Better than the first…
-
Leo_Rossi — 9 years ago(December 29, 2016 11:46 AM)
This is better than the original. Dave is a loon. Like we're the only two that prefer II.
Dave is a loon because he dosen't agree with you? How mature. Can you once ever have a disagreement without resorting to acting like a child?
You aren't the only two who prefer II, but having said that, you are still in the minority. Its a fact. -
thylacine80 — 9 years ago(December 29, 2016 01:49 PM)
I have no idea if I'm in the minoritybut to be perfectly honest, I wouldn't mind at all.
I really prefer part II, but everybody has their own tastes, and it's cool with me if some prefer part I.
Whatever floats ur boat
-
simest — 9 years ago(December 31, 2016 06:00 AM)
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 relatedstraight 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 ev -
simest — 9 years ago(December 31, 2016 03:15 PM)
I know what you mean.
I still prefer halloween 2 but your points are actually very good.
Thanks.
It is - as always - a matter of taste. I'm sure plenty of others prefer HALLOWEEN II to the original.
Where it becomes difficult is debating which is technically the
better
film as this may not always align with personal preference - or indeed be easily measured or determined.
I've said before that I thoroughly enjoy HELLO MARY LOU: PROM NIGHT II. It's not a great movie and is not acclaimed or remembered in any high esteem.
It remains however, a film I find very entertaining and great fun to watch.
I prefer it to THE SHINING, SCREAM and numerous other renowned Horror classics.
The key however is that I don't consider it a superior film to those others.I simply prefer it.
It's the same question I guess between HALLOWEEN II and the original:
Do you consider the sequel a technically superior filmor just prefer it?
Either way, one's own preference/opinion is their right.
And Darkness and Decay and the Red Death held illimitable dominion over all. -
thylacine80 — 9 years ago(January 01, 2017 11:59 AM)
I don't find any of the films "technically superior" to the other.
They are different films because one is the continuation of the other. So what they did with the first (suspens in daylight, meeting Myers,) they couldn't do with part 2.
So the first is mysterious and psychological while part II is suspensful and thrilling.
They are both technically good but I prefer the sequel. -
simest — 9 years ago(January 01, 2017 03:29 PM)
I don't find any of the films "technically superior" to the other.
Which would indicate that you don't find one to be
better
than the other.you just prefer one.
That is what I was curious to determine.
It's just with you saying earlier in the thread that HALLOWEEN II was "superior for many reasons", I wanted to clarify if you meant it was literally a better conceived and executed work, or simply that it appealed to you more on a personal preference level.
And Darkness and Decay and the Red Death held illimitable dominion over all. -
paulkersey-31019 — 9 years ago(January 01, 2017 11:04 PM)
Wow. Long interesting discussion. To be frank I cant pick 1 over the other. They're both equally great for different reasons. I'm a big fan of slashers so I liked the firsts originality & story working with low blood & stalking but also I like violence with bloody high body counts. They had to be different or pple would moan about carbon copy. Pt 2 is a worthy sequel. If someone thinks its not they need to gain perspective & watch all the crapfests out there that it coulda been.
-
dave626 — 9 years ago(January 02, 2017 08:05 AM)
Everyone has their own opinions. To which they are entitled. Perspective means looking at the time frame of the movie, as well as behind it and ahead of it.
Every angle. By that, I mean as I've always stood by, Halloween II didn't have to add body count, blood to be on pace with the competition. It also didn't have to be a carbon copy of the original, which it wasn't. It was a continuation. No more babysitting, the aftermath. And looking beyond it, to 4 and beyond it wasn't as bad as parts of those.
Friday 2 was a worthy sequel, because it continued the story, didn't change it's MO and felt like a new chapter. Jason instead of the Mother. Wasn't a carbon copy either. Too bad 3 and beyond went for gimmicks.
As for Halloween II, you have to look behind the camera as well. Carpenter didn't want to do another Michael story, didn't even direct it and was drunk when he wrote it. Wallace completely abandoned the project when he read the script. JLC barely talks about this one. All those things tell me even the people who made it didn't like it. That's a bad sign. If they don't like it, why should I?
