HELLBOUND: HELLRAISER II (1988) Review

What makes a good sequel? Perhaps in the simplest terms, a good sequel is one that delivers on the promise set by its predecessor while expanding upon ideas and themes within that movie and offering up a new take on the established structure. One of the best examples, not just in horror terms, but in cinematic terms in general, is widely regarded to be James Cameron’s 1986 follow-up to Ridley Scott’s 1979 sci-fi/horror masterpiece, Aliens. What Aliens does so well is that it picks up the threads left dangling in Scott’s original and runs with them. Cameron smartly approached the film by properly considering the answers to the question all good sequels should be asking; ‘Well… what next?’. Aliens spends the bulk of its first act working on this — what happens when Ripley is found? What will the response to her story be? What are the repercussions of the destruction of the Nostromo, the death of the crew, etc. — and carefully maneuvering all the pieces of the puzzle into a place where it can then answer the second question all good sequels should be asking; ‘Well… what if?’ — what if there were more of the xenomorphs? What if Ripley has to face them again? What if a team of trained professional soldiers was put up against them?

But, as most movie fans can attest, it’s not enough to simply answer these questions. For every Aliens, there are hundreds of clusterfucks like Jaws: The Revenge, Exorcist II: The Heretic, or Freddy’s Dead: The Final Nightmare. So, what is it that the ones that get it right do that the ones that get it wrong don’t? Well, for me, I think the answer lay in the third question all good sequels should be asking; ‘Well… what is/are?’. What is Ripley? She’s a woman. A warrior. A mother. What are the xenomorphs? Animals, and part of a hive. What is the company that employed the original cast? Weyland-Yutani… and so on, and so on. What is/are? is the most important question, and Aliens works — like most good sequels do — because it uses the previous two questions to answer not only themselves but also this one. And it is my opinion that sitting alongside great sequels such as Aliens, Doctor Sleep, The Exorcist III: Legion, Scream 2, et al, is Tony Randel’s 1988 follow-up to Clive Barker’s excellent original, Hellbound: Hellraiser II. It may not be a very popular opinion, but in my mind, Hellbound sits effortlessly alongside Hellraiser, successfully crafting a continuation of the story set-up in Barker’s movie that does indeed answer all three of those questions in a satisfying and interesting way.

Upon release, famed film critic Roger Ebert, writing for the Chicago Sun-Times, lambasted the film as “some kind of avant-garde film strip in which there is no beginning, no middle, no end, but simply a series of gruesome images that can be watched in any order”. I don’t always agree with Ebert, and while his reviews are pretty entertaining, when he’s wrong, he’s wrong. Hellbound is a blast, picking up right where the original left off, it quickly establishes its own narrative, building off of the original’s still dangling threads, and proceeds to swiftly and enjoyably make the most of the premise, never once really falling into the trappings of ‘bigger = better’ thinking that so many rubbish sequels often do.

That’s not to say that Hellbound isn’t ‘bigger’. In fact, it is unquestionably larger in scale than Barker’s original. While the 1987 film takes place almost entirely inside a single house, Hellbound opens up the world, not only exploring the ‘real’ world of Hellraiser but the only glimpsed at world of the Cenobites as well. And, look, all of this is all well and good, but when filtered through logic or reason most of it is objectively total nonsense. The film doesn’t even really try to make sense, and Hellbound is undeniably less interested in the lore and mystique that Barker so brilliantly hinted at and built throughout the original, instead opting to treat the material like some kind of twisted action adventure — think a kind of cross between Jim Henson’s Labyrinth and David Lynch’s Eraserhead, only with a lot less thoughtfulness and subtly — but it would be a lie if I told you that I didn’t absolutely love it.

I first saw Hellbound at the same time as I discovered the original Hellraiser. As such, the two films are linked in my mind. So, I think it’s important to understand that the connection I felt to Barker’s original — that strange sense of kinship to these characters and this world — carried over to Hellbound for me. Whether you want to consider this a whole heap of goodwill built up by Hellraiser or genuine affection for its sequel regardless of the original doesn’t really matter. The point is, to me, they are a single entity — parts one and two of a single story — and so I find it very difficult to separate my love for Barker’s world and characters from my experience with this film alone. And perhaps that is the best way in which to view it; Hellbound isn’t so much a film in its own right as it is the exciting conclusion to a story set up in part one. When I try to look at it on its own, I will concede that I see flaws. As I already mentioned, it takes a far more bombastic approach to this world, and in doing so it sacrifices a lot of the more intriguing elements present in the 1987 movie. It’s a film that is far more interested in parading out a series of gruesome and grisly effects sequences than it is creating any sense of atmosphere, and so it ultimately does wind up feeling a little episodic in nature. Of course, the original is hardly innocent when it comes to leaning on gloopy practical effects, and while it’s true that Barker seemed to be able to handle a lot of that better, filling the bits in between with equally unsettling, albeit far less obvious, moments, Hellbound’s refusal to stop and breathe means that it’s almost impossible not to get caught up in the excitement. The glaring holes and inconsistencies disappear as quickly as they arrived, and before you’ve had a chance to even question what you’ve seen, the next insane moment has dropped in front of you and you’re back right where you started.

This is where the benefit of viewing it as the second half of a larger story comes in. As a climax, Hellbound unleashes itself upon us before hurtling toward its own conclusion, wrapping up a couple of those leftover threads and then abruptly ending. In terms of the actual narrative, it doesn’t really offer up anything that Barker hadn’t already explored with his movie, but that doesn’t matter when we’re looking at the film as the grand finale of that story. After all, it’s not the climax's job to deliver setups or introductions, but rather to wrap everything up in an exciting, shocking, enjoyable way. If that is the purpose of Hellbound, then it delivers and then some! When I was an impressionable youngster, watching it for the first time, I began the film within a minute of the last one ending, and so I was just glad to have more Hellraiser to devour! But the fact remains that even now, as an adult and with some distance between the films, I still find a lot to enjoy in Hellbound. For me, it definitely does answer those three all-important questions; we find out what happens next, we get to explore some tantalizing what-ifs, and we learn what is and are. That’s pretty much all I need it to do, so the fact that it does all three with a sense of grisly fun and insanely joyful craziness is just an added bonus.

Ultimately, if you enjoyed the original Hellraiser, then I think Hellbound will probably give you what you’re after. It’s not as good as the original, but then sequels seldom are — even Cameron’s Aliens, in my opinion, doesn’t hit the heights of Scott’s movie — and when viewed as a direct continuation and end point, Hellbound is a lot of fun! I’ll die on this hill. It finds some unique and interesting ways to approach some of the more iconic moments in the original — just take a look at Julia’s resurrection, which could so easily have been a retread of Frank’s, but director Tony Randel does something more than merely ripping off Barker’s vision — while bringing a few new ideas to the table alongside expanding on what came before. As far as sequels go, that’s a win in my book, and I’ve never fully managed to wrap my head around the divisive response this movie receives. It’s a wild ride and, if you’re willing to go with it, it’s a good couple of hours. Despite the promise, your suffering won’t necessarily be ‘legendary’, but there’s definitely enough here to ensure you won’t be bored. 4/5.