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.
726 Reviews
A creepy and solid sequel
Smells_Like_Cheese10 February 2004
Warning: Spoilers
Michael Myers, he's a household name, in my opinion he's the ultimate boogeyman, no matter what you do or how many times you try to kill him, he just comes back. Hence the Halloween series. We do have quite a bit of horror movie sequels: the Nightmare on Elm Street franchise, Friday the 13th, Hellraiser, Scream, and so on. Most sequels are extremely cheesy and don't deliver the same scares as the original movie does, but the Halloween franchise is a different story, I think these sequels were always a ton of fun and delivered just as many scares. Nothing will ever compare to the original Halloween, but it was cool to see the story continue on Michael Myers. In this story we follow Laurie Strode to the hospital and Michael doesn't just give up that easily, he's on a mission.
After the film replays the last scene of Halloween, it moves on to Dr. Sam Loomis warning Sheriff Leigh Brackett that although he has shot Myers six times in the heart, Myers still lives. Meanwhile, Laurie Strode is taken to Haddonfield Memorial Hospital and Myers wanders around Haddonfield in search of her. Laurie is informed that the man who attacked her was Michael Myers, infamous for murdering his older sister fifteen years earlier on Halloween night. After this, Laurie drifts in and out of consciousness, having strange flashbacks about her adoption by the Strodes and visiting a boy in an institution. Myers learns that she is at the hospital. He goes there and murders the hospital's staff one by one. Laurie manages to elude him, but she is limping badly and sedated and is thus unable to move very quickly. Dr. Loomis and the Haddonfield police continue to search the town for Myers. Nurse Marion Chambers, Loomis' assistant, arrives and tells Loomis that she has discovered a secret file on Myers to which he was not privy. The file reveals that Laurie is actually Myers's sister, adopted by the Strodes after Myers killed his older sister, Judith. Chambers also informs Loomis that he has strict orders to return to Smith's Grove. So they have to get back to the hospital to save Laurie before Michael can get to her.
Halloween 2 is probably my second favorite sequel in the Halloween franchise next to H20. I can't tell you how creepy this movie was, I know that these sequels are a bit much, but for any horror movie fan, they are a ton of fun to get into. The whole hospital setting was really scary, I love Laurie Strode, she's the strongest female in a horror movie, she's in a weakened state but just keeps going. You have to love the return of Dr. Loomis, him helping Laurie and making sure that Michael goes away for good, well we clearly know that it's not going to happen, but you have to give him credit for his optimism. If you are going to watch a Halloween sequel, I do recommend Halloween 2, it's very creepy and a great addition to the story.
7/10
After the film replays the last scene of Halloween, it moves on to Dr. Sam Loomis warning Sheriff Leigh Brackett that although he has shot Myers six times in the heart, Myers still lives. Meanwhile, Laurie Strode is taken to Haddonfield Memorial Hospital and Myers wanders around Haddonfield in search of her. Laurie is informed that the man who attacked her was Michael Myers, infamous for murdering his older sister fifteen years earlier on Halloween night. After this, Laurie drifts in and out of consciousness, having strange flashbacks about her adoption by the Strodes and visiting a boy in an institution. Myers learns that she is at the hospital. He goes there and murders the hospital's staff one by one. Laurie manages to elude him, but she is limping badly and sedated and is thus unable to move very quickly. Dr. Loomis and the Haddonfield police continue to search the town for Myers. Nurse Marion Chambers, Loomis' assistant, arrives and tells Loomis that she has discovered a secret file on Myers to which he was not privy. The file reveals that Laurie is actually Myers's sister, adopted by the Strodes after Myers killed his older sister, Judith. Chambers also informs Loomis that he has strict orders to return to Smith's Grove. So they have to get back to the hospital to save Laurie before Michael can get to her.
Halloween 2 is probably my second favorite sequel in the Halloween franchise next to H20. I can't tell you how creepy this movie was, I know that these sequels are a bit much, but for any horror movie fan, they are a ton of fun to get into. The whole hospital setting was really scary, I love Laurie Strode, she's the strongest female in a horror movie, she's in a weakened state but just keeps going. You have to love the return of Dr. Loomis, him helping Laurie and making sure that Michael goes away for good, well we clearly know that it's not going to happen, but you have to give him credit for his optimism. If you are going to watch a Halloween sequel, I do recommend Halloween 2, it's very creepy and a great addition to the story.
