Bursting into the grove where you left your group you almost collide with Donald who looks as flustered as you.
“Where is everyone? Are they up ahead? This place is deserted”
He gestures at the discarded belongings strewn about the forest floor. Did they flee? Were they taken? Listening to your account Donald grows determined.
“We need to find that man…no…that creature and we need to save Roland, if indeed he needs saving, he’s strong that one. Perhaps the others have returned to the village, though I did not pass them on my way here…”
Clasping a hand on your shoulder, Donald smiles grimly and nods in the direction you just left. Together, you make your way back towards Roland, back towards the danger.
Time for another sequel! Now if you recall in my Halloween review I mentioned that it wasn’t my favourite Halloween film…well…neither is this but we’ll leave that for the scoring.
It’s a sequel that didn’t really need to be made, a sequel that John Carpenter wasn’t interested in, a sequel that wasn’t a leader anymore, but a follower, in many ways an answer to a new kid on the block, a somewhat overshadowed sequel outside of horror circles.
Maybe it didn’t need to be made, but it was, so let’s talk about it.
It’s 1981’s Halloween II.
Fairly unusually for a sequel, Halloween II carries on exactly from where the original ended. In case you are reading a horror review about Halloween II and have never seen Halloween, firstly, what the hell, and secondly, what the hell.
OK so the first film was about a guy called Michael Myers who escaped from a mental hospital and went on a killing spree on Halloween. At the end of the last film he had been shot out of a window but then had disappeared, so there you go, Michael is missing and the cops and his former doctor are on the hunt for him, whilst his surviving victim from the first film is taken to a local hospital where Michael pursues her. So there we go, that’s the plot, it’s a film where you really need to have watched the original fairly recently or at least enough to remember what’s going on.
Firstly let’s talk about how John Carpenter and Debra Hill were resistant to this film being made. They reluctantly wrote and produced it but Carpenter didn’t want to direct it, instead handing that over to Rick Rosenthal. Both they and the crew felt that the story had been told but money and politics dictated that a sequel would happen. I don’t think it would be a surprise to most people that whilst critics laud the original as a masterpiece, Halloween II receives no such praise.
For me the biggest change between the two films is the portrayal of violence and the kills. The original is quite subtle with the deaths and notably has little in the way of gore, using suspense and atmosphere to provide the scares. Halloween II is a different story. The gore is much more pronounced here and the kills more brutal, though the low lighting means that it still has some subtlety to it. The fact that a year earlier Friday the 13th burst onto the scene with far more graphic deaths thanks to the stellar work of Tom Savini perhaps had a lot to do with this change in direction.
Oh yeah, it’s not just the gore, we also have more nudity when we look at one particular scene, all around the film really defines the difference between the pre and post Friday the 13th world
On the same subject I feel it’s relevant to mention I own this as a DVD and the quality isn’t amazing, not terrible but certainly not crystal clear, and you know what, I think it’s perfect for a film like this. It evokes nostalgia, this is certainly how I would have seen it as a younger woman, I wasn’t born yet when this was in cinemas and HD was far in the future so along with its darker tone the quality enhances that slight ‘video nasty feel’.
Something else more intense here is the music. The familiar Halloween theme is there, but punchier and more aggressive sounding. It’s particularly effective when we hear it for the first time as the opening credits play and we zoom in on the familiar pumpkin, but then (and I don’t consider this a spoiler) the pumpkin splits apart to reveal a human skull, even the intro is darker.
OK so though I’ve been talking about things I like, I’ve mostly been comparing the film to its predecessor so let’s talk about the film itself and what I like and dislike.
I adore the hospital setting that most of the film takes place in. The hospital itself is bizarrely empty, seemingly populated 90% by staff, with darkened corridors and a bit of a classic haunted house feel to it, whilst being somewhere we’ve all likely been to in our lives. True it’s night and patients aren’t generally wandering the halls of a hospital but even so it really feels that nobody else is there, a little bit like in the film The Void where…wait I’m not supposed to be comparing this to other films!
Let’s talk about the staff. We have some really fun characters here. I particularly enjoy the duo of Budd and Karen. Budd is a foul-mouthed paramedic who has a romantic interest in one of the nurses, Karen, the two of them having a particularly memorable scene together, which is, and this is where I’ll allow some criticism, seemingly there just so we can have some nudity and violence in an interesting setting. That’s not to say I don’t enjoy the scene, it’s just pretty unlikely that anybody would do what they do, perhaps I’ll go into some more detail in the spoilers section.
