MovieChat Forums > Pumpkinhead II: Blood Wings (1994) Discussion > One of the Worst Films I've ever seen

One of the Worst Films I've ever seen


Compared to the original Pumpkinhead, this sequel is an abomination.

I found this film at Wal-Mart, located in the $5 dollar bin in a 4-pack collection. I remember cherishing the original for it's dark, subtle atmosphere and Stan Winston's creature effects. It looked amazing. A truly great special effects horror film. My first thoughts upon seeing the title "Pumpkinhead 2: Blood Wings", I wasn't sure what to expect, especially if it was bundled with three other films, all of them I also found to be a piling heap of sh*t (Leprechaun, Wishmaster, Wishmaster 2). I wasn't expecting it to be nearly as good as the original, but at least along the lines of a decent sequel, such as Critters 2.

Oh Sh*t I was wrong...

From the first ten minutes into the movie, I knew the next 86 minutes wouldn't exactly be a "happy ride". Not like I was hoping it be anyways.

As the film further progressed, it managed to hit all the character cliche's, bad acting, horrible directing, hideous cinematography, and gaping plot holes DEAD ON. And it was especially NOT up to par from what I was expecting from KNB Effects. It made Curse of the Puppet Master look like masterpiece of modern cinema(BTW, The Curse of the Puppet Master was *beep* HORRIBLE)

The movie tries too hard to be something that it's not. I mean, what is it trying to represent? Definently NOT the first entry in the series, that's for damned sure.

It was truly one of the worst films I've ever experienced. And I'm absolutely positive many of you think the same. Hell, just to think, The *beep* SY-FY Channel, responsible for films such as Mega Pirahna and Shark Attack, made better *beep* entries to the Pumpkinhead saga. EPIC FAIL!

It totally *beep* up my night.

reply

Epic fail indeed, 2/10

reply

I've seen worse.

reply

Considering you've seen the Puppet Master films, I assume you've seen your fair share of films with bad cinematography. Is it really that bad in this film? I enjoyed the first one and want to see the sequels, but nothing ruins a movie for me faster than bad cinematography. Everything else can be dreadful, but if the camerawork looks good then I can usually enjoy a movie to some degree.

reply

I wouldn't say it's the worst, b/c I have seen some real stinkers over the years. But it is bad.

What I can't figure out is why when Pumpkinhead comes after somebody they act totally cripple. Pumpkinhead can't run the 40 in 4.2 so why can't anyone just outrun him/it? He comes crashing into a guy's house & the friggin' idiot goes looking for a pistol instead of just running like hell!

Most of the victims are kids young enough to be able to run a healthy distance & speed but somehow they always fall. Or in the case of the hot girl boinking the fat dude (she's on top of him) she just stands there screaming. That scene with her naked was really the only part that caught my attention.

reply

"Manos: The Hands of Fate" is much, much worse.

I'm a totally bitchin' bio writer from Mars!

reply

[deleted]

It's not the worst film I've ever seen, but it isn't as good as the first one. It doesn't really have a lot in common with the first film, so I see it as more of a remake rather than a sequel myself. But it was okay. Not great, not terrible.

Burn, witch! Burn, witch! Burn! Burn! Burn!

reply

[deleted]

Another fine example of sequelitis that has plagued Hollywood since Friday the 13th. Possibly before that but I can't remember. Great films like that one, A Nightmare on Elm Street, Hellraiser, Halloween etc. have been followed by terrible sequels.

This one is no exception. Just awful compared to the original.

---------------------
Long live the 70s!

reply

I've seen far more terrible movies. This isn't a great flick but in my opinion it isn't one of the worst

"I'm just a happy camper! Rockin' and a-rollin'!" - Patrick Bateman, American Psycho

reply