text stringlengths 1 330k |
|---|
It's also the last film in the series that Clive Barker had any actual creative input in. |
Fred [The Wolf] said... |
Ha! Wow, you actually made some excellent points about this sequel. It's definitely full of plotholes and issues that really don't make sense in terms of the first film. But I still enjoy this film anyway and I feel it's stronger than the original. If you think this sequel is confusing, I can't imagine how you'd feel about the other sequels. From the ones I've seen, they'll give you nothing but headaches. |
Great post! |
Emily said... |
That's what I generally think of when I think HHII. LIke you, I still love it but yeah...it ain't exactly Citizen Kane in plotting and execution. |
Oh, and you know what? I would never be able to open a puzzle box. I can barely open up a tea bag without the leaves spilling everywhere and in the past, I've had trouble with Pez. |
Andre said... |
Heidi- I won't hit you! Because secretly I think I may feel the same way. The second film was the first I ever saw and I just think it's pretty neat--once one stops trying to understand things of course. |
M.Hufstader- You really should watch both films. They are both on Netflix Instant. Super gory, and super exquisite...at least in my mind. |
Lazlo- Thanks! I agree the 2nd film has its charms. Even though I don't understand it I still love it. |
SB- You are so right about that. That actually DOES make sense. |
Cash- It is decently strong I admit, I guess I just didn't realize how much it didn't make sense. This is what happens when you watch it immediately after the first one. |
Fred- Oh god, that will be a whole new can of worms I'm sure, I can't wait to expose myself to the others. |
Emily- You so could open the puzzle box because it does most of the work by itself. I have faith in you, I do!! And who doesn't have trouble with pez? I've lost more than a few sleeves of the strawberry flavored... sigh. |
spazmo said... |
You are so right. Julia's earthly hairdo was an abomination. |
And you'd expect somebody resurrected from a mattress to be afflicted with at least a marginal case of bed-head, but no - only gloriously woofed-out tresses will do for Leviathan's minions. |
deaner said... |
I loved this movie when it came out even though it made no sense. I always found part I kind of boring, but this one isn't. |
Supposedly heavily edited by the studio, I'd love to see a director's cut of this one (along with Nightbreed which suffered the same fate). |
matango said... |
I could never figure out if Channard's umbilical thing was supposed to be hooked up somewhere. |
I think you've got it; this movie is all imagery, and is enjoyable for that. |
Maybe the director went to the Lucio Fulci school of filmmaking? |
Thomas Dukenfield said... |
I saw this originally as a midnight double feature with the first one on TV (I think it was the cable premiere, so I was probably 9 or 10). It really worked and made sense that way, as a purely nightmarish addendum to the original. I know it's usually a cop out to say a horror movie is "like a nightmare", but I think HELLBOUND qualifies. |
My word verification is CAKIESS, which sounds like an ancient Roman baker. |
Guilherme Calixto said... |
my doubt is: didnt the house burn in the first movies end? why is it ok and with the bodies in the second? |
Horror Movie Medication said... |
Anonymous said... |
Love your review! Saw both Hellraiser and Hellbound at the theater in the 80's. I like the original film better. It has some flaws too, but it stays more focused than the sequel. I think Hellbound has some great scenes though, like you've said. Pinhead's origin scene was such a shocking delight at the time :) |
Neal said... |
I just got done watching Hellraiser II, and I typed "Why Doesn't Hellraiser 2 make any sense?" You're post makes me feel so much better, its good to know I'm not the only one who had these concerns. But I have three qualms to add to yours. There might be more but I can't think of all of them, there are so many? |
1. Why did Julia rip Frank's heart out? For what purpose did she do this? I thought they were lovers. It wasn't like she needed flesh to regenerate hers, she was already whole! |
2. How in the hell did Kirstie manage to don Julia's skin as her own? Where did she get it? and how did she put it on herself? |
3. Why did Pinhead turn Kirsties puzzle box into another puzzle box? If he really wanted to prevent her escape, he should have destroyed the box or just kept it. Instead he turns it into another puzzle box that has the potential to be solves? |
Christen said... |
I'm laughing so hard. I had to comment after I read the last post that talked about googling after watching the film. I used to see Hellraiser 3 on tv all the time (for some reason?? Only that one?) I'm watching through the series on Netflix now just to enjoy some good ol fashioned horror flicks while I work on other projects. |
My first thought after watching Hellraiser was "There is no way the sex was THAT good Julia. Come on." |
