Critics’ reviews

Hellbound: Hellraiser II (1988)

8 reviews from 8 publications. Critics’ score 36: 0 positive, 2 mixed, 6 negative.

Back to our review of Hellbound: Hellraiser II

36
Positive
0
Mixed
2
Negative
6

Most critics find Hellbound: Hellraiser II a disappointing sequel, with more gore and less effective horror than its predecessor. The reviews repeatedly describe a film whose elaborate effects and grotesque imagery struggle to compensate for weaker scares and confused storytelling. Praise is scattered rather than sustained, clustering around moments of disturbing eeriness and the physical surroundings. Eye for Film singles out Clare Higgins’s performance and the set design as welcome strengths in an otherwise poor sequel.

The main division concerns how much pleasure the excess provides. Slant Magazine finds the film enjoyably lurid despite its diminished potency, while Variety treats the escalating gruesomeness as its defining failure. Elsewhere, reservations centre on lapses in logic, overexplaining and a shift towards campier spectacle. The spread runs from qualified enjoyment to outright rejection, but the consensus remains firmly negative: the expanded mythology and increased bloodshed do not make the sequel more frightening.

RogerEbert.com
64*

The page is blocked, so the critic’s verdict cannot be determined. No praise or complaint is discernible from the available page content.

Read the full review →
Slant Magazine
20 April 2009 · ★★/4 · Eric Henderson
50

Henderson finds the sequel over-the-top and less potent than the original, though enjoyably lurid. He singles out its grotesque asylum malpractice imagery and unmoored brimstone-and-flesh excess.

Read the full review →
Radio Times
★★ · Alan Jones
40

Jones finds the sequel less allegorical and more gory, with routine direction and illogicalities. He notes some disturbing eeriness amid the blood-soaked inconsistencies.

Read the full review →
Los Angeles Times
23 December 1988 · CHRIS WILLMAN
35*

Willman finds the sequel faster and campier than its predecessor, but less unsettling and weakened by lapses in logic. He singles out its shift toward extravagant, action-adventure spectacle as a letdown for fans of Clive Barker’s darker imagination.

Read the full review →
The New York Times
23 December 1988 · Janet Maslin
30*

The review is negative about the sequel. It singles out its elaborate effects while finding the film’s horror less effective.

Read the full review →
Time Out
· NF
30*

The review describes the sequel as disappointing. It notes an effort to expand the Cenobite mythology, but says the film falls short of the original.

Read the full review →
Variety
31 December 1987 · Variety Staff
10*

The review condemns the film as tasteless, gruesome junk, suitable only for viewers who enjoy that kind of spectacle. It singles out the escalating gross-out tableaux as the film’s defining feature.

Read the full review →
Eye for Film
8 April 2017 · Jennie Kermode
30*

Kermode considers it a poor sequel, weighed down by overexplaining and a visually weak finale. She praises Clare Higgins’s performance and the set design as welcome strengths.

Read the full review →

Ordered by the weight we give each publication, then by score. Scores are normalised to 100; * means inferred from an unrated review. Summaries are ours, not quotations; follow the links for the reviews themselves. How we rate