Waxwork II: Lost in Time (1992) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
53 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
5/10
Back to the Past
claudio_carvalho5 March 2014
Mark (Zach Galligan) and Sarah (Monika Schnarre) survive to the fire in the wax museum, but Sarah is followed by a severed hand that kills her alcoholic stepfather. Sarah becomes the prime suspect and goes to trial. Mark and Sarah search evidence to prove her innocence and they go to Sir Wilfred's house. They find a footage prepared by Sir Wilfred with a puzzle based of the Alice and the Looking Glass. They solve the puzzle and find a compass that opens portals through time. They travel to the most different places in time seeking something to help Sarah in her trial in a dangerous journey.

"Waxwork II: Lost in Time" is the sequel of "Waxwork" without Deborah Foreman that turned the offer down and was replaced by Monika Schnarre in the role of Sarah. Zach Galligan is also different from the original clumsy and rich Mark. The movie pays a tribute to several horror movies and entertains but it is silly and does not work well in many parts. The conclusion is a rip-off "Back to the Future" and does not make much sense that Sarah comes back to the present days to clear her name and return to the past to stay with Mark. My vote is five.

Title (Brazil): "Waxwork II - Perdidos no Tempo" ("Waxwork II: Lost in Time")

Note: On 17 February 2021, I saw this film again.
12 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Amusing silliness...
Rob_Taylor18 September 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Waxworks 2 doesn't pretend to be anything other than what it is. A comic parody of horror movies. If you haven't got that by the time the crawling hand picks up the hammer, then you ain't gonna like this movie.

Not that the movie is great, by any stretch of the imagination. The type of humour is a little too dated to bring much more than smiles. But it does entertain.

Throw in cameo performances from a host of well-known stars (well..they're well-known now, anyway) and you have a pleasant enough way to spend an evening.

In fact, playing spot the jobbing actor is a good way to look at this movie, if you aren't certain it's for you. With the likes of Bruce Campbell, David Carradine and Marina Sirtis all popping up at one point or another, there's no shortage of faces on display that even a non-filmy will recognize.

The highlight of the movie is the final showdown between hero and villain, where they clash swords across a number of "dimensions", all of which are parodies of well-known movies, with a number of obvious, but well-done gags thrown in at the appropriate point.