My first thought after watching Hellraiser II was "What? Why did that happen? Wtf? Why? Anything?" So I immediately googled "Hellraiser II what the hell happened." |
And up popped your blog! It was a pretty fantastic way to cap off the evening. I love 80's movies because they can literally make no sense and get away with so much. |
And I have to agree that getting rid of Kirsty's old boyfriend (does he count as a boyfriend? They made out in a nasty subway staircase and... saw each other like twice?) the way they did was one of the best worst character exits I've ever seen. That alone made my day. Anyway, cheers on the fun blog. Looking forward to the rest of the series and fully expecting things to go downhill from here. |
Unknown said... |
What's your pleasure? Lol all the answers love this article |
Risk said... |
My issue is that Julia is brought back to life with blood being soaked into the mattress when she was actually killed on the stairs when Frank drank her blood. So why then is she brought back to life when it wasnt the cenobites that killed her for opening the box? |
Risk said... |
Julia was killed by Frank on the stairs when he stabbed her and drank her blood. Why then was she able to be brought back by soaked blood on the mattress when her death had nothing to do with opening the box and being killed by cenobites? So there! You actually missed probably the biggest question of all. |
Tuesday, September 17, 2013 |
Dazzling feat of choreography and skill |
We see things on television and the web everyday. Stuff that had we been witness to in real life would probably have brought us to our feet in applause, or to our knees in anguish. But because we are constantly bombarded with these amazing things at all hours of every day we tend to get jaded, and give them just a passing nod or shrug. |
Every so often, though, something still comes along that'll knock your socks off. I never thought marching drummers would do that for me, but I found myself applauding my computer screen when they were done. Freaking amazing! |
Take a look... |
Tuesday, July 07, 2009 |
Honduras: the Supreme Court's case |
The former President of the Honduran Supreme Court lays out her argument about why Zelaya's removal did not constitute a coup. The logic is as follows: |
First, according to Article 239 of the constitution, no one can propose to reform presidential term limits. |
Second, according to the same article, anyone who does is immediately relieved of their post. |
Third, if you ask whether voters want a constitutional commission, you are automatically saying you want to abolish the constitution. |
Fourth, by order of the Supreme Court, Zelaya was no longer president at the time he was detained, and therefore the illegal act of removing him from the country did not happen to a president. Hence there was no coup. |
Obviously, number 3 is the stickiest point. As has been noted repeatedly, Zelaya's proposal never mentioned presidential terms and did not say the constitution would be abolished. See RAJ's comments in a previous post about other constitutional articles regarding the right to a trial and defense that were not respected. |
newsy 12:59 PM |
That's extremely interesting. I think the Obama administration needs to clearly define why they are in support of Zeyala. News stations are criticizing Obama's stance. http://www.newsy.com/videos/welcome_anywhere_but_home |
Nell 1:52 PM |
Here you go, newsy. Take it up with President Obama if this doesn't defines it clearly enough for you: |
leftside 2:29 PM |
This is a highly dubious argument in itself. But the fact is that Zelaya never asked voters if they wanted anything more than a chance to have a real vote at a later date. I agree that holding a binding vote outside lawful procedures and beginning the process of an Assembly would have been illegal. But a non-binding poll whether to have a vote later has absolutely none of the applicable legal characteristics. |
And then you have the small matter that RAJ refers to - that there was no trial. Only filed charges. |
leftside 3:32 PM |
Article 3 of the Honduran Constitution: |
No one owes obedience to a usurper government nor to those who assume public office or functions by armed force or using ways and procedures that violate or ignore what this Constitution and the laws establish. The actions validated by such authorities are null. The people has the right to take recourse to insurrection in defence of the constitutional order.” |
Even the Army's own lawyers are admitting the "ways and procedures" of the coup violated the Constitution. |
Gabriel, 3:53 PM |
The courts ruled. Period. Zelaya should have obeyed. |
KA 4:14 PM |
sorry this is a bit off topic, but at least Clinton has realized Insulza is incompetent as head of the OAS. |
Shall we say this is a coup against Insluza by the empire? :p |
leftside 12:17 AM |
