Hellbound: Hellraiser II

1988

Hellbound: Hellraiser II

Critics Consensus

Hellbound: Hellraiser II retains the twisted visual thrill of its predecessor, although seams in the plot are already starting to show.

56%

TOMATOMETER

Total Count: 27

58%

Audience Score

User Ratings: 47,599
User image

Hellbound: Hellraiser II Photos

Movie Info

After her harrowing experiences in Hellraiser, Kirsty Cotton (Ashley J. Laurence) is a patient in a mental hospital under the care of psychiatrist Dr. Channard (Kenneth Cranham). Although outwardly calm, the demonic doctor unlocks the door to hell when he figures out the Lament Configuration. After he brings Kirsty's evil stepmother Julia (Claire Higgins) back from the dead, Kirsty, fellow patient Tiffany (Imogen Boorman), the evil doctor, and Kristy's stepmother all descend into the depths of hell. They battle the evil flesh-eating villains known as the Cenobites in this blood-and-guts gorefest. Kirsty hopes she can rescue her father from spending eternity in hell.

Watch it now

Cast

Ashley Laurence
as Kirsty Cotton
Kenneth Cranham
as Dr. Channard
William Hope
as Kyle Macrae
Oliver Smith
as Browning
Sean Chapman
as Uncle Frank
Doug Bradley
as Pinhead
Simon Bamford
as Butterball Cenobite
Nicholas Vince
as Chatterer
Barbie Wilde
as Female Cenobite
Deborah Joel
as Skinless Julia
Bradley Lavelle
as Officer Kucich
Edwin Craig
as Wheelchair Patient
Ron Travis
as Workman 1
Oliver Parker
as Workman 2
Catherine Chevalier
as Tiffany's Mother
View All

News & Interviews for Hellbound: Hellraiser II

Critic Reviews for Hellbound: Hellraiser II

All Critics (27) | Top Critics (6)

  • Though the script for ''Hellbound'' is related to the Barker story, the film drops its plot whenever a fake-looking monster walks on the screen. Ogling strange creatures is the film's true reason for being.

    Oct 4, 2018 | Full Review…
  • This follow-up is faster and campier than its mostly somber predecessor, but the basic grim tenets of British horror author Clive Barker's supernatural worldview are still intact.

    Oct 4, 2018 | Full Review…
  • A maggotty carnival of mayhem, mutation and dismemberment, awash in blood and recommended only for those who thrive on such junk.

    Mar 26, 2009 | Full Review…

    Variety Staff

    Variety
    Top Critic
  • Simply performs cosmetic surgery on the original.

    Feb 9, 2006 | Full Review…

    Derek Adams

    Time Out
    Top Critic
  • It is simply a series of ugly and bloody episodes strung together one after another like a demo tape by a perverted special-effects man.

    Jan 1, 2000 | Rating: 0.5/4 | Full Review…
  • Even if you discount the cliche's, there are enough bizarre and shocking effects here to satisfy all but the most demanding genre fans.