It's not a movie you'll bring out of the TV cabinet again and again to watch, but it's fun enough for a single viewing.
7 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Waxwork II is worth-waxing, but it does have bits that they should had wax-off.
ironhorse_iv31 January 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Often cited as the first self-referential horror movie, 1988's Waxwork had everything that a horror movie fan might love: full of horror film references, over the top gorn, and amazingly accurate & professional looking sets & costumes. Considering the films low budget and campy factor, the movie was a surprising semi-successful movie when it came out. Due to this success, a sequel came out in 1992, call Waxwork 2: Lost in Time. It follows nearly that same escapism formula, but unlike the first film, it didn't take itself, too serious as it play off with the comedy, a lot more. Directed and written by Anthony Hickox, yet again, Waxwork 2 takes place immediately after the first film, Waxworks, with a recap and replay of the last moments of the film with reused footage. Then the movie kinda starts with an reenactment of final scenes with Mark Loftmore (Zack Galligan) and Sarah Brightman (Monika Schnarre) leaving the burning waxwork. Seeking revenge for the fire that cause the destruction to the Waxwork, a disembodied wax hand goes on a murderous rage and kills Sarah's father. Mark and Sarah manage to kill the creature, but the police don't believe them and accuse Sarah for killer her abusive father. Since, Sarah's case looks bad, both seek a way to prove her innocence by searching Sir Wilfred's (Patrick Macnee) place. Instead, of having the couple find another waxwork building, the movie goes a different route, by having the two characters find a magic compass that allows them to travel through another dimension call 'Cartagra' consisting of horror, sci-fi and fantasy stories that have want to become realities. Most of these sequences are pretty clever on how they were able to paid homage to the many horror films without breaking copy-rights laws. The crew of the Waxwork 2 change some of the other film references character's names, location or in many ways, redesigning the look of the creatures to make sure, it looks different, but has the same style as the original film. They all get a new treatment, but you can tell what film references, the movie is showing. Examples are 1931's Frankenstein, 1963's The Haunting, 1922's Nosferatu, 1941's Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde, 1954's Godzilla, 1979's Alien and 1978's Dawn of the Dead. According to the movie exposition, these worlds comprise worlds where God and the devil battle over the fate of the world, each victory being reflected in events occurring in the real world. When Mark or Sarah appear in each reality, they take on the persona of characters in those stories. They often act like their character personalities and memories until they regain their senses. It's weird that plot, only makes one person forget, who they are; while the other, never forgets. Mark always knows that he's Mark when he enter the world, but Sarah always get lost in the sequence character roles. I know, that Sarah does this in the first movie, but gees… its way over killed, here. Mark had to wake her up, like 3 to 4 times, before she rejoin her conscious and her original memories. It's so annoying! Sarah is still the same stupid damsel in distress character with the emo attitude that makes her easily fall in love, with her abusers like the first movie. This movie made me, hate her character, even more, due to the new actress, playing her. Monika Schnarre is worse than the original actress, Deborah Foreman. She looks out of place, most of the time, due to her stunning model like looks, and awkward European accent. Zack Galligan as Mark is a little better than the previous film. I glad, they cut the jerk attitude of his, and made him into a more adventure driven type of a stock character. The supporting characters are pretty fun to have. David Carradine appears out of nowhere and gives absolutely straight and deadly serious, performance. He's a great actor. He brings a lot of weight to the character that he would have lacked otherwise. Alexander Godunov as Scarabus was very scary, and insidious. Well played. Bruce Campbell as John Loftmore had the comedy cuts and gave the movie, some charm by hamming it up. The movie is full of cheesy dialogue and he deliver on it. The movie comedy is a hit or a miss. It breaks a lot of four wall jokes, but none of it, seem that clever. Watching this movie with a group of friends is a real treat, and it was fun to just try and pick out all the references like 1981's Raiders of Lost Ark, 1977's Saturday Night Fever, 1982's Friday the 13th Part III, 1968's 2001: Space Odyssey, 1989's Back to the Future Part 2, and others. I love the action. The swordfight through multi-worlds was fun. As a movie of logic, it really fails in that. First off, why would Sarah's trial allow her to go anywhere, if she's a suspected for a death? I doubt, she was able to get bait. Another thing, why on earth, do they need to find evidence so that they can prove that she didn't do it; if she just going to escape and follow Mark into exploring the Cartagra, in the end. It's pretty pointless. The call for adventure is a pretty weak plot. Another thing, how can she get a package from Mark with the compass, if Cartagra isn't part of the real world!?! It's doesn't make sense. To make it more confusing, Jack the Ripper, a real life killer is in Cartagara. Just think of that. It's yet another Waxwork movie that can't follow its own rules. I know its nit-picky, but it's too jarring even for this silly film. I like how the movie doesn't match the title. There are barely any Wax works figures in this movie, at all. Overall: While the plot is pretty bad. It's a fun movie. Just turn off your brain when watching.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
* * * out of 4.
brandonsites19819 August 2002
Sharply written & original sequel has the two survivors from the first film traveling back in time to prove that the heroine from the first film did not kill her father, but that a demonic hand did. While, in the past they run into a warlock who has the ability to change his appearance. Fast paced, stylish, and exciting sequel with some rather good moments and plenty of homage to classic horror movies. An improvement over the original film.

Rated R; Violence and Profanity.
11 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
A cheap and unnecessary film-riffing sequel
Leofwine_draca18 August 2016
Warning: Spoilers
This highly disappointing follow-up to 1989's WAXWORK is more of a slapdash rehash than a sequel. The dumb and inexcusable plot sees Galligan and Schnarre going back through time for more of the same, this time to find a piece of evidence to convince a local court that Schnarre wasn't responsible for the murder of her father. Contrived isn't the right work; downright silly would be a better bet. From the first moment that this film opens, you realise the strictly low budget of the production through the poor picture quality and cheap-looking sets. It's certainly not a patch on the lively and entertaining original movie.

The first episode is a re-run of the Frankenstein story, with the creature here an unscary straggly-haired beast covered in a prosthetic face. How very '90s. Playing the mad "Baron Von Frankenstein" is none other than Martin Kemp, member of Spandau Ballet and more familiar today as a regular on the TV soap EASTENDERS. Kemp is definitely slumming it in this film, as he did for most of the early '90s, and it's highly amusing to watch him embarrass himself here. He just isn't cut out for the part, and fails to be the least bit frenzied or frightening. The only highlight of this otherwise nondescript episode comes at the schlocky end, when Kemp's eyeballs pop out followed by his brain. The ultra-cheap special effects are reviewed through the "bird's-eye view" of the brain flying through the air, as the stand on which it sits is plainly visible.