7/10
It's a Decent follow-up but doesn't come close to the Brilliance of the original
MissCzarChasm30 April 2002
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
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
A very good sequel.
clark-391 March 2002
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...
Not as good as the first, but a worthy follow up.
Sleepin_Dragon25 October 2020
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.
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.
Not great, but best of the Halloween sequels
anthony_huwe16 August 2018
Warning: Spoilers
This movie seems to get a lot of hate but, in my opinion, it's the best of the Halloween sequels. It picks up right where the original ended and continues Michael Myers' attempts to murder Jamie Lee Curtis (sporting an awful wig). This time around John Carpenter passed on directing but did some writing and eventually stepped in to direct some additional scenes. The new director does a decent job at emulating the style and feel of the first one but it does feel somewhat like a cheap imitation. I actually remember seeing this during a Halloween marathon on TV before I had even seen the original and it's always had a special place in my heart. It definately is more heavy on gore and lighter on suspense and atmosphere but it is nowhere near as dumb as later sequels. The finale is probably the best in the series (in spite of the goofy blind swinging of the scalpel) as far as giving Michael Myers a definitive death and bringing an end to him and good ol Dr. Loomis. Is it on par with the original? Definately not, but if you want to see what happens next, watch this one then pretend the series ended here.
More kills, more blood, more Michael
reeceicy15 December 2021
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.
The last good horror movie featuring Michael Myers.
Aaron13754 February 2004
As far as I am concerned this was the last Halloween movie with Myers worth watching. I prefer the third movie which has nothing to do with him to all the mess that follows. This movie is a continuation of the first as it is still the same night. Myers has of course gotten up and Jamie Lee has been taken to a hospital to recuperate from her wounds. Of course this one tries to shock us with its revelations and such, but nothing to shocking. There are kills and once again Dr. Loomis is obsessed with getting Myers. Some good kills are to be found as is to be expected. Though I always feel sorry for the guy that gets hit by the car as he is obviously not Myers. There is a television version of this one that totally blows as it is very toned down and they even have a happier ending. Watch the uncut theater version as it is much better.
A solid sequel
Tikkin23 March 2006
Halloween 2 seems to get mixed reactions but no one can deny that it stands alone as a great slasher film. Of course it's hard to take Halloween 2 as its "own" film compared to the greatness that is the original Halloween, but most should be able to overlook that and enjoy it for what it is. Halloween 2 uses the suspense of Halloween but adds more gore and a faster pace to the mix. I found it thoroughly entertaining, with some great death scenes and genuinely suspenseful moments (Jamie-Lee escaping through the ventilation grill). The only minor points spoiling Halloween 2 are that sometimes it gets a bit far-fetched. For example, Jamie-Lee is escaping through the ventilation grill and Michael Myers takes an eternity to simply walk over and pull her back down. There were also a few moments of very bad acting.
Overall though it's thoroughly entertaining and I would recommend it to all horror fans. It doesn't ruin the integrity of the original film like most sequels do.
Overall though it's thoroughly entertaining and I would recommend it to all horror fans. It doesn't ruin the integrity of the original film like most sequels do.
The terror continues...
gila_film23 December 2002
This movie's story began right after the end of the first installment. After been shot for six times by Dr. Loomis (Donald Pleasance), Michael Myers vanished in the dark of the night. Meanwhile, Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee-Curtis) had a medical nursing in a local hospital. Now Michael Myers continues his killing spree in the hospital. Once again Laurie Strode must endure a night form hell and reveal her own darkest secret.
Rick Rosenthal continues the John Carpenter directional style and he did it on a faster pace than the first one. It makes the movie is more enjoyable for now age viewers. Jamie Lee-Curtis is still at her best. I would not deface her name, because she's the best. In general, this movie is a mediocre, but decently enough to watch, especially when you are bored in a lonely night with nothing to do, rent this movie and watch this full cliché mandatory and your night won't be that bad anymore.
