Posted By: Capo de La Cosa Nostra
Halloween II - 11/06/04 09:46 PM
Halloween II
(1981/Carpenter/US)
Was this film necessary? Certainly not. Indeed, it is one of the most wretched pieces of unwarranted, unjustified trash ever committed to celluloid. Carpenter should be ashamed of himself.
Halloween (1978) was a film very effective in its own way, with nice direction in places, and a memorable (if somewhat overused) score. It’s influence on the Horror genre, be it good or bad, is undeniable.
It’s just a big shame that this sequel was ever thought of. It seems that it was just spurned out of somebody’s drunken mind without a moment’s serious thought; the type of film of which the people involved say, in retrospect, “It seemed a good idea at the time.”
Set on the same night as the first film, in the immediate aftermath of the teenage murders, indestructible imbecile Michael Meyers makes his way to Haddonfield hospital to continue his quest in killing Laurie (indulging himself in a few extra bonuses along the way). But after a decent start, this soon trips up and quickly spirals into a dark abyss of repugnance, out of which it seemingly doesn’t even wish to escape.
Haddonfield should be renamed Gullibleville. Never before have characters been so annoyingly credulous. You actually don’t mind that Meyers has chosen such-and-such as a victim—you even encourage it at one point. The inhabitants of this pitiable town are the most wretched beings on the planet. Indeed, I’d even go so far as to call Meyers a hero.
And a compassionate hero he is: time after time, he tries his damnedest to get caught, often standing at a right angle to, and within touching distance of, his victims-to-be. But seeing that these people all have tunnel vision, he decides to put them out of their misery after all. He does succeed, however, in achieving his long-term goal of allowing Laurie to get away. Walking with the same iron boots on as the first film, he doesn’t bother himself in catching his main quarry; after all, he can come back from the dead whenever he likes, so why trouble himself too much? Even his doctor is immortal. Pleasance returns in the sequels, despite blowing himself to bits here (that’s easily explained though: it’s Ernst Stavro Blofeld!).
The drastic shortcomings in character are complimented by the appalling script. The dialogue is nothing short of laughable. But then, who needs dialogue when the only thing comprising the narrative is one gory attack after another? It’d be less painful to watch if it was a silent film. The problem not only lies in the fact that this is a mundane “Horror” film that verges many times on the unintentionally hilarious, or that it’s merely a remake of the first film, but that each scene is a direct replica of the one preceding it, which makes for a predictable, tedious, often farcical, film without any point whatsoever.
The fact is, Halloween II has absolutely nothing to offer to cineastes. It only makes the wretched characters of the first even more shallow, strips the plot further to a series of more bloody attacks, and emphasises the point that the killer is some kind of immortal God. The sad thing about this is that I’ve probably put as much thought into this review as Carpenter put into making this inane, redundant, absolutely unnecessary film.
It isn’t the worst film ever made, of course. But it’s close.
Mick
(1981/Carpenter/US)
Was this film necessary? Certainly not. Indeed, it is one of the most wretched pieces of unwarranted, unjustified trash ever committed to celluloid. Carpenter should be ashamed of himself.
Halloween (1978) was a film very effective in its own way, with nice direction in places, and a memorable (if somewhat overused) score. It’s influence on the Horror genre, be it good or bad, is undeniable.
It’s just a big shame that this sequel was ever thought of. It seems that it was just spurned out of somebody’s drunken mind without a moment’s serious thought; the type of film of which the people involved say, in retrospect, “It seemed a good idea at the time.”
Set on the same night as the first film, in the immediate aftermath of the teenage murders, indestructible imbecile Michael Meyers makes his way to Haddonfield hospital to continue his quest in killing Laurie (indulging himself in a few extra bonuses along the way). But after a decent start, this soon trips up and quickly spirals into a dark abyss of repugnance, out of which it seemingly doesn’t even wish to escape.
Haddonfield should be renamed Gullibleville. Never before have characters been so annoyingly credulous. You actually don’t mind that Meyers has chosen such-and-such as a victim—you even encourage it at one point. The inhabitants of this pitiable town are the most wretched beings on the planet. Indeed, I’d even go so far as to call Meyers a hero.
And a compassionate hero he is: time after time, he tries his damnedest to get caught, often standing at a right angle to, and within touching distance of, his victims-to-be. But seeing that these people all have tunnel vision, he decides to put them out of their misery after all. He does succeed, however, in achieving his long-term goal of allowing Laurie to get away. Walking with the same iron boots on as the first film, he doesn’t bother himself in catching his main quarry; after all, he can come back from the dead whenever he likes, so why trouble himself too much? Even his doctor is immortal. Pleasance returns in the sequels, despite blowing himself to bits here (that’s easily explained though: it’s Ernst Stavro Blofeld!).
The drastic shortcomings in character are complimented by the appalling script. The dialogue is nothing short of laughable. But then, who needs dialogue when the only thing comprising the narrative is one gory attack after another? It’d be less painful to watch if it was a silent film. The problem not only lies in the fact that this is a mundane “Horror” film that verges many times on the unintentionally hilarious, or that it’s merely a remake of the first film, but that each scene is a direct replica of the one preceding it, which makes for a predictable, tedious, often farcical, film without any point whatsoever.
The fact is, Halloween II has absolutely nothing to offer to cineastes. It only makes the wretched characters of the first even more shallow, strips the plot further to a series of more bloody attacks, and emphasises the point that the killer is some kind of immortal God. The sad thing about this is that I’ve probably put as much thought into this review as Carpenter put into making this inane, redundant, absolutely unnecessary film.
It isn’t the worst film ever made, of course. But it’s close.
Mick