The second episode is probably the most fun, if only for the presence of comic genius and all-round good guy Bruce Campbell playing Richard Johnson's role in THE HAUNTING. The black and white photography is pleasingly different, if only copied from the first film, and there are some lame-brained yet fun slapstick moments involving Campbell being tortured in a basement. Sadly this is over far too quickly, although eagle-eyed fans may spot Marina Sirtis as the woman playing "Gloria" in the segment.

The third story is a dreadful rip-off of ALIEN, with some really bad special effects in the shape of the lame, rubbery aliens. Whoever designed these should be shot outright. Disorientating camera-work means that it's damn near impossible to see here what's going on, so the sooner its over the better. The fourth instalment is by far the longest, and thus the most boring. This time Galligan and his girlfriend are sent back to Britain in the medieval period, where they become trapped in the castle of the cruel lord Scarabis. While the plot here is passable stuff, and there are fine supporting turns from Alexander Godunov (excellently nasty as the villain, as he was in DIE HARD) and John Ireland (as King Arthur, no less) nothing much really happens aside from a few more disappointing prosthetic attempts at monsters.

It's at the end of this tale that the film suddenly picks up, and copies SHOCKER again by having two characters fighting as they jump from location to location. Thus, we get to see some fun parodies of GODZILLA, DAWN OF THE DEAD (again) and also, by far the best, one of the original NOSFERATU, which is very funny. Drew Barrymore plays a victim in the bed if you can spot her. Events conclude in a boringly unbelievable anti-climax in which it looks simply like they ran out of money.

Linking scenes of Galligan and Schnarre flying through a "time tunnel" look like they've been ripped from EVIL DEAD II, and are quite stupid. The acting from the leads is also below par, with Schnarre just another forgettable 20-something actress who doesn't register at all, and Galligan simply going through the motions of his previous successes. The appearance of many stars in cameo roles (as well as the above people, David Carradine, Patrick Macnee, Joe Don Baker, and George "Buck" Flower also pop up briefly) does give this movie a watchability, as well as some of the brief moments in which the comedy actually works. Otherwise this is a cheap and unnecessary sequel in which even the special effects are pretty bad (ie. splattery and unrealistic-looking). My recommendation is to watch the first and give this one a miss!
7 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Nonsense Beginning to End
gavin694224 February 2012
Mark and Sarah survived the mayhem from the first movie only to have Sarah on trial for a murder committed by a dismembered hand. To find the proof that will clear her, the pair travel through time and space to dimensions full of historical, movie, and book characters.

With guest appearances by Bruce Campbell and David Carradine, how can you go wrong? Especially with such intense homages to "Dawn of the Dead", "The Haunting" and more?

If any complaint can be lodged with this film, it is that it is complete nonsense. The logic is even more goofy than the last film (which was pretty bad), the continuity is non-existent, and it does not really follow the first film except in the most vague way... but if you do not mind completely malarkey, this movie is fun.
8 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
this is an entertaining, feel good film with late 80s/early 90s hijinks that is worth you're time but far from a masterpiece
kevin_robbins18 May 2021
Waxworks II is currently on Tubi for free and a fun followup to the 80s classic. The storyline is very different and felt like a bad mix of Alien and Princess Bride, but the storyline is fun to watch unfold and entertaining. The director of the first Waxwork was brought back for the sequel but there's minimal continuity between films other than the cast and director. There are some pleasant cameos like Bruce Campbell, David Carradine and Drew Barrymore. Overall, this is an entertaining, feel good film with late 80s/early 90s hijinks that is worth you're time but far from a masterpiece. I'd give it a 5/10.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Shlocky Good Time
slodaddio7 October 2009
This movie did not follow in the trends of the typical sequel by sucking hard. Let's say it's more Empire Strikes Back than Jaws 2. Okay, that's a bit of a stretched comparison, but whatever - it was a rollicking good time.

First of all, this is not a movie to take seriously in any way. It's an homage to various horror movies and it has more cheese than Wisconsin. Some of the content you'll encounter: animated murderous hands, Frankenstein, zombies, aliens, black magic druids,...and more! I would love to see this movie re-imagined as a musical (a la Evil Dead).

