Well hello there, internet-goers. In case you are not aware, today is the day you get the review for Halloween II! A few days back we went over why it worked so well along with Michael Myers, and those things still stand with this movie. However, in case you were not aware, Halloween II takes place directly after the events of Halloween I… meaning that it could (theoretically) act like one big horror movie!
The first time I saw this flick, I had also opted to watch Halloween I, which had shown directly before it. Perhaps it was the fluidity from part one to part two that helped me enjoy the film more, but overall, I still have good memories of it. But could Halloween II stack up to its predecessor? Read a little further on to find out.
The whole plot behind this sequel is that, after the events of Halloween I, Laurie Strode is taken to Haddonfield Memorial Hospital to recover from her wounds. In the meantime Dr. Loomis and the police are now going crazy trying to find Myers… who has escaped yet again. Naturally, Michael picks up where he left off with Laurie, and heads down to the hospital for some midnight shenanigans.
The movie keeps the same speed of the first one (that is, having a fairly slow to moderate pace), and most of the aspects of the first one still show through to this film; however, one gripe that I can kind of hold (if I had to be very picky, mind you) is the fact that a very large proportion of the film is shot at the hospital where Laurie is located. While she does move from different sections of the hospital, even around the premises, the movie mainly revolves around that area. So if a constant change in scenery is what you’re looking for you will be disappointed.
The acting, much like the first one, is rather well done… but then again, basically our only main characters with any major bouts of dialog at this point are Jamie Lee Curtis and Donald Pleasance (and secondarily from Jimmy, I suppose, played by Lance Guest). And naturally, Michael Myers does well at killing, and his victims do well at dying… so there is always that, too.
Still though, there is something about this movie that I can’t quite put my finger that seems missing… making it “lesser” than part one. That isn’t to say that it is bad, that isn’t so at all (at least to me), but it doesn’t seem to quite stack up as well if you compare the two movies side by side. Perhaps it is the one piece of scenery we get to look at? Maybe it is was the lack of other “main” characters? As I said before, I can’t quite put my finger on it.
Nevertheless, though, I still found the movie to be quite enjoyable, even today. In fact, I never watch the second movie, without seeing the first, and depending on my mood and time schedule, watching the first along with seeing the second. While the first movie can be perfect as a stand-alone, the second helps to give it a little more background and even further the story, which is always nice. Overall, I would say it was a good sequel to a great horror movie, especially considering the track record most series sequels end up getting. I can’t decide between an 8 or a 9, so I will say. 8.5/10
Much like with the first film, I don’t have any kickass screen shots to use for captions, I will eventually try to get around to it.
And once again as another reminder, check out the audio review that Mizz and I collaborated on for Halloween III. Was it any good? Find out on Saturday!
- Halloween (1978) (mibreviews.com)