A guilty pleasure
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — General Discussion
ToastedCheese — 2 years ago(November 05, 2023 02:25 AM)
Rick Rosenthal's
Halloween II
ups the ante on Carpenter's original, though Carpenter's stamp is all over this bloody sequel - writing, producing, scoring and Dean Cundy is still the master lighting cameraman.
Carpenter's original is a deserved horror classic and full of atmosphere and nuanced style. This one is still Halloween stylish with excellent camera work and pov shots, scares and suspense. Ultimately though, it is just a cheap shot excuse to execute some well staged and ingenious kills.
The body count is generous, yet what I think elevates this film from other bloody slashers of the era, is that the violence is depicted as more real, than just fake looking latex gore kills. It has a metallic, cringe inducing sharp pointed depiction to it.
While the undercurrent of the film is violent and there is on average a kill every 8-mins of the 92-min runtime, the kills aren't over embellished even if most are inventive. The characters are likeable enough too, so one has some care factor to flow with.
Norman! What did you put in my tea? -
simest — 2 years ago(March 14, 2024 09:46 PM)
For me HALLOWEEN II has less suspense, structure and story than the original. It is also less atmospheric, is populated with disposable characters simply there to make up a body count, relies on graphic kills to alleviate a deficiency in tension, is less stylishly directed, has an inferior score to the original and de-mystifies Myers by making him a guy simply after his sister.
That said, I still find it entertaining, with some good kills, another fine Carpenter soundtrack and a similar feel to the original.
While I find Halloween II less suspenseful, I do think it manages some fairly suspenseful high points.
For me though, 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 present. We know what is coming and the terrors that the night will bring.
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.
Indeed, 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 (though reminiscent of Judith to Michael no doubt) 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 might be on it next.
Making Michael and Laurie siblings - in an Empire Strikes Back-type fashion - 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.
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 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 -
ToastedCheese — 2 years ago(March 16, 2024 02:58 AM)
I have never really bothered to contemplate
Halloween - '78
long enough to find it worthy of being a profound treatise on what evil is supposed to represent. After all, what is evil but a notion of not living in a manner that is ethically sound, purposeful and beneficial for humanity. For me, Carpenter's
Halloween
delivers well done creepy and menacing scares to frighten the viewer.
I also have issues with the daylight scenes not representing its fall season well enough, (filmed in the spring), not to mention it's filmed in California with visible palms in the background, when it is supposed to be set midwestern US. Once darkness falls, it doesn't really matter so much then. The film just does what it does so very well, for what it is.
I came to
Halloween II - '81
first. It was also formulaic in the sense that it was following in the footsteps of the early 80's slasher craze. Within this context, I find it one of the best, along with
Happy Birthday To Me - '81
,
My Bloody Valentine - '81
,
Visiting Hours - '82
and Tobe Hooper's
The Funhouse - '81
, which gives us an original hybrid slasher. This one empathizes atmosphere and terror rather than just showcasing inventive ways in which to kill off its characters.
As mentioned in my op,
Halloween II
also gives us a decent slew of characters to be slaughtered, which had me feeling both scared and sorry for them, even if they are only briefly introduced and that the manner in which the kills were delivered, I found them disturbing. I also like that
Halloween II
gives us more of a reason as to why Myers is so obsessed with Laurie. It might cheapen the symbolic effect a little of Michael's stalking, but who really cares for the type of film that it is.
Norman! What did you put in my tea?