WWII (uh, WaxWorks 2) gets extra points for guest appearances from Bruce "The Man Bull" Campbell (just made up that nickname for him) and Keith "Masturbation Strangulation" Carradine (nickname not made up). Set aside your critical mind for the dramas, for this campy feature all you need to do is cook yourself up some Jiffy Pop, kick back, and prepare to be moderately entertained. Oh, and the 90's sucktacular rap video during the end credits is a hoot. You'll be dumbstruck by smoove lyrics such as "Lost in time, Like a bug in a jar. No matter where you go- YO- there you are"
6 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Waxwork II: Lost the plot
BA_Harrison9 January 2009
Writer/director Anthony Hickox attempts to repeat the success of his debut, Waxwork, with this silly sequel that once again offers him the opportunity to tackle several different sub-genres of horror. This time around, however, he gets the recipe all wrong and the result is a very messy and not particularly funny horror/comedy that makes one wonder whether the first Waxwork was something of a fluke.

Part two—Lost in Time—follows on directly from part one, with Mark (Zach Galligan) and Sarah (this time played by Monika Schnarre) escaping from the burning museum, closely followed by a zombie hand. After this crawling menace kills Sarah's step-father, the poor girl winds up in court accused of murder; her only chance of proving her innocence is to follow Mark through a series of time portals in an attempt to find evidence that will support her outlandish story.

This preposterous and poorly constructed plot serves merely as an excuse for the director to throw in as many references to his favourite movies as possible; thus, we get a lame Aliens rip-off, A silly Dawn of the Dead style zombie skit, Hickox's take on Frankenstein's monster, a Nosferatu homage (shot in flickery black and white); plus brief appearances from Jack the Ripper, Godzilla, Mr. Hyde, and many more characters that will be familiar to fans of fantasy/horror cinema.

Rather than make a serious attempt to capture the look and feel of the films he is referencing (something he did extremely well in Waxwork), Hickox instead prefers to try and emulate the splatstick comedy of Evil Dead 2—something he completely fails to do, despite even going to the trouble of casting Evil Dead star Bruce Campbell. To make matters worse, the film is way too long (104 freakin' minutes!!) and features music that sounds suspiciously like a weak copy of Goblin's score for Suspiria.
8 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Lamer than the first, which is a pity.
eddax13 January 2010
Like most sequels, Waxwork II is lamer than the first, which is a pity because I liked its predecessor.

Their director/writer Anthony Hickox pretty much took what was fun about the first - the entering into different horror realms - and ran amok with it. The leads travel through time (and I guess realities) - much like Sliders - while looking for something or other. Slowly at first, but eventually they wind up barreling through realities as though Hickox had too many references that he wanted to fit into the movie but didn't have enough time to. Some are fun - one S&M one is a tad disturbing - but they've since lost their original charm.

Horror-comedy stalwart, Bruce Campbell, does the same overacting schtick from his Evil Dead movies but his all-too-short cameo was the highlight of the movie for me.
6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
A Bitter Disappointment
jamesbourke5920 September 2012
I've often thought many years after my first initial viewing of this sequel, just what was Anthony Hickox thinking when he wrote and directed this serious misfire to what was a very enjoyable and fun filled original.

Admittedly when it came to the first Waxwork, what drew my attention to the movie was the groovy looking cover, such a weakness for cool looking artwork covers still haunts me to this very day, even though I am no longer than impressionable teenager, but a man celebrating his fortieth year on this planet(how about that for ageing this review and indeed myself) Luckily the first movie was able to deliver upon the promise of the synopsis and the artwork on show. What the second installment was sadly lacking was direction, a cohesive storyline and more importantly that fun factor.

I remember when this was first announced, I was so excited, because after Waxwork, Hickox made what was arguably(for me anyway) his best movie, Sundown The Vampire In Retreat, so having watched both these movies, I felt a need to watch any movie that Hickox applied his name to.

With the first Waxwork, the story had an aim and fully formed structure, plus a great cast to see it through, alas all the name's attached to Lost In Time, we mere time fillers and what did he have them do, re-enact/rehash classic scenes from 'The Haunting' and 'Alien' et al.

I can still hear Lesley Gore singing 'It's my party' at the end credits of the original, too bad this monster mash up, that Hickox threw together couldn't find that necessary gel to make it all stick.