6/10
Rick Rosenthal continues the John Carpenter directional style and he did it on a faster pace than the first one. It makes the movie is more enjoyable for now age viewers. Jamie Lee-Curtis is still at her best. I would not deface her name, because she's the best. In general, this movie is a mediocre, but decently enough to watch, especially when you are bored in a lonely night with nothing to do, rent this movie and watch this full cliché mandatory and your night won't be that bad anymore.
6/10
MORE OF THE NIGHT HE CAME HOME - IN THE EMPTIEST HOSPITAL EVER!
lostintwinpeaks3 August 2002
Continuing on from where the original left off - literally; it picks right up, and continues through the same night (cue some continuity goofs as though still set on the same night, it is filmed almost two years later).
Jamie Lee Curtis returns as Laurie Strode, and Rick Rosenthal does a good job with the directing (he's the man behind the most recent Halloween movie "Halloween: Resurrection" - a sequel to the original, this one, and "H20") - though of course he is by far inferior to John Carpenter.
Interestingly this features probably the emptiest hospital ever committed to celluiod. Apart from a few babies, Laurie Strode seems to be the only patient!!
Jamie Lee Curtis returns as Laurie Strode, and Rick Rosenthal does a good job with the directing (he's the man behind the most recent Halloween movie "Halloween: Resurrection" - a sequel to the original, this one, and "H20") - though of course he is by far inferior to John Carpenter.
Interestingly this features probably the emptiest hospital ever committed to celluiod. Apart from a few babies, Laurie Strode seems to be the only patient!!
An honest re-evaluation on the 40th anniversary
Rosebud-sled31 October 2021
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.
A more violent but less scary sequel
Tweekums3 June 2020
This film follows on straight after the events of the first film. Michael Myers has been shot six times by Dr Loomis but there is no sign of a body. Loomis is convinced that he is still alive and will kill again. As Loomis and the police search for Myers, Laurie Strode is taken to the hospital for treatment. Myers is there soon picking off doctors and nurses in various ways.
The original film was very scary but not excessively gory; this film notably increases to level of gore but unfortunately it isn't as scary. This is because once Myers gets into the hospital it is just a succession of characters we don't really care about getting brutally murdered. The characters we do care about, Laurie and Dr Loomis, are side-lined for too long as she is in bed, off screen and he is out looking for Myers in places he isn't. The hospital setting is good although one has to suspend ones disbelief more than a little as it seems remarkably quiet. Overall this is a decent enough film but a little disappointing considering how good the first was... that was a classic; this isn't.
The original film was very scary but not excessively gory; this film notably increases to level of gore but unfortunately it isn't as scary. This is because once Myers gets into the hospital it is just a succession of characters we don't really care about getting brutally murdered. The characters we do care about, Laurie and Dr Loomis, are side-lined for too long as she is in bed, off screen and he is out looking for Myers in places he isn't. The hospital setting is good although one has to suspend ones disbelief more than a little as it seems remarkably quiet. Overall this is a decent enough film but a little disappointing considering how good the first was... that was a classic; this isn't.
Shallow Slasher Sequel Lacks Any Surprises
zardoz-1327 August 2009
Warning: Spoilers
The sequel to John Carpenter's "Halloween" doesn't surpass the original. Freshman director Rick Rosenthal creates only a handful of suspenseful moments, but "Halloween 2" suffers from a weak script that was unfortunately penned by Carpenter and co-producer Hill. Michael Myers gets up and walks away after Dr. Loomis bangs off six shots into him. We never learn what makes Michael such an unstoppable demon. In "Halloween," Michael embodied a supernatural evil, but in "Halloween 2" doesn't develop his character. No matter how many times people pump bullets into the guy, he just doesn't stay down for the count. The problem is Rosenthal's comatose direction. This chiller generates a body count but it doesn't generate horror. Instead, it becomes monotonous with Michael trudging into and out of scenes like a wraith.
