Matcollis This Movie Can Only Be Described With One Word.

Blucher One of the worst movies I've ever seen

Whitech It is not only a funny movie, but it allows a great amount of joy for anyone who watches it.

Roy Hart If you're interested in the topic at hand, you should just watch it and judge yourself because the reviews have gone very biased by people that didn't even watch it and just hate (or love) the creator. I liked it, it was well written, narrated, and directed and it was about a topic that interests me.

ersinkdotcom While not quite as satisfying as its predecessor, you can't help but have a level of respect for screenwriters Ivan and Constantine Chachornia for trying to change things up a bit when it comes to the storyline of sequel "Pumpkinhead II: Blood Wings." We get the same premise, but with a little detective work and two intertwining motivations for the title creature to go on its killing spree to mix it up. The acting is a bit cheesy, but what can be expected from a movie made in the mid-1990s that obviously would feel more at home in the 1980s.A group of teen troublemakers resurrect the spirit of vengeance known as Pumpkinhead (Mark McCracken). Trapped inside the monster is the tormented soul of a young boy named Tommy (J.P. Manoux). First, pieces of the bodies of the gang who murdered him begin to pile up. After that, the creature's focus changes to the high schoolers who mortally wounded his caretaker. Pumpkinhead will stop at nothing until those who have wronged him are served bloody justice."Pumpkinhead II: Blood Wings" will please fans of the franchise and horror movie buffs. Special appearances by genre regulars like Linnea Quigley and Kane Hodder add to the fun.

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

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

Vomitron_G While I have to admit that Pumpkinhead is one of my favorite demonic creatures from the movies and I have to add that Jeff Burr is an underrated director, "Pumpkinhead II" is far from a great cinematic accomplishment. As a stand-alone film about a vengeance demon, it still might be a bag of silly horror-fun, but unfortunately it has to carry the burden of being an inferior sequel to a much cooler & better original. One of the biggest faults, was showing the creature too much (each time using dizziness-inducing strobe-effects to light it, for some reason). Then again, thankfully there's enough creature-action in this flick. Still, Stan Winston managed to make the monster look much more menacing in the first film, by not showing too much of it - some well-crafted shots aside - until the very end of the movie. In "Pumpkinhead II", it's all to evident too many times that we're dealing with an actor in a rubber monster suit. The story in this sequel is mildly amusing and moves at a decent pace, but it's full of clichés and highly predictable. The fact that most characters are spelling everything out for the viewer - who's always a couple steps ahead of the plot anyway - gets annoying enough really fast. For a lower budget production it's fairly well made and the KNB Effects Group did the best with what limited means they had (the creature also got a little bit re-styled; I liked the look of Stan Winston's design better). Sure, this sequel might have its heart at the right place (they even got Linnea Quigley to do a sex-scene and Kane Hodder to do a cameo), but in the end it's not a winner. It's got all the elements it needs to entertain, but the whole film just doesn't work too well. Nevertheless, I can't help having some love for this B-movie quickie. Just be sure to watch the original movie from 1988 first before you contemplate picking up a copy of this first sequel.