IMDb user comments for
Halloween II (1981) More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 40:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Index

391 comments in total

---

53 out of 63 people found the following comment useful :-
Just as scary as the original, 26 June 1999

Author: Dan Grant (dan.grant@bell.ca) from Toronto, Ontario

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.

---

35 out of 37 people found the following comment useful :-
A creepy and solid sequel, 10 February 2004

Author: Kristine (kristinedrama14@msn.com) from Chicago, Illinois

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

---

36 out of 42 people found the following comment useful :-
Definitely one of the better sequels, but still not the original, 14 May 2004

Author: Grann-Bach (Grann-Bach@jubii.dk) from Denmark

Considering what this film had to live up to, considering the standards set by the first, which was, and is, definitely the best slasher movie I've ever seen, this film wasn't too bad. Whereas the first had little to no gore and blood, this one has a pretty standard amount of it. Of course, that was to be expected, since there was no way that they could beat or even match the first, so instead they went for the easy way out; continue the story and fill it up with blood and guts. This turns the film into a more standardized slasher film, but since it still keeps very much to the ways of the first film, with plenty of atmosphere and a decent amount of build-up before giving you shocks. The plot is about as good as it can be; picking up exactly, and I do mean exactly, where the first one left off. The acting ranges from atrocious to very good. The characters are pretty much the same as the first, a lot of characters and scenes seem to have been reused in this. I didn't mind that too much though, as they worked perfectly in the first, and they're good enough in this one. I don't think they could have done a direct follow-up to the first much better than this. Overall, even though it's far more gory and bloody, it still has the great atmosphere of the first, which is something that most of the other sequels lacked. In conclusion, it's a pretty good sequel to a fantastic movie. I recommend this to fans of the first Halloween, and fans of the entire franchise. Don't miss it if you enjoy a good, moody scare. 7/10

---

30 out of 40 people found the following comment useful :-
The last good horror movie featuring Michael Myers., 4 February 2004

Author: Aaron1375 from Alabama

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.

---

26 out of 37 people found the following comment useful :-
Mr. Sandman, Bring me a dream...., 8 May 2005

Author: someguy18_69 from Canada

What is it about Michael Myers that creeps me out so profoundly?Certainly there is a wealth of other horror icons to choose from;Myers is runner-up in this regard when it comes to the real heavies like Freddy Krueger.Certainly he was one of the first movie-maniacs for many, though not mine (that distinction went to momma's boy Jason Vorhees, who I will hold a special place in my heart for) But that isn't quite it either. Was it the mask? breathe a sigh of relief that John Carpenter chose the modified, captain Kirk apparel instead of the original choice of clown regalia (Everyone knows the scariest clown ever award goes to Pennywise)Its just so damned strange and striking. Maybe it was Carpenter's simple yet brilliantly goosebump evoking score (which, unfortunately, is given the electronic treatment in this installment, one of its biggest faults) combined with the Shape's heavy breathing, or Michael's silent implacability and steady stride that always seemed to outpace his victims even if they were racing in the opposite direction.Or it could've been his utterly passionless approach to his work;Freddy and even Jason at times visibly got off on their murder , making them slightly more acessible.Michael Myers is just so completely alien, a man child garbed in a grey mechanic's suit, never better than when implementing that old slasher stand-by , the butcher knife . Even when hes playing his ghost sheet prank in numero Una, a rare moment where you get the sense The Shape is digging his new gig, it still feels unequivocally distinct, not like the sadistic thrill shared by those other monsters. Maybe I'll never pin down what it is exactly that makes Michael Myers My favorite mass murderer and the scariest of the crop, even among more showy contemporaries like Leatherface and that bastard son of a hundred maniacs, but every time I watch "Haloween", (discard ridiculous sequels 4,5&6)I never cease to get a serious case of the wiggins. Beginning EXACTLY where the original left off, 'Halloween 2 ' charts its own terrible course over an economical 93 minutes, never working itself up to anything special but still remaining an underrated,decent sequel.The opening credits seem to to follow the original's exactly, slow zoom-in towards the sinister looking Jack-o-lantern as the infamous Halloween theme plays steadily in the background, but about halfway through the orange shell suddenly splits open , the pumpkin spreading its insides to reveal it's even blacker

