Pumpkinhead: Ashes to Ashes

Wuchak

May 26, 2026 · via TMDB

★ 7.0

**_Vengeful yokels summon Pumpkinhead against an organ harvesting ring_** After a long dozen years since “Pumpkinhead II: Blood Wings,” the third film in the series finally manifested in 2006. Like the prior movie, it wasn’t theatrically released, but rather debuted on the Sci Fi channel (now SyFy) before its release to video five months later. The next film in the series, “Blood Feud,” came out on Sci Fi a mere 3½ months later in early 2007. The differences in the nature of release don’t matter much when you consider how the initial theatrically released film didn’t have a blockbuster budget. It only cost $3.5 million while this one cost close to $6 million. If you factor in inflation over the course of 18 years we’re talking about roughly the same amount of money to produce. The biggest difference between “Ashes to Ashes” and “Blood Feud” and the first two movies in the series is that they were shot in rural Romania as opposed to the backwoods of SoCal (Topanga Canyon and Santa Clarita respectively). But this doesn’t make much difference since the location of the story could basically be anywhere in the backwaters of America, not necessarily SoCal. For instance, the mediocre fourth installment features a feud reminiscent of the Hatfields and McCoys, which took place in Appalachia. My favorite in the series is probably the second one, “Blood Wings,” simply because the story is more compelling than the original movie, plus the production featured a superior female cast (Soleil Moon Frye and Ami Dolenz). I rank this one after “II” and maybe even on par. While the storytelling could’ve been less convoluted, I commend the filmmakers for respecting the intelligence of the viewer to put the pieces of the puzzle together (which isn’t that difficult, if you think about it). Furthermore, the southeastern Europe locations add a certain ambiance lacking in the first two movies. Transylvania happened to be less than 3 hours’ drive to the north/northwest. Consider the mortician’s peculiar manor; you’re not going to see anything like this in SoCal. Speaking of the mortician, he’s played by Doug Bradley, aka Pinhead. Meanwhile Lance Henriksen returns as Ed Harley, albeit a ghostly figure, not to mention the character Bunt also returns (just played by a different actor). In the feminine department, raven-haired Ioana Ginghina is a highlight as Ellie Johnson with Lisa McAllister being worth a mention as Goth girl Dahlia. It runs 1h 34m and was shot in 2006 at Castel Film Studios, which is north of Bucharest in southeast Romania. GRADE: B-/B

Filipe Manuel Neto

Jul 5, 2022 · via TMDB

★ 3.0

**A lukewarm and unmemorable resurrection for a horror monster who spent too much time asleep.** It's been many years since _Pumpkinhead 2_, a movie that virtually ruined any prospects for short-term continuity, with a frankly weak story. The introduction of new technical resources, such as CGI and others, allowed this to be rethought and eventually led to the production of this film, which largely ignores its immediate predecessor and seems to be trying to be a continuation of the initial film, from 1988. The film takes place in a rural American area where the Pumpkinhead is a legendary creature that some believe. The creature will be awakened to kill the owners of a local crematorium, after it becomes public that they were also heads of an organ trafficking business made at the expense of the locals' corpses, which were not cremated, as previously thought, but abandoned there, rotting in muddy ponds or in a half-abandoned tool shed. What follows is a bath of blood and mutilated bodies, in which the dialogue is poorly written, the situations are quite cliché and the lack of logic reigns. Indeed, how could all those bodies be there without there being, all around, the smell of a nauseating and incriminating corpse? If just one corpse exhales a terrible odor, dozens make a place, even outdoors, unbearable. In addition to the script flaws, the film is also not particularly happy in the performance of its cast. Almost all the actors stand out for their exaggeration, for their bizarre way of acting, for their surreal or histrionic ways or even for an erasure that almost seems to ask to be taken out of there. The exceptions to this truly embarrassing panorama are veterans Doug Bradley and Lance Henrikssen. Bradley was very convincing and competent in the role of the doctor, the film's true villain, and his performance was only marred by a costume that looks recycled from a spaghetti western. Henrikssen, for his part, returns to the films that made him minimally famous, again in the shoes of Ed Harley, the protagonist of the first film. Technically, it's clearly a cheap movie and in which money doesn't abound. Even so, the film manages to fulfill the minimum prerequisites. It never truly scares us, but gore connoisseurs will find some carnage enjoyable. Cinematography is not the film's strong point, the filming work feels quite amateurish at times and there are clearly ill-framed scenes. The editing is mediocre, the effects are acceptable but not particularly brilliant, and the costumes are decent enough. The best are the sets, even though some of those houses are too European for a movie that wants to be set in the USA.

Gimly

Nov 8, 2017 · via TMDB

★ 4.0

Perhaps a better sequel than _Blood Wings_, but still not a good movie. Those who are invested enough in practical effects might enjoy the return of the titular creature itself, but if you're looking for success in plot, acting, direction, etc. then seek it elsewhere. _Final rating:★★ - Had some things that appeal to me, but a poor finished product._