The action picks up where it left off in "Halloween." Michael plunges into the yard, hard enough to leave an impression of his body, after Loomis opens fire on him. When Loomis goes to confirm his kill, he realizes to his horror that Michael has gotten up and vanished. Meanwhile, the paramedics haul Laurie off to the hospital. Futilely she pleads with them not to give her anything that will put her to sleep. Of course, the doctor ignores her request and administers an injection designed to knock her out. Although Laurie is deadly afraid of Michael and what he is capable of doing to her, "Halloween 2" doesn't develop a strong sense of fear. The best scene finds a hospital guard investigating noises. When he opens a cabinet, an avalanche of items topples onto him. When he turns around, Michael is there waiting for him. Earlier, the guard had spotted blood in a trash dumpster and a shrieking black cat flew out at him. Everything else unfolds in a matter of fact fashion.
Of course, "Halloween 2" is just a mindless horror movie, but the idiocy gets out of hand. The movie lacks a sense of humor, much less a sense of irony. Michael himself doesn't speak, but he seems to know exactly what to do in every given situation and where to go. You cannot fool this bogyman. Sometimes, like in the hydro-therapy, you have to wonder if Carpenter and Hill aren't going a bit off the deep end. I mean, Michael holds the poor nurse's head under the scalding water, but the scorching water exerts no visible effect on him. When he casts the nurse aside, her face looks hideous. If this is supposed to show that Michael is invulnerable himself, then you have to wonder why Carpenter and Hill behave so inconsistently. Later, in the final confrontation in the hospital, Loomis blasts Michael multiple times again but the guy gets back up. Finally, when Laurie—who shouldn't even be able to climb out of bed—blows Michael's eyeballs out, the guy begins to behave like he is mortal. Clearly, Loomis should have shot Michael's feet to ribbons so that he couldn't walk. Imagine how much blood that this guy has lost after being shot—twelve times—but he displays virtually no signs of slowing down.
Michael Myers is the equivalent of a Steven Seagal hero. He is indestructible until Loomis sacrifices his own life in the hospital and incinerates him. The end credits show us Michael burning to a crisp. The other thing that bothered me about this mute murderer who escaped from the asylum is his innovative ways of killing people. He stabs a surgeon in the eyeball with a pair of scissors. He buries a claw hammer into the guard's head. He drains the blood from a nurse. He guts another nurse on a scalpel and then hoists her so high in the air that her shoes fall out. Michael acts like he is a scenarist's puppet, killing people in imaginative ways rather than with his brute strength and knife.
Another problem with "Halloween 2" is the way that Rosenthal force feeds us exposition. The entire scene in the back of the sheriff's cruiser when the nurse informs Loomis that Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) is really Michael's baby sister and all the stuff about the sealed records struck me as too contrived and obvious. Mind you, I know that this is supposed to be a different kind of horror movie with an impervious killer, but there is just no excitement. It looks slick when the nurse's boyfriend is killed behind the marbled glass in the hydro-therapy and it is neat when the nurse believes that Michael is her boyfriend, but afterward things go flat with Michael drowning her. The idea that Michael can stroll around unnoticed and people can bump into him without recognizing him seems contradictory. We are never told why Michael decides to kill who he does and then ignores everybody else. "Halloween 2" does something different in that there are no teenagers getting naked and then dying at Michael's hands. The idea that a hospital would be as deserted as the hospital in the movie seems far-fetched. Neither Carpenter & Hill nor Rosenthal make any of the victims look sympathetic. Michael seems far too clever to be doing what he gets away with. "Halloween 2" is predictable because we know Michael cannot be killed in an ordinary way, but it is also predictable because we know that his victims will die horribly but pose little threat to him.
Altogether, "Halloween 2" has all the dramatic impact of a flat-line on a heart monitor. The dialogue is strictly expository with nothing in the way of memorable or quotable lines. Indeed, Michael here is such an inexorable source of evil that he is neither interesting nor intimidating. He emerges as a one-dimensional character that you don't care about any more than you sympathizes his cardboard victims. "Halloween 2" qualifies as an exercise in nihilism.
