Better than the first...

I don't know about that. Had it been a longer movie, then maybe. But as it was, everyone was paper thin in development. I never said anything about the sister angle ruining anything. In fact, it made it into a franchise that lasted 8 movies, then the remake and sequel and set it apart from Friday and Mightmare, which tried to duplicate the family angle down the road.

Suspense? Where? Only in the hospital, which was the second half of the movie. The first half was chasing their targets....

Halloween 4-6 were the way they were for many reasons. 1. No one thought JLC or Laurie would ever come back, so they made a niece and killed Laurie offscreen. This set up a whole new continuity. A jumping off point. But here's where it derailed : making Jamie the new Michael was ill advised and not thought out. Jamie would be a viable killer in her teens, or young adulthood and who's going to wait that long? Second, different creators, different directions, but sometimes you're set on a path you don't want to go down. Hence the Man in Black. Nice twist, but again, no idea where to go with it. Twin brother? Something else? As it was, it wasn't the worst explanation. Body hopping worms and going meta or space/the future are worse ideas.

There were only 4 characters who survived 1. Michael, Loomis, Laurie and Brackett and Brackett left half way through the film to mourn his daughter. So 3 characters. All of which had little screen time in favor of new characters nobody knew or cared about, let alone developed like Laurie, Lynda, Annie, Tommy, Lundsay, Loomis, Michael, even Brackett. See where I'm going with this?

Carpenter made this up when he was admittedly drunk. There was no more story. He had no issues with the original. That alone should tell you even the writer had problems with it. So do I.

We all have our opinions, to which we are entitled, but I think I'll stick to the facts here. All of which I laid out previously and now.

Bottom line, you and CJ love this movie, mot many else do. Certainly don't think it's better than the original. Nothing is.


"He came home." - Dr. Sam Loomis from the original HalloweeN

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Part 2 is superior than part 1 for many reasons : it as more depth, more suspens, more details, the music is improved, ...

I really don't think HALLOWEEN II has "more depth" than the original. All it gives us is a rather cheap and contrived twist by making the key characters related......straight off the back of THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK.

I don't find it more suspenseful either, though I do think it manages some fairly suspenseful high points.
For me, the original still has it beat in this area because the first half of Myers homecoming takes place in the day and during this time we get fleeting glimpses of Myers and share with Laurie the ominous feeling that something is wrong in spite of the perceived normality of just another day in the assumed safety of her Haddonfield community.
These day scenes really build tension as night approaches and are like a bow being drawn as we anticipate the dangers that Myers presence later threatens to bring. We know what is coming and the terrors that the night will deliver.
HALLOWEEN II lacks this dynamic with the action kicking off from the opening without any buildup and with the setting confined to night and indeed largely indoors.

For me HALLOWEEN II is simply a pursuit movie..........a guy chasing his sister. Yes, it has individual moments of suspense - and some good ones - but I feel it lacks the ongoing thread of suspense that runs throughout the original. The notion that Laurie is just a random target and in the wrong place at the wrong time (reminiscent to Michael of Judith most likely) is a far more sinister concept than a guy simply fixated on killing his siblings. It means any of us could have been on his radar - or may be on it next.
Myers lurking outside a school as children are going home (and indeed engaging one directly) is also a very dark prospect for us to contemplate in modern society.

HALLOWEEN II gives us nothing even remotely near as disturbing.


I would also dispute that the score for HALLOWEEN II is "improved". I do like the remixed themes in the sequel and think doing this was a great idea that suited the follow-up but if we are to measure the two against each other, I'd say the less synthy, gothic sound of the original fits the subject matter better than the lighter re-orchestrations of the sequel.

I'm honestly not conviced about the whole "IT RUINED THE FIRST ONE !!!" thing.

Agreed. The original is still it's own film and for me, nothing that goes on in the sequels diminishes it in any way.

The twist about Laurie being Michael's sister is not that much of a huge thing : we already knew Michael killed his sister, so him wanting to kill his other sister is not that much of a big deal.

It doesn't change anything, exept adding an interesting focus on Laurie and a urge to protect her.
But again, it's not that important.

Personally, I feel it is a big deal.

Making Michael and Laurie siblings and establishing that as his motive in targeting her is a significant game changer.
It now means that only Laurie and those unfortunate enough to be in her midst are at threat from Myers. Michael will only target her and those around her who may get in his way.
In the original, Myers selected her simply because he saw her early on and from that moment her destiny that day was set. Her only qualifying criteria was to cross his line of vision and remind him of Judith - a fate that could have befallen any number of adolescent girls.

The randomness of this is frightening and suggests that evil doesn't really need a tangible reason to strike. It can touch us without motive, without warning and without mercy.
Any of us - at any time.

HALLOWEEN II shatters this uncompromising, worrying concept and instead gives us a guy hell bent on killing his sister.

I know which of the two scenarios I find more terrifying as a Horror driven concept.

It's not like they came up with Michael being in a coma for 10 years or being part of a secret cult, like they did in parts 5/6.

No, it's not nearly as bad as the many inept scenarios that were grinded out from the plentiful awful sequels.
However, it still remains somewhat an act of desperation by Carpenter to inject plot fodder where there otherwise was none - this by his own admission.


I like HALLOWEEN II. It is an entertaining follow up with some good moments and I feel is far better than it had a right to be.

It is however what it is. A sequel with little mileage to further the original story. A movie that threw in a twist lifted from a popular franchise elsewhere to offer something where there was nothing. A film that went for graphic violence because the core suspense that infused the original could not be replicated.

The suggestion of evil roaming our neighbourhoods in broad daylight was not something heavily touched upon by 1978.
HALLOWEEN showed us that this evil could be lurking up ahead behind a bush or around a corner. It could be in our rear view mirror, our neighbours back yard or behind a sofa in any of our own homes. Crucially also, this evil can touch our lives and devastate without reason or warning and as shown at the marvellous finale, it may be survived but can never truly be killed.

For me, that is what HALLOWEEN left us to contemplate.

By contrast, HALLOWEEN II gave us little to consider once the credits had rolled.





And Darkness and Decay and the Red Death held illimitable dominion over all.

reply share

add reply

formatting help