core. The original was fun & games is the implication, but now were getting down to the real meat of the matter, and it isn't going to be pretty. Taking the reins this time out is Rick Rosenthal, ( of the execrable 'Hallloween:Resurection')while original scream-queen Jamie lee Curtis reprises her role as Laurie Strode and previous director John Carpenter co-scripts.From the outset,it seems Michael has no intention of ceasing his relentless pursuit of Laurie, and much of the action eventually transpires in the local hospital, With the forever reliable Dr. Loomis (Donald Pleaseance) always one step behind his favorite patient.Now, the 1st installment of 'Halloween' is an undeniable classic, one of the finest horror films made and initiator, it could be argued, of the entire slasher sub-genre.It was obviously a tough act to follow, but Rosenthal Acquits himself admirably, as 'Halloween 2' retains much of the stifling atmosphere of its predecessor and even attempts to reach a tad higher with an explanation for Michael's madness, admirable if not quite successful . The deaths in no. 2 are decidedly more graphic and splashier, in imitation of the body count films of the early eighties, which certainly adds a flavor of nastiness absent in the original, but in the process negates the possibility of our imaginations filling in the grisly details, like the original chose to do, favoring restrained suspense(surprisingly,the upped gore quotient was Carpenter's decision apparently)and the same genius use of shadows and POV isn't utilized as often, but still.... this genuinely feels like the following hours of Laurie's ordeal, even if 3 years have in actuality have passed.The hospital setting is suitably dark & deserted, (naturally no reason is provided) and just the use of such a device taps into the general populace's uneasiness towards hospital stays.As mentioned before, an explanation IS attempted for Michael's killing spree, but this is an unconvincing misstep, reducing him to a crazed supernatural stalker instead of our earlier interpretation of the boogeyman incarnate. The motive in no.1 was that Michael had no real motive, he'd just returned to paint the town red for no apparent reason other than it being his stomping grounds once;a phantom cipher playing its twisted version of trick-or-treat. Loomis constantly insists on not assigning Myers an identity, other than occasional hammy proclamations of "Pure Evil!!" Here, Myers is rampaging through Haddonfield for a family reunion, apparently;thus, all too human (sorta). Like its villain the film does plod somewhat towards the middle as well, but the conclusion is the pure audience manipulation slasher aficionados have come to know and love with the tension racketed up considerably as Michael relentlessly slices & dices his way towards Curtis; Loomis,Police, and plate glass be damned.Not since 'Terminator' has such single-mindedness to annihilate a lone victim been so frightening. The fabulous final few frames should be noted as well,which consists of Jaime Lee staring listlessly into the camera, her mind replaying the Shape's consumption by fire as the score, that old chestnut "Mr.Sandman" by the Chordettes,juxtaposes brilliantly with her vivid recall of Mikey's fiery demise, his mask literally melting as the blazing inferno engulfs him. The effect is simply,thoroughly haunting, and a sneak-preview of the damaged 'Keri Tate'persona of the Halloween to come,'H2O'.That sweet little oldie will never sound remotely the same again. 'Halloween' pt. Deux doesn't chart any new territory, in fact it sticks to the cat & mouse approach of the previous movie adamantly, but in delivering some of the same style and approach, it succeeds as a moderately successful sequel, and is never less than entertaining.

---

14 out of 14 people found the following comment useful :-
A solid sequel, 23 March 2006

Author: Tikkin from United Kingdom

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.

---

12 out of 15 people found the following comment useful :-
The Argento film Argento never made!, 30 October 2000

Author: acidxian from Haddonfield, IL

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

"Halloween II" is clearly a rote cash-in sequel that, by all rights, should have been dismal. It follows our surviving characters as they continue on through October 31, 1978, which has got to be the longest night in the recorded history of mankind. How many hours were in that day, anyway? Laurie is whisked away to Haddonfield Memorial Hospital in an ambulance, and it never occurs to anybody that Michael might want to finish the job he started on her, or that wherever she is, they'll find him. There's also a very silly 'plot twist' about Laurie's connection to Michael. The new characters are a bunch of hospital employees who are mostly uninteresting and are clearly only in the picture to be murdered.

So why do I keep coming back to this sequel more often than the original?

It's illogical, but this movie has a lot of the same appeal of "Halloween". I love the fact that they just went for it and started the thing exactly where the previous film ended. Once you accept that this is not the original, there is more to love. What "Halloween II" has going for it is a very European sense of style that mimics Argento's best moments.

Visually, the movie looks great. We've yet to see a truly great DVD transfer for "Halloween II", and I hope one day we get it. There are a lot of subtle, eerie touches, some recreated from the original and a few new ideas. Characters drive around nighttime streets with their faces illuminated by green lights in the dark vehicle interiors. Laurie's hospital room is dim and intimidating, large shadows moving over her bed. It's never explained in the theatrical cut, but the hospital turns dark and spooky by the end of the movie, and there's something very unsettling about seeing a hospital so dim.