The action picks up where it left off in "Halloween." Michael plunges into the yard, hard enough to leave an impression of his body, after Loomis opens fire on him. When Loomis goes to confirm his kill, he realizes to his horror that Michael has gotten up and vanished. Meanwhile, the paramedics haul Laurie off to the hospital. Futilely she pleads with them not to give her anything that will put her to sleep. Of course, the doctor ignores her request and administers an injection designed to knock her out. Although Laurie is deadly afraid of Michael and what he is capable of doing to her, "Halloween 2" doesn't develop a strong sense of fear. The best scene finds a hospital guard investigating noises. When he opens a cabinet, an avalanche of items topples onto him. When he turns around, Michael is there waiting for him. Earlier, the guard had spotted blood in a trash dumpster and a shrieking black cat flew out at him. Everything else unfolds in a matter of fact fashion.
Of course, "Halloween 2" is just a mindless horror movie, but the idiocy gets out of hand. The movie lacks a sense of humor, much less a sense of irony. Michael himself doesn't speak, but he seems to know exactly what to do in every given situation and where to go. You cannot fool this bogyman. Sometimes, like in the hydro-therapy, you have to wonder if Carpenter and Hill aren't going a bit off the deep end. I mean, Michael holds the poor nurse's head under the scalding water, but the scorching water exerts no visible effect on him. When he casts the nurse aside, her face looks hideous. If this is supposed to show that Michael is invulnerable himself, then you have to wonder why Carpenter and Hill behave so inconsistently. Later, in the final confrontation in the hospital, Loomis blasts Michael multiple times again but the guy gets back up. Finally, when Laurie—who shouldn't even be able to climb out of bed—blows Michael's eyeballs out, the guy begins to behave like he is mortal. Clearly, Loomis should have shot Michael's feet to ribbons so that he couldn't walk. Imagine how much blood that this guy has lost after being shot—twelve times—but he displays virtually no signs of slowing down.
Michael Myers is the equivalent of a Steven Seagal hero. He is indestructible until Loomis sacrifices his own life in the hospital and incinerates him. The end credits show us Michael burning to a crisp. The other thing that bothered me about this mute murderer who escaped from the asylum is his innovative ways of killing people. He stabs a surgeon in the eyeball with a pair of scissors. He buries a claw hammer into the guard's head. He drains the blood from a nurse. He guts another nurse on a scalpel and then hoists her so high in the air that her shoes fall out. Michael acts like he is a scenarist's puppet, killing people in imaginative ways rather than with his brute strength and knife.
Another problem with "Halloween 2" is the way that Rosenthal force feeds us exposition. The entire scene in the back of the sheriff's cruiser when the nurse informs Loomis that Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) is really Michael's baby sister and all the stuff about the sealed records struck me as too contrived and obvious. Mind you, I know that this is supposed to be a different kind of horror movie with an impervious killer, but there is just no excitement. It looks slick when the nurse's boyfriend is killed behind the marbled glass in the hydro-therapy and it is neat when the nurse believes that Michael is her boyfriend, but afterward things go flat with Michael drowning her. The idea that Michael can stroll around unnoticed and people can bump into him without recognizing him seems contradictory. We are never told why Michael decides to kill who he does and then ignores everybody else. "Halloween 2" does something different in that there are no teenagers getting naked and then dying at Michael's hands. The idea that a hospital would be as deserted as the hospital in the movie seems far-fetched. Neither Carpenter & Hill nor Rosenthal make any of the victims look sympathetic. Michael seems far too clever to be doing what he gets away with. "Halloween 2" is predictable because we know Michael cannot be killed in an ordinary way, but it is also predictable because we know that his victims will die horribly but pose little threat to him.
Altogether, "Halloween 2" has all the dramatic impact of a flat-line on a heart monitor. The dialogue is strictly expository with nothing in the way of memorable or quotable lines. Indeed, Michael here is such an inexorable source of evil that he is neither interesting nor intimidating. He emerges as a one-dimensional character that you don't care about any more than you sympathizes his cardboard victims. "Halloween 2" qualifies as an exercise in nihilism.
