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/

dullfinboy I like this movie. I know a lot of people don't. I can kind of understand. I didn't like that Pumpkinhead was Tommy's dad. Pumpkinhead looked kind of fake. The way they brought back Pumpkinhead was different. It was a different witch. I thought Pumpkinhead was invincible. I thought the only way for him to stop was for him to finish his mission or to kill the person that had him conjured up. In the first movie Pumpkinhead was shot multiple times and was shot in the head and still lived. Ywt in this he was shot and he died. It liked that it was gory. It had a high body count. Andrew Robinson was in it. It was a good movie but really had nothing to do with the original. It was good.

TheLittleSongbird I really wanted to like Pumpkinhead II: Blood Wings. I thoroughly enjoyed the original Pumpkinhead, and while not expecting the same quality I was expecting it to be at least watchable. What a shame! Blood Wings does have its redeeming qualities, Andrew Robinson's performance is nicely understated and the scenery is beautiful and eerie. However, at the end of the day I saw no point to Blood Wings. None of the sequels are as good as the original but Ashes to Ashes and Blood Feud for me were hugely flawed but more watchable mainly because Lance Henrikssen was in them. The music score had a real eeriness in the original and in the other two sequels, but doesn't add anything to the atmosphere here, coming across as rather cheesy and overbearing instead. The dialogue is often stilted and contrived and the characters are clichéd and have no likability or believability at all(the character of Paul is just pointless). While the story, the fact that it has no connection whatsoever to the first aside from the character of Pumpkinhead, is plodding in pace and predictably told further hampered with sacrificing suspense and any real sense of horror with gratuitous gore and violence as well as the most haphazard camera work of either of the four movies. The killings may be more savage in Blood Wings but have no impact otherwise. Pumpkinhead gave me the creeps in the original, but his movements here lack fluidity and he comes across as too ruthless at times. His actor does his best but fails to convey the sense of creepiness and dread so effortlessly done by Lance Henrikssen. The rest of the acting is amateurish. Overall, a sequel that is not among the worst- unlike the likes of Superbabies: Baby Geniuses 2, Home Alone 4, NeverEnding Story 3 and Secret of NIMH 2- but among the most pointless. 3/10 Bethany Cox

gavin6942 A group of kids in the 1950s torture and kill a deformed boy. Years later, another group of kids bring him back from the dead. Unknown to them, the people he now wants revenge on happen to be their city elders.This film is so completely poorly rated, and I'm not sure why. Compared to the sequels, it's pretty decent, and in many ways is just as good or better than the original. I thought the film quality and gore, for example, were much improved. As were the cast.I can't knock Lance Henriksen, but Andrew Robinson ("Hellraiser") as Sheriff Sean Braddock? Soleil Moon Frye ("Punky Brewster") as Marcie? And genre favorites Linnea Quigley and Kane Hodder making cameo appearances? Very sweet.The biggest problem with this film is its plot holes, incongruities or just simple confusion when trying to compare it to the first film. At one point they claim the boy is the son of Pumpkinhead. What? And the years seem to line up funny, and the towns may be different. The demons have different motives. How exactly are the two films connected?