Whilst we’re on the subject of negatives, Laurie spends a lot of the film incapacitated so plays a much smaller role. Strangely this is the case in another of my favourite films in the franchise so it obviously doesn’t affect my enjoyment too much, but she’s too strong a character to sideline so much, though we do get Loomis with his manic energy. I LOVE Loomis in this film, I’ll expand on it a bit in the spoiler section but he spends the whole film chasing Michael and bringing a sense of urgency and drama to the proceedings, he’s very much like a Van Helsing in Dracula, surrounded by people who don’t understand the true threat.
Finally let’s talk about that threat…Michael Myers. Michael evolves from a human stalker to a seemingly unstoppable force in this film. He becomes the Michael that most people think of, a relentless killer who rivals Loomis with his drama. Does he have to walk after people rather than running? Probably not, but it sure is creepy. Does he have to kill people in ridiculous ways, no but he certainly does, as I already mentioned the kills are far more elaborate and varied here. I will admit his dramatic side was already there in Halloween but here is where he starts to resemble Jason in his killing methods rather than the knife he was most known for originally. I won’t go into detail but he becomes a true monster in this film, from his seeming invulnerability at the beginning to his hospital rampage, he really does embody Loomis’ line “I’ve told you, this isn’t a man.”
So you know it’s not my favourite Halloween film, but where does it fall in the rankings? Well you may have been able to tell, or maybe not, but I actually prefer this to the original. Is it better made? No. Does it have a better story? No. Is it ultimately a better film? Well no. So…why do I like it more? For me it’s the intensity, the overall package, the music, the characters, the upped violence and importantly the establishment of Michael as somewhat unstoppable and relentless, it’s just a more fun film than Halloween for me. I think more than many other films I’ve reviewed the score here is skewed by my personal feelings for the film more than its quality. I love Halloween II and that’s why it gets 5 syringes out of 5 from me.
Definitely watch the original before this, if only because it sets up the story, but if you’re anything like me, you might just be surprised how much you enjoy this one.
**WARNING** SPOILERS BELOW **WARNING**
Welcome to the spoiler section. This is the part where I can bring up some specific parts of the film which I’d like to talk about more, whether they be good, or bad.
OK so let’s talk about the scene with the mistaken identity. I find this scene entertaining, though horrible, but what on earth was going on here? This is the same night as in the original film, so what are the chances that there is somebody else, of a similar build, wearing the exact same outfit as Michael? If this was a year later, then sure why not, that makes sense as somebody dressing as a known killer, but the same night, that makes it coincidence and I don’t buy that. THEN some cop just drives into him and crushes him against another vehicle, so you think he got a bit carried away, but then he says he didn’t even see him…so…he was just driving into that van anyway? This scene makes no sense, especially seeing as how it’s fairly important to the plot. Storytelling is not this film’s strength, but it sure is entertaining.
Halloween II is the point I feel where Dr Loomis really starts to become the dramatic bitch we all know and love. He was already fairly intense in the original but now he starts shouting about how he “…shot him 6 times!” and the amazing “You don’t know what death is!” as the familiar yet more intense Halloween theme starts playing. Later in the film he pulls a gun on a US Marshal and is even willing to blow himself up in order to stop Michael, a figure he seems to feel responsible for yet fears and hates with an unusual intensity. Their relationship feels somewhat akin to Dr Frankenstein and his monster.
Oh yes, I mentioned the Budd and Karen scene earlier. So, if you had been reprimanded for being late to work, would you, in the middle of your shift, sneak off to the hydrotherapy room to get naked with your boyfriend? I could have accepted it if they’d had a liaison in a broom cupboard or storeroom, but turning on a specific bit of equipment, getting fully undressed, and using what is essentially a medical device, which would presumably need cleaning afterwards is pretty insane, do they not think they’ll be missed? It does however give us a fun double kill with Budd being strangled and Karen getting the particularly nasty drowning in scalding water which is a fairly prolonged sequence.
I’ll mention one more death briefly that complements my comment about Michael being dramatic. He drains Mrs Alves of her blood, we don’t see it happen but we see the aftermath with the character Jimmy discovering her and actually slipping over in the enormous pool of blood.
Lastly, the big controversy in the film was the relationship between Michael and Laurie. It’s revealed that they are brother and sister, and this is why Michael is pursuing her so relentlessly. This was never established in the original and as we shall see in later films, proves divisive. My personal opinion is that it didn’t really need an explanation, it could just be that she was the one that got away.
Well it took a long time to actually get this review written down, so I’ll simply claim it was to keep it closer to actual Halloween, everyone will prefer the first review anyway!