The series should have ended with this film
hips9 September 2001
Warning: Spoilers
This is, by far, the best sequel of all the "Halloween" films. As far as I'm concerned, the producers should have ended the series here, because, after all, it is very, very clear MICHAEL MYERS IS DEAD IN THE END.
Never mind that this is just another slasher film. Dino DeLaurentiis works his magic here, as he would do three years later with "Dune". This is one sequel that will have you on the edge of your seats to the very end. To me, what John Carpenter started, DeLaurentiis finished.
For maximum effect, see the first two "Halloween" films on Halloween, October 31, and time it so that the end of "Halloween II" falls at midnight, the morning of November 1.
"Halloween II" is a sequel masterpiece.
Never mind that this is just another slasher film. Dino DeLaurentiis works his magic here, as he would do three years later with "Dune". This is one sequel that will have you on the edge of your seats to the very end. To me, what John Carpenter started, DeLaurentiis finished.
For maximum effect, see the first two "Halloween" films on Halloween, October 31, and time it so that the end of "Halloween II" falls at midnight, the morning of November 1.
"Halloween II" is a sequel masterpiece.
Ok sequel. Lacks suspense and tension of original.
tylerkirks087 October 2018
The gore is upped in this one. There are a couple of good stalks in the hospital but character development and the payoff isn't here as in original. Dr. Loomis and Laurie are great. Some very unecessary kills too. I don't mind how they establish that Laurie is Michael's sister but a direct followup on the same night as original doesn't seem to work. I wish a little time had lapsed and they followed similar plot-builds as H1. The ending chase scene should have gone on longer, those are the best parts. Trying to hide from Michael when he's lurking is effective. Random kill scenes of characters we dont care about was let-down and sign of the slasher times it seems. Overall 6/10.
This Was The Best Way To Continue The Story!! More Brutality!!!
rakshitchaprana31 October 2021
For a sequel it was good. I liked how they continued the story, and that big revelation made was truly unpredictable I had never thought about it before. There's more brutality in this than the previous one. In some parts it's tedious but to be honest with you it was worth watching it. Recommended if you want to know the big revelation about Laurie and Michael Myers.
7/10 Thank You For Reading.
Enjoy.
7/10 Thank You For Reading.
Enjoy.
One of the better slasher sequels
rochus_meijer23 December 2005
This is one of the better slasher sequels I've seen. It doesn't reach near the level of the first Halloween, but it's fun nonetheless.. It starts off exactly where we left the first film, right after Loomis shoots Michael Meyers and discovers that he's gone. This film has a frightening atmosphere, especially the scenes in the hospital corridors. The plot is OK, but mostly Jamie Lee Curtis and Donald Pleasence keep the film going, together with the horrifying Halloween theme, which still brings shivers to my spine. In my opinion the series should have stopped here, considering the ending. More gore than the first film, but lots of scares as well.. If you're a fan, make sure you check this one out. If not, leave this on the shelf. 6.5/10!
Halloween 2 was not as good as the original. Still, it's worth taking a stab at!
ironhorse_iv30 October 2015
Warning: Spoilers
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.
Just as scary as the original
baumer26 June 1999
As sequels go, this isn't a better movie than the original, but what it is and what it does well, it does really well. I have to say right away here that I was scared in this movie. There are some truly ingenious and horrific shots in this film. There are times when you really aren't expecting what's about to transpire, and when it does, it sends chills through you.
I first saw this film in my " horror " days in the mid 80's. I was 12 years old then. So I just recently watched it again to see if it would have the same affect on me now. I sat in my basement and turned off all the lights and you know what, I was spooked. Right from the opening number of Carpenter's ominous music and the pumpkin slowly transforming into Michael's angry face, I knew right there that I was in for a night of fear. And I was.
The story starts the same night as Halloween ended on. Laurie is being taken to the hospital and there is a massive manhunt to find Myers. Laurie eventually gets settled into the hospital and it becomes only a matter of time until Michael can find out where she is. He finally comes to get her and then all hell breaks loose.
One of the major players in this film is the locale. The hospital is dark and quiet and rather empty. And that adds to the atmosphere of the film. It gives us lots of long hallways so we can have a few shots of Michael hunting his prey. What we also get is an array of rooms to 86 his victims in and a slew of weapons to do it with.
