Director of Photography Dean Cundey
Music by John Carpenter and Alan Howarth
Edited by Mark Goldblatt and Skip Schoolnik
Produced and Written by John Carpenter and Debra Hill
Directed by Rick Rosenthal
Starring
Donald Pleasence
Jamie Lee Curtis
Gloria Gifford
Leo Rossi
Dick Warlock
Review by William D. Tucker
Here’s a weird one.
Here’s a dilemma.
In all its particulars, Halloween II is a well-made film.
The cinematography. The editing. The score. The sound design. How it’s directed. How it’s paced. Even the acting.
All the elements of a good movie are here. Particularly, a well-made low-budget horror movie. You can do those, you know. Horror doesn’t have to suck. Low-budj horror doesn’t have to be shit. You can work within your means. You can have a strong sense of purpose. You can make the most of what you’ve got. Halloween II does all this.
Looks great.
Sounds great.
I’m watching a widescreen DVD edition from some years ago, and on a modern screen . . . looks just fine.
In some respects, it improves upon minute points of craft from the 1978 original. Great use of darkness. Doesn’t rush things. Takes its time. All this despite the fact that it is a little more grisly than the first one. Halloween II does not give in to the urge to become a dumber flick than the first one. The essential creepiness of the Shape and its methods of murder are maintained.
You could even make the case that this one has a more spectacular climax than the original.
The actors make the most of what they’re given. Jamie Lee Curtis is convincingly freaked-out. Donald Pleasence is suitably dogged in his pursuit of his quarry. Gloria Gifford is both compassionate and assertive as a head nurse. Leo Rossi is agreeably crude and irreverent as a cynical EMT. Dick Warlock incarnates the Shape with murderous spirit. The whole cast is professional. They all exceed stereotypical expectations of a slasher movie cast.
I suppose you could knock the script for being derivative, and it is. It also dutifully ties up various plot threads from the first movie, and extends the concept of taking place on Halloween night into a couple more twists and turns. But not much here that’s new in terms of screenplay.
But it is not sloppy. It’s a professional job on all counts. Perfectly watchable.
But I don’t like it. I fundamentally disapprove of its existence. Even though, on the merits, it is not badly made at all.
Except the very idea of it. That’s what I find objectionable.
Halloween ‘78 is a perfect circle. It encompasses and renders redundant all possible sequelization with its exquisite expression of the persistence of unknowable evil in a mundane suburban cosmos. It’s the phoenix that self-immolates only to re-ignite. For a low-budget horror movie, the shit is Zen as fuck.
Halloween ‘78 created mountains of cash. Therefore, Halloween II exists because money. Everyone knows that’s how movies work. It’s a business. No shocker there.
What’s bizarre is that Halloween II is not a badly assembled piece of work in and of itself. And yet I reject its existence.
In some ways, it’s an improvement on the technique of the original-you could even call it an upgrade. Still, I reject its existence.
It has a terrific climax. The final juxtaposition of a fearful human face and the lingering image of the Shape’s spectacular fate . . . well done.
And yet . . . I reject Halloween II’s existence.
It’s a weird one.
It’s a dilemma.