The Carpenter game plan of having The Shape lurking in the background works well and often here, particularly an opening sequence where it is glimpsed behind a woman in her kitchen. In another, it is glimpsed as a shadow, and in one of the best shots, the ghostly white face looms behind several panes of glass through a darkened room. Dean Cundey revisits several shots from the original, like the mask slowly materializing out of the darkness behind an unsuspecting character. There are also a number of point-of-view tracking shots in this one; Carpenter did it first in the original, but this is also another favorite Argento trick, usually used to disguise the identity of the killer. The only difference is that here, we already know who's doing it.

Another brazenly Argento touch is the music. The brilliant original score has been pumped up here, it's almost like a score by Argento's own favorites, Goblin. One or two of the scenes pay homage to Dario with no misrepresentation, including a murder where a woman is drowned in a tub full of scalding water (from "Deep Red"). Also, note the segment where Laurie escapes The Shape by shimmying through a small window near the ceiling, only to find that it leads not to safety, but to yet another room on the other side. Lucky for her, it wasn't a room full of razor wire.

It's sad that the script didn't give Jamie Lee Curtis more to do. As if they only had her on-set for a day or two, she spends most of the film in a catatonic state, revitalizing only at the climax where she must flee from The Shape once again. Her actual dialogue in the film is very limited, and even worse, they made her wear an awfully cheap-looking wig. Donald Pleasance, on the other hand, carries a lot of the film, and is even more over the top, practically frothing at the mouth.

While the film has its Argento cues down pat, it does lack his manic energy. Dario's best movies seem to lunge at the viewer, while "Halloween II" is more like a trash compactor, moving slowly and inexorably toward a bloody conclusion. The biggest disappointment here is the attempt that's been made to 'explain' things by giving Myers a motivation for his attack on Laurie. Even worse, Carpenter's script ignores something that made the original so nerve-wracking: the murders were perpetrated by a homicidal maniac who also had a childlike sense of humor, as in donning a ghost-sheet to toy with one victim before strangling her. In this film he's more like an efficient windup toy. The gruesome murders are mostly implausible, but otherwise quite memorable in their outrageousness, and something must be said for the way that this film taps into the inherent revulsion of common hospital equipment designed to cut, poke, and prod into our bodies in the name of medicine. The most unsettling moments involve needles being inserted into parts of the body where they can do no good.

Unlike the original, "Halloween II" was written off by most critics upon its release, and perhaps rightfully so. A movie called "Halloween II" could only be more of the same, especially since by 1981, the slasher genre was in full swing (ironically sparked by the success of the original "Halloween"). But what this sequel has to offer is nostalgia for fans of horror films in general; for about 90 minutes, you get to imagine that the original film never ended. As if that wasn't enough, there are a number of affectionate homages to the films of Argento, and they work almost as well here as they did in his own movies. Like the best gialli, "Halloween II" gleefully overlooks its own silliness and becomes a stylish nightmare. I find that, even though it's technically not as good as the original, it is also a noteworthy film in its own right, and equally memorable.

---

10 out of 12 people found the following comment useful :-
A good continuation, 21 December 2005

Author: Lee Eisenberg (eisenberg.lee@gmail.com) from Portland, Oregon, USA

Picking up exactly where the original left off, "Halloween II" has Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) getting transferred to the hospital, while Dr. Sam Loomis (Donald Pleasance) continues looking for Michael Myers. In the process of everything, we learn some things about the characters (like a little something about Laurie that would play a part in the later movies). Of course, in the process, Michael himself goes around killing people. A particularly interesting scene is how he kills a woman in the hospital. Oh, and by the way, this is Dana Carvey's film debut (interestingly, he later co-starred with Mike Myers, whose name sounds like the killer here). A worthy sequel it is. Numbers 4, 5, and 6 were pathetic (and #8 apparently was), #7 was really cool, while #3 wasn't even really part of the series.

---

15 out of 23 people found the following comment useful :-
Could've Been A Lot Better, 24 September 2006

Author: jzappa from United States

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. However, it does not do that, and it has twice the ridiculous details that almost completely ruin scenes of potentially great fright and suspense.

---

9 out of 12 people found the following comment useful :-
Family Ties – The ‘Not The Afternoon Sitcom., 9 November 2003
Author: Stephen West (steve70za@yahoo.com) from London, England

What is interesting about this movie from an originality point of view is that the movie starts from the ending point of the original. We now have continuous story flow which is indicative of the strength of the original concept. Audiences did not have to put up with some ill – conceived spruced up story which gave an excuse to bring Michael Myers back to the big screen. From an unoriginal perspective, we do have the predictably higher body count. Fortunately it did not reach the levels attained by other sequels within the genre. The other predictable element of this horror sequel is that the death sequences are far more gruesome. Notwithstanding these obligatory elements, the sequel is relatively strong and although not as good as the original, this sequel did much to build on the ominous reputation of Michael Myers.

