Halloween II

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.

Michael Meyers is back with a higher kill count, more blood, and more of what happened the night he came home. Iconic opening credits (Mr Sandman), one of my favorite opening scenes of any slasher ever, the Halloween theme with the 80's synth, and some gruesome kills courtesy of the hospital setting. Jaime lee Curtis and Donald Pleasence (RIP) return for their roles, acting is above average by horror standards. But the bottom line is Rick Rosenthal is simply not John Carpenter. The charm and suspense from the first Halloween are mostly void from the second. Although dull at times, the final girl circuit and explosive ending more than make up for it.

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.

Halloween 2 was a nice try to follow up a slasher classic. I know that it was made because the first film made a nice amount of money but for some reason I can just tell they tried to keep it on par with the original. In some aspects they succeed but in the end we get a routine horror sequel. I guess it's unfair to expect so much out of it but when you're the follow up to a well made horror film it's pretty hard not to.

The main problem with this sequel is that it moves entirely too slow and the one location it stays in(the hospital) gets boring pretty fast. As Michael slowly stalks the halls we get the feeling that the film is also moving at the same pace.

Another problem is that it follows the slasher routine by adding characters that are just there to be victims for our killer. The characters in the first film were likable and were pretty developed, even if you knew they all wouldn't make it to the last frame. In this film we get total brain-dead characters who are just asking to be taken out by Myers. The only new character worth mentioning is the character of Jimmy played by Lance Guest. He gives a decent performance and is the only ne character added to the mix worth mentioning.

One issue that most Halloween fans debate about is whether or not The Shape, as he is commonly called, needed a backstory. I admit that in the first film is total lack of a motive made him much more frightening because it wasn't reason that was driving him to kill, it was just the fact that he was pure evil. In this film the reason he is after Laurie is revealed and it does kinda strip that aspect of the character and make him less scary. However, for story purposes for this sequel, it would be pretty hard to have a 90 minute film and not explain anything about its killer. For this film in particular i appreciate the fact that they added a method to his madness, it just brings down his fright level a few notches. At least the explanation is well-crafted and comes as some sort of a surprise.

A definite highlight of the film is that it picks up on the same night of the original. It added a level of suspense and consistency that made the story in the sequel much more interesting.

Donald Pleasance gets more screentime in this film and you can tell he is having fun with the role. He's quite good in this film and maintains the same dignity that made his character likable in the original. Jamie Lee Curtis gets less screentime in this film. She's still good in this film but more of her would've been appreciated. I also wish we could've seen more of the strong powerhouse that we saw in the original but she is still effective in her scenes. Michael Myers himself is given more screentime something i wish would not have been doen. He was a far more threatening presence when he was reduced to the shadows and the background throughout most of the original. More of him makes him less scary.

In the end it's a fairly good sequel to the original i just wish it could've stayed away from the 80's slasher mantality that made Friday the 13th so popular. However when the essence of the original shines through in this film you begin to think it's a cut above its many imitators

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.