As I've said ad nauseum, I have my reasons for disliking this movie. Some people like it and that's okay. Some don't, that's also okay, respect the individual. In my opinion, it's nowhere near as good as the original, much less surpass it. Personal bias aside, look at the facts. I know it works both ways, though.
But you have to admit this one does not get the praise the others do.
"He came home." - Dr. Sam Loomis from the original HalloweeN -
thylacine80 — 9 years ago(January 02, 2017 08:55 AM)
for Halloween II, you have to look behind the camera as well
No.I don't have to do that.
I think it's an excellent movie and I find it better than the first, who itself was awesome.
But I'm not interested about what happened "behind the camera" to judge a movie.
The feuds or conflicts behind a film do not alter my appreciation of it.
even the people who made it didn't like it. That's a bad sign. If they don't like it, why should I?
You obviously need to know what the filmakers think about their movie to decide if you have to like or dislike it.
You shouldn't. You have the right to think by yourself.
For example, I like the film Goldfinger. The director himself could come out of the grave to say "MY MOVIE WAS BAD !!!", it wouldn't change my love for the movie.
But you have to admit this one does not get the praise the others do
Again, that doesn't bother me at all. I have no idea if I'm on the majority and I honestly don't really care.
Whatever floats people 's boats is fine.
I think you take it too seriously. It is only a film and you yourself admitted that it's all a matter of taste.
Take care. -
cjh8504 — 9 years ago(January 02, 2017 04:59 PM)
Dave is a loon. He can't think for himself. JLC and Carpenter hardly talk about it, and or dislike it, so it mustn't be as good as the original. Silly.
RIP Gene Wilder. RIP Robert Vaughn. RIP Carrie Fisher. RIP William Christopher. 2016 is the worst! -
dave626 — 9 years ago(January 03, 2017 04:09 AM)
Yes, you actually do. You see, in order to back up your claim that it's better than the original, you have to have all the facts, and I mean all the facts, not the ones you pick and choose to suit your argument. That is what's called an uninformed opinion and the furthest thing from fact. You started this by stating facts, when they're really your opinions.
As you can see, I've been backing up my claims with facts. So therefore, mine is the complete and informed opinion. I don't need filmmakers to tell me it was bad, I already knew that. But when they say it themselves, it goes from solo amateur opinion to professionally backed up opinion. So if I say it's bad, and they say it's bad and you say it's good, who do you think I'm going to believe?
Them, in case you were wondering. As I said, you are entitled to this opinion, but that's all it is. And one that's not even backed up by the people who made it. Just a few random strangers. So the majority of us disagree with you.
Of course I take it seriously, I have been a fan of the franchise since before 1988. That's almost 30 years. I've had time to research the crap out of these films and know them inside and out and base all my opinions on the facts presented.
Take care
"He came home." - Dr. Sam Loomis from the original HalloweeN -
thylacine80 — 9 years ago(January 03, 2017 06:19 AM)
you have to have all the facts
All the facts are in the film, and I love the film more than I love Halloween part I.
The gossip facts about Jamie Lee curtis not talking about it or John Carpenter being drunk don't alter my appreciation of the film.
You seem almost offended that some people think part II is Superior to part I.
You shouldn't.
I truly respect the fact you prefer the original, and I think we should take it a little less to heart. -
cjh8504 — 9 years ago(January 03, 2017 04:45 PM)
He is offended. And so are a lot of other people. They can't figure out why someone can like II more than the original. We must have no taste. Be heathens.
RIP Gene Wilder. RIP Robert Vaughn. RIP Carrie Fisher. RIP William Christopher. 2016 is the worst! -
thylacine80 — 9 years ago(January 04, 2017 12:00 PM)
He is offended. And so are a lot of other people.
Actually, that is not true. Every people ecxept him on this board peacefully enjoy sharing their opinions on the Halloween franchise.
Other people just told me it is all a matter of taste and no opinion is wrong or right.
"dave" is the first and only person I meet on Imdb to behave the way he does. -
Leo_Rossi — 9 years ago(January 04, 2017 07:15 PM)
Man up and take him off of ignore if you're so worried about what he said.
He stated his reasons why he thinks Halloween is superior to Halloween II in a well thought out manner. This doesn't coincide with your opinion so I have no doubt you'd resort to calling him a loon, dumbass, idiot, moron, or whatever childish comback you would come up with at the moment.