Halloween 2 - Das Grauen kehrt zurück

Halloween 2 continues the story line abruptly ended in the original. Laurie Strode (Curtis) ends up in the hospital due to trauma and injury from the earlier film's attacks by Michael Myers. Unfortunately for her, Michael finds her. The hospital is oddly deserted, but that adds to the creepy atmosphere, allowing Michael numerous places to hide, and various nurses to slaughter. Donald Pleasence reprises his role as Dr.Loomis, trying to stay one step ahead of Myers killing spree. The showdown between the killer and the doctor remains a very gripping sequence. All in all, a very worthy follow up to a classic that can never be duplicated.

As a self admitted "film snob" who predictably sings the praises of the usual suspects such as "Citizen Kane", "Maltese Falcon", "Vertigo" etc, I find myself in the unexpected position of gaining a new found appreciation of a sequel entry. A horror sequel from the 80's at that.

Forty years to the day of its US release (Oct 30, 2021), I granted myself the permission of revisiting 1981's "Halloween 2", a film I had viewed and dismissed long ago. Having made a commitment to view the film with a fresh pair eyes and an open mind, I was ready to be either disappointed (again) or unexpectedly satisfied.

My change of attitude towards this film can be attributed to a number of variables, the most important one being that I've learned to appreciate and respect the time period of when a film is made. A lot had changed in pop culture in the 3 years between the original 1978 film and this 1981 sequel. What worked in the late 70's wouldn't necessarily be successful in the early 80's. This sequel had to walk a tight rope and find the right balance between trying to stay stylistically true to the original yet also ensure box office success by keeping up with other masked killers. In hindsight, the error was to view the sequel through the format of the first film. It's a mistake I believe others are guilty of as well when reviewing this film. The remedy is to judge each film on its own terms: it's a question of style. One film is a thriller in the mold of Bob Clark's 1974 "Black Christmas" while the other is an early modern slasher, imitating its imitators as Roger Ebert put it in his review. Nonetheless there are very strong stylistic correlations to the original '78 film, not least because both films share the same cinematographer.

Another element I can attribute to enjoying this film on its 40th anniversary is the gradual, higher tolerance we have all unknowingly developed for violence on screen. As someone who is decidedly anti-gore, I was surprised at not being as revolted as I once surely would have been during the few scenes that did depict extreme violence. Even "prestige" television dramas aren't immune to depicting once unthinkable level of violence. "Mad Men" had a poor soul get his foot accidentally ripped to shreds by a lawn mover while "Boardwalk Empire" had a man scalped alive among numerous other extremely violent incidents throughout the series. In other words, what was once off putting about this film (the gore) is no longer that much of a factor due to our collective numbness. In fact, the kill scenes are shot and staged with admirable restraint and timing, with some lasting barely a second on screen.

With the gore of this film now effectively neutralized, what remains is a film deeply rich in atmosphere: Long moments of silence; empty dark corridors; crisp night exterior shots of the hospital; tight editing and the meticulous use of the revised Carpenter score all elevate it to an above average film of its kind. The first 1/3rd of the film depicts what would have realistically occurred in any town that had undergone such a murderous rampage: police cars; ambulances; shaken neighbours; news reporters; angry mobs...etc. This focus on the immediate aftermath of the initial murders is what makes the bridge to the original film a solid one. Although the sibling plot twist was and remains controversial, it is sufficiently plausible and, for this viewer at least, doesn't detract from the mystique of The Shape.

With the exception of the late Donald Pleasence, acting from the rest of the cast, both in the original and the sequel, is rough around the edges. To be fair, no one expects Oscar worthy performances from such genres. Jamie Lee Curtis is given a chance to rest her vocal chords being bedridden for most of the film. The real "star" is of course The Shape. Played by 3-4 people at different sections in the original film, this sequel has just one stuntman behind the mask. It's a different performance from Nick Castle to be sure. One can be judgmental of Dick Warlock's walking style when compared to the agility of Castle or one can justify the slower pace by reasoning that The Shape was also getting a little tired stalking victims non stop since morning. It should be noted that Castle had also walked in the "mummy" style in a few key scenes in the original film. Although the wider Warlock mask contour was a thorn on my side in my initial viewing, this time I made the decision to appreciate the visual differences. If I can enjoy "The Bride Of Frankenstein" with Karloff looking (and acting) quite different from the 1931 "Frankenstein", I see no reason not to do the same here.