KA, I guess you are implying that since Insulza was not picked as a mediator that he has been dissed by Clinton??? I don't think you can assume that at all. Arias was the better choice - trusted by both sides, understands the region, not too publicly "prejudiced" on the issue, etc. |
RAJ 5:13 AM |
Point 3 in this defense-- which has been repeated by several officials, in almost identical form-- is indeed the sticky point. But there are three things arguing against the interpretation now being made (which is that asking the people's opinion about the constitution automatically means you intend to change it): |
(1) the Honduran Constitution guarantees the right of freedom of speech and expression of opinion, and (not surprisingly given US input on its shaping) follows the same approach we have, which is that opinions are not actions; you can debate issues without fear of prosecution, what is illegal are certain actions. |
(2) there actually was a law that explicitly authorized the Executive branch to undertake polls of public opinion to help guide policy making. The opinion poll scheduled for June 28 was initiated under that law. On June 24-- a few days prior to the scheduled poll-- Congress passed new regulations implementing this law, which said opinion polls could not take place within 180 days of an election, making the planned poll illegal due to its schedule. But the law itself remains in place, meaning there was nothing illegal about asking the public their opinion. |
(3) the Supreme Court has generously posted more than 80 pages of primary documents showing that its ruling that Zelaya should be held for trial, dated Friday June 26, did not call for his expatriation (which is illegal), and indeed, that he was owed due process. Ironically, their basis for approving the secret military raid to arrest Zelaya was because they deemed him a flight risk. |
Nell 10:59 AM |
RAJ: their basis for approving the secret military raid to arrest Zelaya was because they deemed him a flight risk. |
Which is yet another reason that Zelaya's effort to return was vital to his restoration. It showed as little else could that he was the opposite of a flight risk. |
There is a Supreme Court order authorizing the military to arrest Zelaya. Bayardo, in his interview with El Faro and the Miami Herald, acknowledged that the military (presumably at the highest level, Gen. Vasquez) took it upon itself to remove the President from the country "to avoid violence". |
He sought to give the impression that the Supreme Court and the civilian frontman for the coup expected that Zelaya would be arrested and held in the country. Yet there is no indication whatsoever that they did, or that they expected or planned for his prosecution. |
Micheletti and his supporters in Congress proceeded as if they expected all the members of Zelaya's cabinet (against whom they obtained arrest warrants on presumably the same flimsy basis as that for Zelaya's arrest) to flee the country. Most did, with a few exceptions (e.g., the ministers of Labor and Education, who went into semi-hiding in rural communities). |
© Blogger templates The Professional Template by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008 |
Back to TOP |
Why I wasn't Colleen Wainwright (and why I am now) |
As with money, we have a long and complicated relationship with names in my family. |
Many people are shocked, shocked, I tell you!, to find out I'm half-Jewish; apparently, even though, as a former agent said, I have a face like a map of old Russia, I'm not immediately physically recognizable as a Jew (whatever that means). |
Neither was my father. The son of two full-fledged (albeit non-practicing) Members of the Tribe, he somehow looked like them in only the most Gentile of ways. He could, and did, pass, in his Brooks Brothers suits and horn-rimmed ad-guy glasses. He even looked goyishe standing next to my mother, a beauty of Irish-Swedish descent who had shiksa written all over her retroussé nose. Who knows? Maybe it was a gentile-by-association thing. |
And in mid-century America, in the circles Charles Anthony Weinrott wanted to travel in, if it wasn't better to be non-Jewish, it was definitely better to be non-different. So he Anglicized the name, converted to Catholicism, et voila! All traces of the Jew in him, save a lingering penchant for chopped liver, were eliminated. (And hey, who doesn't like a nice pâté?) |
But that's not where the name issue stopped, or rather, where it started. Oh, no. Way, way back when he was a wee lad with very little means of power or authority, Dad found a way to wiggle a bit from under the loving but dominating shadow of his father, my beloved Gramps. Quite forcefully (or so the family lore would have it) and pretty much out of the blue one day, young Master Weinrott announced that he would no longer answer to "Charlie," and must henceforth be addressed as "Tony." 20-some-odd years later, he scrubbed the first name down to an initial, and was known formally as "C. Anthony Wainwright," thereby eradicating 90% of the name he was born with. Take that, old man. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.