A bitter disappointment. 2/10
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
SERIOUS FUN
tomaxxamot27 June 2004
If you don't have a sense of humor or an appreciation for classic horror you won't like this film. It's a montage of homage that is devoted to capturing the pace, direction style, acting style, dialogue etc. of such films as Alien, The Haunting, Dawn of The Dead, Nosferatu on a relatively low budget. The pared down scenes accentuate the spoof sentiment and remind us why horror is fun. Take the Alien scene, hard talking', pulse rifle carrying space marines complete with transmission samples as background juxtaposed to the reefer madness-esque black and white, highly stylized scene of The Haunting. Battling evil can be funny and Bruce Campbell's cameo, as well as others, lends support. If nothing else, it's a treasure hunt for horror genre fans.
22 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Not as enjoyable as the first film.
Hey_Sweden1 April 2012
Sequel to "Waxwork" picks up where the first film left off, and has Sarah (Monika Schnarre, taking over the role from Deborah Foreman) going home to her stepfather (George "Buck" Flower), who is killed by the severed hand we saw escaping at the end of "Waxwork". Of course nobody believes her outlandish story so she's put on trial for murder. She and Mark (Zach Galligan) realize that in order to clear her they have to travel through alternate realities to obtain some sort of evidence. Among the scenarios, and stories referenced, are the "Alien" films, "Frankenstein", and "The Haunting", until Sarah and Mark end up in medieval England doing battle with a dastardly black magic practitioner named Scarabis (Alexander Godunov). A number of familiar faces are to be seen in the cast: Martin Kemp, Bruce Campbell (who's very funny as always), Jim Metzler, John Ireland, Michael Des Barres, Marina Sirtis, Juliet Mills, Patrick Macnee, David Carradine, and Maxwell Caulfield, with Drew Barrymore seen very fleetingly as a vampire's victim. The main problem with this sequel, as far as this reviewer can see, is that the pacing is off at times, with the movie getting too dull; it just doesn't have a sense of "hurry up and go". In the end, it's just not as much fun as I would have liked, and is played a little too straight too much of the time (the sequence with Campbell as paranormal researcher John Loftmore is a refreshing exception). That said, it still displays a likable amount of imagination, enough effective atmosphere and period recreation, and does ultimately build up to an amusing finale where Galligan and Godunov battle their way through a number of scenes, including nods to "Nosferatu" and "Dawn of the Dead". The cast makes this pleasant enough to watch, with everybody giving a game effort. (Writer / director Anthony Hickox also appears on screen as the king's officer.) Schnarre is an appealing Sarah, even if she won't make anybody forget Deborah Foreman. Bob Keen's effects are nicely done; visually, the movie is strong, with nice costumes and sets. There are some amusing bits of gory business, as well. "Waxwork II: Lost in Time" is entertaining enough, but could and should have been better. At least it does have its moments along the way. Six out of 10.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
JUST OKAY - (5 stars out of 10)
BJG-Reviews12 January 2020
The stage curtains open ...

"Waxwork II: Lost In Time" picks up right where the first film left off, with our two soul survivors making it out of the burning building to the street outside. An evil hand also makes it out. And so begins a whole new chain of horrific events. This movie, like it predecessor, is nonsensical, mindless, bloody fun. Only not quite as much so.

When Mark drops Sarah off at her home, the hand follows her inside, murdering her father with a hammer. It isn't long before the law has her in custody and on trial for his murder, as well as the 200 bodies they found mutilated inside the wax museum. However, Mark is able to rescue Sarah from their clutches, and together, with the aid of a time travel device, they find themselves in various situations that have been reflected over the years in horror films and books. They busy themselves on bringing back evidence of a hand that lives on its own, while trying to stay alive, so that Sarah can be exonerated in the real world.

This sequel fell rather flat with me. To be fair, it really wasn't any worse than the first film. It just didn't pull me in and entertain me as much as it did. The opening sequence in the house of Frankenstein was almost enough for me to want to stop the film altogether. But then, it began to get better as it went along. Bruce Campbell, in his role, was completely in his element here and nearly stole each scene he was in. It still wasn't enough to make this one worth watching.