The usage of The Chordettes "Mr. Sandman" both in the intro and conclusion further adds a nice ironically sinister touch to the film. "Halloween" and "Halloween 2" tell a satisfactory story about Haddonfield and it's citizens on one cursed Halloween night through two different but complimentary styles. Sometimes it can take decades for a creative piece of work to be judged on what it is rather than what the original audiences/critics expected or wanted it to be. I suspect in the ensuing decades, more and more detractors will start to re-evaluate this film.

The original has its critics, but for me, it's a masterpiece, a film that really brought the genre to life, question is, does the sequel do justice to the first?

Brave to do a direct continuation of the first, meaning that night of terror truly does continue, it's no wonder poor Laurie Strode had her problems.

I've got two copies of it, and maybe it was the way it was filmed, but it doesn't look as slick as the first, some of the camera work looks cheap. The opening music is horrid, true eighties synth, it's not good. The original music is so much better, when they do use the original incidental music it works so much better.

A few clichés, including the useless security guard, bits of nudity and deserted hospital, but overall I still think it's a pretty good movie. Enough scares, and moments to make you jump, albeit delivered with less subtlety, which is what made the first work so well.

Overall, it's still a good watch. 7/10.

It may not be as great as the original, but in general, Halloween II is actually one of the better horror sequels. Taking place on the same night as the original (October 31, 1978), Michael Myers has survived bullet wounds, and is out for more carnage! And of course, he makes another attempt to do away with Laurie Strode (the Jamie Lee Curtis character).

This sequel is a little more gruesome than the first Halloween movie. Part of the reason has to do with some of the methods Michael Myers uses to kill some of his victims: He drowns one victim in scalding water and he uses an IV to drain out the blood of another. In addition, there's a scene where a kid is admitted to the hospital because he is bleeding orally, which resulted from an obvious Halloween prank. (Ugh!)

Here's an interesting piece of trivia: The Practice/Ally McBeal producer Jeffrey Kramer appears in this film. Look for him as the coroner examining a charred corpse.

Halloween 2 is a very worthy sequel to John Carpenter's 1978 classic. From the opening sequence we pick up exactly where the first film left off, making the two movies play like one whole movie in two separate parts. We continue focusing on Laurie Strode from the first scene and stay with her as she is rushed to the local Haddonfield Memorial Hospital. Rick Rosenthal is directing John Carpenter's script this time, and although he doesn't pull off the techniques Carpenter used in the original, he brings in some new ones that work just as well. The nonexistant gore in the original is very present in this one, and the mode of death changes for each victim, unlike the first where Michael only uses his knife and a phone cord. Very tense scenes are set up throughout the movie that make your heart pound (one in particular takes place in the hospital hot tub). Michael seems to be much more angry and dangerous in this one. He's not in the shadows anymore and it seems his mask has changed, but oh well. Overall, Michael is alot creepier and scary in this one. Watch out for him when he scrunches up his mask in anger. Someone should say bravo to Carpenter for setting the movie in a hospital. The long hallway shots and the creepy music make the setting a classic in horror. Michael roams the halls, searching for Laurie (and this time we find out why). Putting all the doctors, nurses, and Laurie in a place with someone like Michael walking around makes you terrified to see what's around the corner. Loomis is back, too, still out to stop him before he kills anymore. Some strange references to Samhain and ancient evil are brought up that rack up the creep-o-meter sky high. Overall, Halloween 2 is not better than the original, but it is by no means worse. Yes, some scenes have no purpose and the plot is nothing exceptional, but for a sequel it's good enough and besides you'll be too involved to care. If you liked the original, watch this one with it together. Although Carpenter and Rosenthal's direction take two different turns, both films are highly entertaining. And scary...