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

Jeez, hate to read your review for HALLOWEEN 3 or 5....which are much worse than HALLOWEEN 2(seriously!)

I don' like horror films. I can't take them seriously. I'm suppossed to believe some demon guy in a Captain Kirk mask is going to kill a hundred people with a butcher knife? I'd be more scared of Fredo.

Someone already mentioned a Capo review of the third Halloween. I would honestly love to read the criticism in it. I despise this movie more than almost any other horror movie ever. The third Halloween should be destroyed.

Halloween 3 could possibly be the worst ever created.

No Myers, No Fun.

Why do you think they had to put "The Return of Michael Myers" on the poster for 4? Because everyone HATED 3. I agree with Capo. Though I don't enjoy 2 very much. It is entertaining when you are in the mood for a thriller. Myers is just such a good villian. But 2 could never, EVER wear 1's shoes. Or even be in the same room with them.

Doc

Who would win: Michael Myers vs the Corleone Family?

what is the 3rd Halloween about???


And if you can't really kill Myers how could anyone ever win?

Myers. Because he can not be killed. No bias here, I love the Corleone's, but "the Boogyman" would tear them to shreds.

Doc

I think he can be killed. Because in that last movie they had to make an excuse that in the previous film at the end when he got his head chopped off by that Curtis lady that it was really a cop with the mask on who's head was chopped off. Guns alone apparently can't kill him, but cutting his head off would do the trick, so apparently he has some regeneration power. I think the Corleones would catch on to this. Halloween 23: Myers meets Corleone: Michael Myers sleeps with the fishes.

I see what you mean with the "head" idea. But, you have to remember, he has been cursed with "thorn". Hence, he can not die until all of his bloodline is killed. "Thorn" gives him powers that make him invulnerable. I still don't think anyone could kill Myers. He's unbeatable in the end. It's the horror movie rule, the villian never dies.

Doc

Oh yeah, the thorn thing. Well, the Mob is best at kiling off bloodlines. They'll whack is whole family, then go for him. It's the mob movie rule, when someone's marked to be whacked they get whacked.

Good Point.

Doc

Unless there is a metal plate under their car

Capo--Carpenter didn't direct Halloween II...

No, Carpenter was a writer and producer on HALLOWEEN 2 along with Debra Hill. However, from many places I've read, Carpenter said he actually directed most of the film after the credited director "blew it". Then again, I can't vouche with such evidence to prove this at the moment.

Yes, I've already admitted this, when a member of the Movie Fan boards corrected me. It's still a bad film, and he should still be ashamed of allowing it to be made.

Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers is on next Friday. I can't wait.

Also, Patrick, you asked how I could call the murders motiveless. I ask back, how can you call scalding some girl to death a murder with motive behind it? The only (if that!) murder with motive is that which doesn't happen: Laurie's. All the others are just to move the narrative along to provide a climax which offers the possibility of another unnecessary sequel.

Mick

Exactly. The motive is to kill Laurie. He kills people along the way of doing that. Halloween 4 is pretty good. The worst in the series is 8. Just to let you know, Halloween H20 was a very good sequel that got fair praise from critics. -Pat

Therefore, Pat, the murders, bar one, are motiveless.

Mick

But if he doesn't murder the people he does, he'll be caught.

Myers is just wearing a bullet-proof vest and he walks around killing weak people with knives. His motives are irrelevant.

"If history has taught us anything, it's that you can kill anyone."

People who can call the cops, which :::SPOILER::: happens in Halloween 4 and Halloween 5.

Cops don't know how to whack anyone for good.

Myers is lucky that girl's last name isn't Corleone.

Um, ok. Anyways...


Capo--Are you planning on watching Halloween 4?

Of course. Can't wait!

Mick