Like the first film, it falls heavily on comedy to try and save itself, but it just wasn't that funny. I did crack a smile in a few places, most particularly Bruce Campbell's scenes, but all in all, this one is a pass. If you enjoyed the first movie and want to see how this one holds up, then by all means. Watch it. You might even enjoy it. For my part, it was just okay at only 5 stars out of 10.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Gislef was right! It is a classic homage!
Mack Lambert3 January 2002
Waxwork II puts its predecessor in it's shadow! It goes by the idea that the more movies homages, the better! (By the way, Gislef, the segment with Bruce Campbell was more based on Robert Wise's The Haunting) Classic revisited include Godzilla, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Alien, Dawn of the Dead (yes!), Frankenstein, and Nosferatu (w/ Drew Barrymore cameo!). My only wish is for a Waxwork III, but it will probably never happen!
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Not The Best Sequel
glenmatisse14 October 2020
Mark and Sarah from the last film find themselves in a pickle when the disembodied hand that survived the wax museum wreckage follows Sarah home and murders her father with a hammer, making everyone think she did it. To prove her innocence, they have to travel back through time where they encounter even more famous horror sequences and a return of the Marquis De Sade.

The tone of Waxwork II is very different from the original and that hurts the film a bit, because it takes a little while to readjusted to what they're trying to go for this time around. There are a few amusing bits like a sequence where Bruce Campbell stars in a semi-recreation of Robert Wise's The Haunting, but something is missing.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Take it for what it is.
insomniac_rod1 September 2007
Warning: Spoilers
"Waxwork II : Lost In Time" is a kickass-entertaining Horror flick with black comedy overtones and plenty of action.

The ending is among the best I've seen on the cheesy-splatter section. The f/x are not that bad but could've been better. Some monsters looked very cheesy but still worked for the movie's purpose. I dig this movie because it does not tries to impress anyone; I mean, it's purpose is only to entertain and spill plenty of blood to satisfy gorehounds.

Bruce Campbell and the gorgeous super sexy Monica Schnarre (from "Boogie's Diner" fame) deliver fine performances.

This movie is a hoot! Watch it with low expectations and you might be impressed. Also, the end credits song is tongue in cheek.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Dear Oh dear.
oswaldmosley3 March 2000
Messers Campbell, Kemp & Galligan - HANG YOUR HEADS IN SHAME. Bruce Campbell's ribs, Martin Kemp's eyeball and Zach Galligan's curmudgeonly face should all be stricken from this film, if only to preserve their otherwise spotless reputations. Well, apart from Zach Galligan 'cos everything he touches turns to brown doesn't it. Don't watch this film. Go and hack your limbs off. It's much more fun.
3 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Fun Horror
psnider-888-60332825 March 2014
This movie is about a man and woman who end up fighting evil (with other forces of good) in a strange realm. It is like a mirror world and while fighting against evil in a general way they are also looking to find a way to prove that the woman is not guilty of a murder she is being accused of. There are Frankenstein and Alien stories they enter but the highlight is definitely the haunted house story with the always reliable and hilarious Bruce Campbell. They end up in a medieval story where a lunatic is trying to seize power and his plan is pretty weird to say the least. This story is easily the longest of the bunch but it looks really cool and the villain is great and they go to several different and strange worlds. This is a really fun horror-comedy-B-movie if you like this genre!
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
In some ways better, in some worse than the first movie.
Boba_Fett113817 January 2012
It was already crazy to see how little the wax figures had to do with the story of the first movie but in this one it's not even a part of the story at all. Oh well, it's not really a complaint or problem though, since at least the movie has still plenty of entertainment to offer.

That was really the one saving grace of this movie; it was entertaining. Otherwise, this is a pretty simplistic and badly done film. Pretty much just like its predecessor was.

But really, this movie is quite different from its predecessor, even though it is set right after the events of the first movie. The foremost thing is that in this movie, instead of coming across classic movie monsters, the characters are traveling through time and in its process they get stuck into some very familiar settings. Basically what this movie is is a horror spoof, of some classic and well known genre movies, even more so than the original was. Some spoofs are more apparent than the other but the fans or lovers of the horror genre should be able to recognize most of them.

In that regard this movie is a true pleasure to watch and an highly entertaining one. Basically every sequences has its own distinctive horror style and ever now and then a well known actor pops up as well in it, such as Bruce Campbell, David Carradine and Patrick Macnee.