Rick Rosenthal directed this film and I am amazed that he really didn't go on to do much because he almost copies Carpenter's style to the tee here. Brilliant in particular are two shots. One is where Michael appears out of the darkness in one room to attack his victim. The lighting is solely responsible for the affectiveness of this shot and it works so well that it still gives me the shivers when I watch it. The second is when Micael attacks one of the nurses while Laurie watched helplessly from a distance.
Not only is this a good horror movie, it is a good film and if the first rates a 10/10, this is certainly of a 9. It is that good. And if you don't agree with me, watch it again---by yourself and then answer that question.
I first saw this film in my " horror " days in the mid 80's. I was 12 years old then. So I just recently watched it again to see if it would have the same affect on me now. I sat in my basement and turned off all the lights and you know what, I was spooked. Right from the opening number of Carpenter's ominous music and the pumpkin slowly transforming into Michael's angry face, I knew right there that I was in for a night of fear. And I was.
The story starts the same night as Halloween ended on. Laurie is being taken to the hospital and there is a massive manhunt to find Myers. Laurie eventually gets settled into the hospital and it becomes only a matter of time until Michael can find out where she is. He finally comes to get her and then all hell breaks loose.
One of the major players in this film is the locale. The hospital is dark and quiet and rather empty. And that adds to the atmosphere of the film. It gives us lots of long hallways so we can have a few shots of Michael hunting his prey. What we also get is an array of rooms to 86 his victims in and a slew of weapons to do it with.
Rick Rosenthal directed this film and I am amazed that he really didn't go on to do much because he almost copies Carpenter's style to the tee here. Brilliant in particular are two shots. One is where Michael appears out of the darkness in one room to attack his victim. The lighting is solely responsible for the affectiveness of this shot and it works so well that it still gives me the shivers when I watch it. The second is when Micael attacks one of the nurses while Laurie watched helplessly from a distance.
Not only is this a good horror movie, it is a good film and if the first rates a 10/10, this is certainly of a 9. It is that good. And if you don't agree with me, watch it again---by yourself and then answer that question.
Good But Flawed Sequel
utgard142 November 2013
Good sequel to a classic that, of course, doesn't hold a candle to the original. It's really less of a sequel than a continuation of the first movie as it begins where the first movie ends. Right from the start you realize Donald Pleasence will steal the show and he does an amazing job, as he did in Halloween.
With Carpenter not at the helm, the direction is not as good but I expected that going in. Still, there are several memorable scenes that are well directed by Rick Rosenthal. In addition to Pleasence, Jamie Lee Curtis reprises her role. Although she has less to do than in the first and spends the entire film with a bad wig on, she still does well.
Following up movies that are as influential and impressive as Halloween is not easy and most movies that try fail badly. I try not to hold such sequels to a ridiculous standard. Does it match the first film in any way? Not really. It repeats some of the things the first film did well but it's not an innovative film. But it is solid entertainment. I think that goes a long way. I hope you watch it and agree.
With Carpenter not at the helm, the direction is not as good but I expected that going in. Still, there are several memorable scenes that are well directed by Rick Rosenthal. In addition to Pleasence, Jamie Lee Curtis reprises her role. Although she has less to do than in the first and spends the entire film with a bad wig on, she still does well.
Following up movies that are as influential and impressive as Halloween is not easy and most movies that try fail badly. I try not to hold such sequels to a ridiculous standard. Does it match the first film in any way? Not really. It repeats some of the things the first film did well but it's not an innovative film. But it is solid entertainment. I think that goes a long way. I hope you watch it and agree.
The quietest hospital in the world!!!!
baniko793 November 2009
Warning: Spoilers
All i can say is what a pile of rubbish!!this film is so boring and has little suspense,i love the original Halloween and a few of its sequels(Hallowen 4 and H20) but this is just dull and almost as bad as Halloween Resurrection. It could have been a great follow up to a classic original but those making it were more interested on cashing in on the original than trying to make a worthy sequel. I mean Haddonfield memorial has to be the quietest hospital in the world! Where did all the staff and patients go, if only my local A&E was so quiet! and Jamie Lee Curtis does hardly anything in this movie apart from being drugged up on medication and wearing a really bad wig. The only good point i can make about this movie is that this is the only Halloween sequel where the Michael Myers mask actually looks like the original. I give this movie 2 out of 10, and that is being generous!