    Jan 1, 2000 | Full Review…

Audience Reviews for Hellbound: Hellraiser II

  • Jul 26, 2015
    The first "Hellraiser" was so self contained that all it's sequels seem progressively more pointless as they've soldiered on past the point of sense. They fact that this one, generally regarded as the "best" sequel, is just a grotesque parade of laughable dialogue and uninspired visuals has kept me from pursuing this series any further than this point.
    Alec B Super Reviewer
  • Oct 21, 2014
    If you were to rank horror movie 'monsters', it'd be: Michael Myers, Freddie Krueger, Jason (with those all hovering around in the top spot depending who you ask), Leatherface and, unfortunately, last Pinhead. I know I reviewed a Nightmare on Elm Street 2 a couple of weeks ago and I said that Freddie was my favorite of the Big Three, if you will. That's not to say he's my favorite horror monster out of them all, but the discussion always boils down to Jason, Freddie, and Michael Myers. They're the three most successful horror monsters of all time, so it's only natural that the discussion would boil down to those three. Personally, out of the big three, I've always preferred Freddie because of the fact that he speaks, so, therefore, he has infinitely more personality than either Jason or Michael. But if you were to ask me which, out of every horror monster there is out there, I'd definitely have to go with Pinhead. What I like about Pinhead, and the franchise in general, is that while the others have embraced a more campy approach, Hellraiser was always all about the torture and abject suffering of its victims. While each sequel got progressively worse, at the very least, this part of the series was still intact. This film is no different, it's probably more horrifically violent than anything you would've seen in a Jason, Freddie, or Michael movie at the same time. While I lament the fact that Pinhead was made into a more sympathetic figure in this film, there's still more than enough grotesque violence, hellish creatures, nightmarish surroundings, etc, etc to satisfy the most jaded gorehounds. The story is certainly a little lacking, which is why it gets this score. I like how the film continues with the story set-up in the original film, rather than doing away with all of that to use a cast full of fresh faces and telling a completely different story with them. I appreciate that continuity and this does a good job at explaining the events of the original film, which I actually haven't finished watching. So there's that, but I wasn't particularly interested in this film's story either. I wasn't really invested. What can you expect, however, from a horror sequel? They can't all be Evil Dead 2. But I do like the film's surrealist visuals and nightmarish portrayal of hell. It is exactly what it should've been. I don't think many slashers are scary, or at least they don't intend to be, but I can find someone being absolutely terrified at the hellish sights. Because, believe it or not, a big chunk of American citizens believe that hell is an actual place that you get sent if you disobey god's rules. Yes, the same god who made you in his/her image and the one who proclaims to love you no matter what you do will condemn you to an eternity of suffering if you break any of his rules, even the really stupid and arbitrary ones such as getting a haircut or eating shellfish. So, because of that, I think a lot of religious, not exactly fanatical but not secular either, people might be scared by this film's representation of hell and the 'creatures' that oversee everything. I think this film benefits from something that some people think is real and that, definitely, raises it past the typical horror franchise. Of course this is talking about the first two films in the franchise, as the series falls off after this, never to recover. But I liked this movie, it might not set the world on fire as far as inventiveness, but it does have some really grotesque and gruesome scenes. Considering the darker subject matter, this is still a pretty fun horror movie. And it's even better if you're doing a Halloween horror fest like I am. Acquired taste, but horror fans will be more than pleased.
    Jesse O Super Reviewer
  • Oct 07, 2012
    Let's start with the improvements over the Clive Barker predecessor: Christopher Young's baroque score is more akin to a demonic music box this time around and the concept of the demystifying backstory for Pinhead as a field officer is quite tantalizing to ponder. Once those elements have been broached, the film gradually degrades into a senselessly gory retread of the original (along with a lengthy recap and clip show from the indelible first film) with Julie as the incomplete corpse instead of Frank. An inmate flaying his skin of maggots is definitely repulsive and most of the effects border on that level of gratuitous and unnecessary. Upon entering Hell, the sets are kitschy with funhouse mirrors and endless staircases like an MC Escher painting. The images are never truly unnerving and the slapdash defeat of the Cenobites by Channard (and his cheesy stop-motion tentacles) are an insult to their formidable menace. To watch a humanized Pinhead gurgling for breath after a slit throat is depressing indeed. Overall, the brooding film capsizes quickly from brazen 'Snow White' allegories and overblown effects.
    Cory T Super Reviewer
  • Mar 17, 2012
    The follow-up to Clive Barker's Hellraiser is a terrific horror flick with a great cast, great effects and very good directing provided by Tony Randel. As far as sequels are concerned, Hellbound is one of the better sequels in a horror franchise. Usually a sequel tends to lack the power of the original film, however this is not the case for Hellbound. Though not as great as Hellraiser; this film has all the necessary elements to create the effective terror that Hellraiser fans have come to expect. This film is designed to disturb its audience and like the first film, it does it very well. Though Clive Barker didn't direct this film, you can still see his imagination run wild throughout the film. The film succeeds at delivering dark images of melancholic painful terror. This film is a worthy enough sequel to Clive Barker's original masterpiece, and it continues where the first left off. Lead actresses Clare Higgins and Ashley Laurence reprise their roles from the first film, and it brings an even greater sense of continuity to the film. Fans of the first film will most likely enjoy this film, and like the first Hellraiser, it remains a must see film for fans. This is the best sequel in the entire franchise, and as the series progressed; it's easy to see why. If you've enjoyed the first film, then give this one a view, you'll most likely going to enjoy it as much as Barker's classic of terror.
    Alex r Super Reviewer

Hellbound: Hellraiser II Quotes

News & Features