MOVIE REVIEWS

Incredibly contrived and overly convenient, with a truly awful title to boot, _Pumpkinhead II: Blood Wings_ is a massive step down from its predecessor. Works only as the sort of thing you have on in the background, only gracing with your attentions for the brief golden moments Pumpkinhead is doing his thing. _Final rating:★★ - Had some things that appeal to me, but a poor finished product._

***Lower budget than the original, but better story & characters*** A gang of partying teens stumble across an old witch’s cabin in rural Southern Cal and foolishly unleash a vengeful demon linked to a dead feral boy. "Pumpkinhead II: Blood Wings" (1993) was released to video and therefore has noticeably inferior production values to its 1988 predecessor. It was shot in three weeks for less than $1 million and you can tell, but it has a more compelling script and arguably better characters with the exception of the absent Lance Hendriksen, who will return for the next two sequels as a ghost. Without Hendriksen and any references to the original flick, this is more of a standalone reimagining containing all the staples of the first film: a group of teens, rural Southern Cal, a mysterious cabin in the woods, an ugly witch, a revenge-based plot and, of course, Pumpkinhead itself. Speaking of whom, the creature looks formidable despite the low-budget, albeit kinda artificial. Meanwhile, striking blonde Ami Dolenz and petite cutie Soleil Moon Frye are on hand on the feminine front, but not enough is done with them. Bottom line: Despite the low budget, I prefer this one to the original and “Pumpkinhead 4: Blood Feud” (2007). I can’t remember “Ashes to Ashes” (2006) at this particular moment, which isn’t a good sign, lol (I think I saw it, but I’m not sure). The film runs 1 hour, 28 minutes and was shot in Santa Clarita, California. GRADE: C+/B- (5.5/10)

**It would be much better with a minimally well done script.** I liked the first film, and the truth is that I feel that this follow-up was not far behind, although the story told has no connection with that of the first film. For me, that's its main problem, because the other problems that exist, honestly, I think they were already expected. Directed by Jeff Burr, the film has a cast of unknown actors, but who does what can be asked of them. They aren't brilliant, but I felt that most were sincere and committed to their work, being seriously hampered by the director's ineptitude and the stupidity of much of the dialogue and material they were given. In fact, with better material and better character development, the actors would have done a better job. The most prominent actor here is Andrew Robinson, in the role of the new local sheriff, but I also liked the work of Ami Dolenz and Steve Kanaly. The worst performances came from a histrionic Trevor Edmond, a Gloria Hendry who only says banalities and an Alexander Polinsky who doesn't seem to know what he's doing on stage. The script is really the biggest problem of the whole movie. It's just a stupid story in which the devil is resurrected to avenge two deaths at once (perhaps it's a way for the devil to save on travel): an old woman who died in an accident that she herself is going to cause after an incident with some young people, and a disabled child who died many years earlier. It's an absurd story and I just couldn't accept it. Technically, the film doesn't bring anything truly good either. The filming work is banal and uninteresting, and the cinematography and editing are amateurish. The scenarios are good, rural as in the first film, but the few visuals and specials work poorly and are not believable. The monster, for example, looks like a gangly puppet that growls and has difficulty walking. The deaths were very well-thought-out and some of them are quite graphic (a warning for the most sensitive), but it's a film that never warms up and makes us feel some tension. It's not even worth thinking about being afraid, it's better to avoid just not falling asleep.