies I've ever seen, but it really does make you ask why was it made.First off, let me point out that I'm a huge fan of the original Pumpkinhead, it has great atmosphere, brilliant SFX, little to no gore (BTW, I don't believe that gore makes a good horror film), and great acting, especially from Lance Henriksen. the sequel on the other hand, well.Like everyone else, I hate how they ignored the first film, especially how Pumpkinhead is now a generic slasher villain instead of a demon who kills for vengeance.I also didn't like how the demon itself is never called Pumpkinhead, in fact, it's called Tommy throughout the whole flick. I think it's because of the fact that after Tommy died (He was killed by 1950's Christian auto-bullies), his spirit went into the body of Pumpkinhead after some teens decide to resurrect him. Which raises the question how stupid and bored do you have to be to think, OK gang, let's bring an angry spirit back to life?As for the SFX, they're passable, but not as fantastic as Stan Winston's effects from the first film. At least it's better than CGI though. The acting was standard, but I give high praise for Andrew Robinson's performance.In the end though, if they made the demon look different and just simply call it Bloodwings, it wouldn't be the greatest horror movie, but it would be better than what we got instead. The movie itself is just OK, i don't have too many praises or complaints with it, I don't recommend it a whole lot, but hey at least it's BETTER than 3 and 4. Trust Me, this one's a masterpiece compared to 3 and 4.4/10

Boba_Fett1138 This is a rather late straight-to-video sequel to the Stan Winston movie "Pumpkinhead" from 1988, that wasn't even a big commercial success in the first place. The first movie already wasn't too great but this movie also adds very little and can hardly be called an improvement.It's really not an exciting or interesting movie to watch. The movie doesn't know to build up well and it doesn't seem to be able to handle its horror. Of course it also isn't being helped much by its story that provides very little originality. It's a movie that got made without too much imagination and true creativity. Even the good looking monster comes across as often being ridicules, mainly because he too often gets featured too prominently. The story fills the movie with some uninteresting characters and the movie is perhaps also missing a true, good main character. Also none of the actors really impress within their roles, which can be expected of course from a straight-to-video horror-flick. But its main-story remains really the main reason though that the movie never truly works out the way it's supposed to. It's formulaic, uninteresting and just dragging too much in parts because it doesn't seem to be able to make choices.It's still a rather good looking movie. It at least doesn't have a cheap B-movie look over it and the movie does feature some gore, however not really enough to please the average genre fan.It's easily a sequel and genre movie that you can do without.4/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/