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.
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.