Looking at a sequel is surprisingly interesting. We have the original to compare to and we can access how the characters have developed. In this one, character development was not an issue since we are dealing with a story that follows events directly after the original. This in itself is interesting as we do not see this very often.

There are elements that contribute well, but also those that contribute poorly. The ones that contribute well is the soundtrack, the Shape and Donald Pleasance. Elements that did not work well here is unbelievable character decisions, and poor special effects.

The music is for me the outstanding element here. The opening theme track seems to be updated with more bass giving a far more ‘in your face effect'. This is exactly what Michael is. He is no longer an unknown force. Haddonfield knows he is there somewhere in the shadows – lurking, waiting to strike. Therefore the theme does not emphasise the suspense indicative of the original – rather the gruesome intent of the villain. This seems to be more in line with the Halloween festival around the world where the costumes are loud. The movie had become more indicative of it's title.

It has been mentioned by other users here that the ‘Sandman' track is out of place. Although this may seem so on the face of it, I feel that it offers a contrast to the Halloween theme track as a ‘feel good' track is played and then we are led into the ominous theme track – muck like what would be done at Halloween parties. This sequence of track, probably not intentionally, highlights the way that this story has become synonymous with the festival as previously touched upon. It not only takes the name of Halloween. It takes the character of Halloween. Myers is the evil that never dies – the bogeyman. John Carpenter has created a story that identifies strongly with makes no small contribution. October 31st and has stolen into the ceremony. His music is a prime example of this.

The Shape is now played by Dave Warlock. The suspense lacking from the script itself becomes evident in his body language. His movements accentuated his evil presence and dehumanised him. It also shows us that he is not a normal human being - rather a cold, soulless entity that exists only to kill his sister. This was also evident in the first, but was more noticeable in this movie since we saw more of Myers. The Shape was given more screen time, but his basic character remained true to the original. A necessary keep – over since the sequel deals with the same night the attack started.

Donald Pleasance is as much affiliated with ‘Halloween' as Jamie Lee Curtis is. His major contribution is creating a sense of plausibility for the audience. He recites his lines with such authenticity that the audience will be drawn into the story. We think of the ‘mad scientists' of an era gone by, only this is not his creation but a shell born onto the world to carry out evil deeds. He is what Alec Guinness was to ‘Star Wars' and what Vincent Price was to horror movies. Pleasance adds to the aura of Myers and was a vital part of the ‘Halloween' franchise. Even with Jamie Lee Curtis on board in the most recent ‘Halloween' movies, the impact of the first two ‘Halloween' movies was never rekindled which is due in part to the loss of Pleasance. He was a great opponent for Myers.

The believability added by the abovementioned members of the cast was undermined by unbelievable character decision making. Curtis is always hiding not far away from Myers. Not rational for somebody who was previously attacked and knows what she is up against. There would have been more plausible solutions to making Curtis more of a helpless victim. She could have injured herself while she was trying to escape and the perfect opportunity for this was in the hospital when she narrowly escaped Myers. What she did, did not assist the story, but weakened it. It is these areas within which audiences drawn in may be lost.

The effects were weak in places. The blood drained on the floor was way too red. It served to weaken the movie since this is another element which may jolt audiences from their imagination. Special effects serve to add believability to the story and when attention is drawn to them in a negative sense, the story can only be adversely affected. It was also too much blood for a Myers kill. He strikes a lethal blow rather than causing too much gore. It is unfortunate that this seemingly obligatory element became a part of this movie.

I had seen this movie before the original and for some time favoured this one, mostly due to the haunting soundtrack. But I grew to prefer the original because of its suspense. The music, in my opinion, is still better in this sequel since it adds ominous intent to Myers and more truly reflects his character. But this was not enough to improve it over the original and if the weaknesses mentioned above were ironed out, we would have had a much stronger comparison.

What separates ‘Halloween' from other slasher movies is that Myers has real purpose, although there is no evident motive. He exists solely to kill his sister. Myers does not kill all that are within his territory, but those that may stand in the way of his objective. This is the essence of the story and gives reason for his continued existence. This has now been stopped in the most recent ‘Halloween' movie – ‘Halloween Resurrection' and although it is said that this gives way to a new story, it seems to lead it to older stories where the villain kills senselessly. It is true that it had to change in some way, but if Myers is not stalking a relative his core purpose is lost. I am sure that there will be another sequel and I am hoping that they bring back Laurie. The original concept was very good and if the story is going to continue, the foundation should be kept.

---

---

Page 1 of 40:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Plot synopsis	Amazon.com summary
Ratings	Awards	Newsgroup reviews
External reviews	Parents Guide	Official site
Plot keywords	Main details	Your user comments
Your vote history