I only did wish that all those different stories would be connected a bit better to each other. Basically it now simply is the one sequences after the other, without them making a really apparent connection to each other. There is no real main storyline it keeps following and basically every sequence is different again. This will most likely cause you to loose some interest in the movie after a while.

Thing they also changed around in this movie this time is that it's a far more goofy movie to watch. Everything gets even more exaggerated and the comedy is really lame, in a good and fun way but still...because of this approach you will have a hard time to take this movie serious in any way.

Entertaining-wise, this is a better movie than its predecessor but other than that, this movie is even more worse and messy with its story and it also really isn't all that well done or put together.

5/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Not bad, but not the first.
mattwillandis20 June 2020
As I already stated in my waxwork review, this film wasn't bad by any means, but definitely seemed more gimmicky than the previous film. The story basically turns into a save the girl film, and while it's not a bad one, I would of preferred a more original idea. Another thing that harms this film, is the lack of Sarah's original actress. While her replacement is decent, her original actress had such a simple, quiet charm about her, that her replacement didn't pull off as well. She got the quiet part down, but I really didn't care much about her the whole film. One thing I loved though, was the entire Bruce Campbell scenes, those were excellent and hilarious. It wasn't perfect, but was still interesting enough, and if you liked the first one, you'll pry like this one too. Though I have to mention how bonkers this film is. If you thought the first one didn't make much sense, than this one is going to seem completely nonsensical to you, just a heads up.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
The homage of the first movie worked. The ripoff a of the second don't.
mark.waltz7 October 2021
Warning: Spoilers
There's a reason why this didn't get a theatrical release in the United States and went straight to video. The sweetness and good intentions of the first film become cumbersome here as the creative team seems more intent on parodying recent hits rather than going back to the original theme which took classical fiction horror and real life shocking events, instead giving the viewer a confusing mess of a return to the waxworks scene.

For some reason the character of Sarah Brightman is now on trial for murder and a character from the original who obviously died appears in a videotaped will, turning everything over to Zach Galligan. He ends up going through the looking glass with Sarah where he ends up with a bunch of rather absurd situations that seem more like recent sci-fi movie situations than anything out of Lewis G. Carroll or any of the classic writers who influenced the first film.

This time we're sent to Camelot where evil concerning a King Arthur lookalike is trying to take the throne and that results in a convoluted visit by two yanks to the king's court. Visuals of other classic tales add to further confusion when all of the characters exit the mirror and cross into other lands and times. Most sequels aren't necessary, but this one can be referred to as a major mistake even though several famous character players show up to bring it some class. "Aliens" rip off references throughout, and that's just one of the many abused here.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A Great Homage Flick
Gislef18 January 1999
Waxwork II pays homage to so many genres of horror that half the fun is watching them and trying to catch what's going on. The plot isn't much, but there's lots of laughs mixed in (particularly Bruce Campbell, in the Hell House segment). There's a real sense that the producers and writer are having fun with a concept that really didn't need a sequel in the first place, so they said the heck with it and decided to do whatever they felt like.
21 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
The book is upside down.....
FlashCallahan1 January 2013
Warning: Spoilers
The survivors of the wax museum are followed by a dismembered hand, which kills the girl's father.

She must stand trial, so her and her boyfriend go to Sir Wilfred's house for clues, and they find a film he has prepared for them, pointing the way to his secret stash.

They find a dimension hopping, time machine compass and go back in time to look for evidence that the girl is telling the truth and get embroiled in different conflicts along the way....

The first movie didn't really get going until the inspired last ten minutes (where Whedon stole the idea for his finale in Cabin In The Woods), and this remedies the fact by making it really bonkers and amusing from the upstart.

it's like an adult version of Stay Tuned, and each little episode really makes the film a little more exciting than it should be.

The sections with Bruce Campbell and Martin Kemp are easily the best, it's just a shame that the finale with Godunov is pretty bland apart from him and the guy from Power Station who likes white make up.

if they swapped this and had the Frankenstein scene as the finale, this could have been a a classic movie, but the last twenty minutes just seems like a vanity project for the director who plays the predominant Kings Guard and is in almost every other shot come the end.

Thankfully though, the film has enough great cameos and funny moments, to justify the maundering nature of the medieval scene.

a great campy cult classic, with a saggy vanity project finale.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Bruce Campbell...... hot.
foxlikegrin11 October 2021
This is definitely a movie that Bruce Campbell was in and he was very hot in it. Good job, movie.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed