ironhorse_iv Review of Halloween II

Halloween II (1981)

Halloween 2 was not as good as the original. Still, it's worth taking a stab at!

[6/10 · 30 October 2015]

While stylistically, Halloween II reproduces certain key elements that made the original Halloween a success, such as first-person camera perspectives & unexceptional settings, it's still, not as good as the first movie. It was missing, a lot of great suspense and chills that made the first, watchable. It further departs from its predecessor by incorporating more graphic violence and gore, making it way too similar to other slasher films at its time. In my opinion, it went, a little too far, and became, more of a parody of its former self. The reprise horror music featured here, was awfully different from the 1st, with a more synth-heavy arrangement. Even songs like Mr. Sandman, seem out of place. Not the best composed from Alan Howarth. However, it still makes a lot of sense, that a sequel to the first movie would indeed be, made. After all, the first movie was kinda successful, plus it end in a cliff-hanger. Directed by Rick Rosenthal, the film immediately picks up where the last film had left off. After having shot, the escaped killer Michael Myers (Dick Warlock) six times, Dr. Loomis (Donald Pleasence) believes he has saved high school student, Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis). Only to find out, that the seemingly immortal mask-man, has escape, and follow Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) to a nearby hospital. Can, Dr. Loomis stop Michael Myers, once and for all or will Laurie Strode, be the latest victim of the mask-killer? Watch the movie to find out! Without spoiling the movie, too much, I have to say, I like that the movie is set on the same night of October 31, 1978. However, it's doesn't make, much lick of sense. First off, the town of Haddonfield, acts as if there isn't a series of murders, going on. Second off, the police are not, telling people to stay at their home, or to be careful. What the hell!? I really didn't like this idiot plot. Third off, the hospital in Haddonfield seem a little too empty for a murderous Halloween night. You would think, the employees wouldn't even have, time to have sex, when dead bodies are coming in and out, throughout the night. Also, when we see a kid admitted to the hospital with the razor blade. You would think, he would, play a bigger part of the film, since the movie spent so much time on him, but no, he doesn't. He rarely mention in the third act. Is he, supposed to represented, how sadism, Halloween has come? Probably not, but if written better. He could! Honestly, this movie has a lot of a filler that rarely moves the movie along, such as the Ben Tramer subplot. Honestly, why is Ben wearing the mask? It wasn't that popular! Another is how the film, focus so much, time on the hospital employees. I really don't get, why the film does this, if they're not really, part of the main plot? You would think, this sequel written by John Carpenter, would be a lot better, but no, there is still a bit of misogyny and misandry sexual psychology terms in these types of films. The female/male nurses are played as unlikeable whores & sex hounds. Another thing, while it's highly known and accepted, now. The revelation that Laurie was Michael's sister felt a bit misguided. Some felt that the reveal took away the menacing mystery that made Michael such an effective villain, as it gave a reason for him to stalk Laurie, instead of leaving it as an unknown motive. Others felt that Michael's obsession with killing his family members gives him, a good reason to continue to kill. This is rather divided twist to this day, but for the most part, people just seem to accept it as canon as it's used again in the remake in 2007 & 2009. In my opinion, despite Laurie being Michael's sister. His randomness of killing victims is still, pretty odd. I get, why he would kill the hospital staff, but, why does, he continue to killed random people, that has nothing to do with Laurie? Honestly, I really don't get his logic, why didn't killed the old lady in the beginning, or the man with boom-box? The only thing, I can take, is that he hate people that looks attraction. It's nice to see Jamie Lee Curtis reprise her role as Laurie Strode, however, it's not as memorable as the first movie. Most of the film, has her, bed-ridden trying to recover, from her earlier attacks. It was very short. It was also nice to see Donald Pleasence in this movie, though, most of the time, he seem less, and less, a doctor, and more and more like an armed vigilante. Dick Warlock as Michael Myers was alright for the most part; but he was a bit too short for the role of the Shape. One thing, that I really can't accept, about Michael Myers in this film, is how he can seem nearly impossible to kill. It made the film, less realistic, and more supernatural. So, it doesn't make sense that Michael Myers still able to survive, being shot, multiply times. It's really getting silly, when he able to drown people in boiling hot water, and not get blister. I know the sequels to this, are much worst, when it comes to him, getting injury but come on! This movie should had stop it, from continuing. Originally, Halloween II was intended to be the last chapter of the Halloween series to revolve around Michael Myers, but after the lackluster reaction to 1982's anthology film, Halloween III: Season of the Witch, which feature a different story. The Michael Myers character was brought back in 1988's Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers in hope of recovering the film franchise. In my opinion, it never did. Overall: While, the movie might be a little dated. It's still pretty scary. It was an alright sequel.