A classic in it's own right.
FrightMeter11 March 2002
Though the original "Halloween" is often said to be the best and most influential horror film ever made, "Halloween II" is just as influential in it's own right. It set the standard for what a slasher sequel would become: more blood, more gore, and a higher body count. Where as the original took a more psychological, suspensful approach, part 2 dives more into the slasher/shock territory. "Halloween 2" picks up exactly where the first one left off. Laurie Strode is taken to a hospital for her wounds. Michael Myers follows and wreaks murderous havoc on the unsuspecting crew of the hospital. I like the approach that "Halloween 2" takes. It makes it a much more enjoyable film to watch and I don't believe that it could have been done any better. It definitely set the standard for the need for slasher films to have sequels, even if they were pointless and could not live up to the original. I mean before "Halloween 2" very, very few horror films even had sequels...."The Exorcist" being the only one I can think of, and we all know how disastrous that was!! I think is very safe to say that "Halloween 2" created to "horror movie franchise" craze that has become so popular, even today. And with good reason, it is not a bad film by any means. Nothing was going to compare to the original, but the isolated hospital setting and inspired performances from all involved make this a worthy companion to the first film, and more of an inspiration to slasher films of the 80's than it is given credit for.
Could've Been A Lot Better
jzappa24 September 2006
Halloween II is a surprisingly substantial slasher sequel. It has clear ideas and has a much different but equally scary concept. Instead of a small town street, we're in a sleepy hospital overnight. Halloween II just suffers from a surpassing amount of inconsistencies.
I used to like this one better than the original Halloween, because it just starts, immediately. Also, being trapped in a minimally populated small town hospital riveted me and truly scared me. Years later, I realize that it has too much going on outside the hospital to be as claustrophobic as I wish it would be. There's a pretty futile plot strand outside of the hospital that detracts from the movie. If Halloween II were confined to the hospital, quiet with suspense slowly rising, with the murders and Jamie Lee Curtis immobilized in her room and such, it would be a greatly surpassing sequel. And even then, taking into account that the hospital has several wings, an emergency room and a surgical ward, it should not have a mere four nurses, one doctor, and two ambulance drivers staffed for the entire hospital, even if it is the night shift on the very Halloween on which several homicides have taken place. However, it does not do that, and it has twice the ridiculous details that almost completely ruin scenes of potentially great fright and suspense.
I used to like this one better than the original Halloween, because it just starts, immediately. Also, being trapped in a minimally populated small town hospital riveted me and truly scared me. Years later, I realize that it has too much going on outside the hospital to be as claustrophobic as I wish it would be. There's a pretty futile plot strand outside of the hospital that detracts from the movie. If Halloween II were confined to the hospital, quiet with suspense slowly rising, with the murders and Jamie Lee Curtis immobilized in her room and such, it would be a greatly surpassing sequel. And even then, taking into account that the hospital has several wings, an emergency room and a surgical ward, it should not have a mere four nurses, one doctor, and two ambulance drivers staffed for the entire hospital, even if it is the night shift on the very Halloween on which several homicides have taken place. However, it does not do that, and it has twice the ridiculous details that almost completely ruin scenes of potentially great fright and suspense.
Awful!
GulceGencer3 February 2022
It was a complete waste of time. I get that Michael is a slow-walking man but does it mean also ALL the actors are supposed to walk and act that slow??? I've skipped all the empty scenes and finished the movie in like 50 minutes. Everyone was hideous; none of the victims ran away from The Shade or screamed for help. Some of them tried to use the phone but none of them managed to call someone. It was very boring and cringe to watch the meaningless behaviors and terrible actings other than the Doctor. I think he was the best of them all. I literally don't understand the logic behind the gawks and slowness.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
