Disagree. This movie is a class act and my personal favorite. I love 4, but Return sure as hell isn't better than this. Keep in mind, Carpenter and Hill still had creative control.
He literally contradicted himself in this review. 8:37 He complains because there was no reason for Michael to kill her. 19:00 He complains that Michael now has a reason to kill. In his exact words "Pulling off that twist in this movie does nothing but negate the message of the first film, that Michael is walking chaos! Laurie Strode and her friends were targets in the same matter that you might be a target of a meteor falling on your house there is NO REASON behind Michaels choice of victims!" That right there shows me he is intentionally trying to be nitpicky. Im not gonna take a review seriously that contradicts itself. He first hates that he kills for no reason but then later on he complains that he has a reason to kill.
James Champ exactly and how he doesn't like the girl killed in her house at the beginning for it having no purpose. But it did. The cops were outside and Michael needed a place to hide out as they passed. You could hear the sirens in the background...
@@jameschamp1406 I LOVE Halloween II. Even though the original is the better movie, objectively speaking, I still prefer Halloween II to the original. It's the movie that made Michael Myers the iconic, infamous killer known in popular culture. That said, even though I completely agree that the majority of Adam's complaints are merely "nitpicking," I don't think that the complaint you're referring to is a true contradiction. I think that his complaint about giving Michael a reason to kill Laurie refers to the problem of giving him an internal motivation, whereas his complaint about the other kills "having no purpose" I think refers to their purpose within the story. I think he meant that by giving Michael a target, it raises the question of why he simply did not just kill Laurie in the first movie. That is, why did he waste so much time? He thinks, thus, that the murders in the hospital serve no purpose in the story other than simply to have Michael kill people before getting to Laurie. There are other problems with his complaint, though. Perhaps Michael wanted to toy with Laurie. He wanted her to feel absolute terror before finally killing her and it backfired. Perhaps even though Laurie is Michael's primary target, the other characters in the hospital trigger him as well. Or maybe he needs to kill those other characters to isolate Laurie. Anyway, I still agree that most of Adam's complaints about this movie are just minor quips.
this jerk is a little late to the party with his comments I always wondered where looomis shot myers since he was facing sideways whenn he put his mask on not on the side of his face around the arm area
Wrong. Terminator 2, Aliens, Toy Story 2&3, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, Spider-Man 2, The Bourne Ultimatum and Dawn of the Planet of the Apes. Those are how a good sequel should be cause They're not lazy retreads of the original and they actually respected their audiences. Halloween 2 1981 and the other Michael Myers sequels are just an attempt to milk some cash
I honestly feel this film is underrated. Obviously it wasn't the best, but I thought it was done good in some areas. I disagree with the point of halloween 2 starting on the same night at the first being bad. I thought it was perfect to start the next film and carry viewers into the hospital.
@Tom Ffrench A good ending is subjective. It depends on what you want from a film. A lot of people like open-ended cliffhanger endings, but a lot of people like closure in an ending. I personally liked Halloween's ending, but Halloween 2 does a great job at continuing the story of the first film, and delivering a satisfying ending.
out of all the reviews this is the only one i disagree with this is my favorite Halloween movie. but you do make compelling arguments. Amazing job breaking down these movies. hope you do more. would to see you do a Friday the 13th series reviews.
James Thames I don't think reviewing those movies would be that interesting, mainly because the only thing that connects most of the movies is Jason himself. There really isn't any kind of continuing story arc for the characters involved like there was with the halloween series (Tommy Jarvis being the one exception). Not to mention, a lot of the movies feel the same to me so I think most of the jokes would get repetitive.
James Thames Right on! i just bought this film today and it is a master Sequel, I love the film. I wish it was longer though. Hey could you review the series on your channel? I would love to get your reviews and thoughts on the series.
The way Loomis went out in this movie is the way he should've gone out in Halloween 6. Also, at no point in the original Halloween was it ever established that Laurie and Michael are related. The movie clearly showed that Michael only had one older sister - the one which he murdered. I know a lot of people don't like Rob Zombie's Halloween, but at least that movie established that Laurie was born into the Myers family and she really was Michael's sister.
I thought the climax between Loomis and Michaels was just awesome. When he declares, "It's time Michael...", I thought it was one of the great "The jig is up bad-guy" lines in all of horror, right up there with "Smile you sonova..."
+JAMIE LESTER ok ive heard of other people who wish halloween was didn't spawn sequels, or at least didn't spawn any after Halloween II. But i wonder if you truely hate all the sequels for what they are, or if you just knock them all out because you think Halloween is too good and the sequels aren't good enough?
JAMIE LESTER so thats why? Becauae they ruined the first one? Do you at all care about the story and thrill of the sequels, or you only care that they ruined the first one?
SerialKillerX No because i like a good film with a good story with good acting. The original was a great suspenseful masterpiece and the sequel was a cheap cash in that even John Carpenter who came up with the idea regrets to this day.. Im sorry but the sequels were just dreadful and pointless... There were never meant to be any sequels...
I don't respect it, fuck nice shit. Come on tell that nigga what you really think. What is wrong with this society? i'm sure he isn't going to cry if you hurt his feelings.
"They were just in his way" No, he stalked Laurie and it was made obvious in the first part that Laurie Strode is Michael Myers target and made clear that he had a satanic obsession with the murder of his older sister. That was the plot of Halloween II, "he murdered one sister and now he wants to murder the other." The Family Plot started in Halloween 4 where they had him as a family killer, yet in the first two parts he wasn't, all he was, was a sociopath who murdered anyone and wanted to re-do the sister of his murder with Laurie Strode, his younger sister. Also, Halloween II makes it clear that Michael Myers wants to murder his sister Laurie, but also due to his sick desire wants to murder other people too, even if they don't get in his way(Alice). Halloween and Halloween II go together well, the mainstream audience was left wanting more at the end of the first one and felt the story wasn't concluded, hence why Halloween II was made only 3 years later, same characters, same look, same cinematography from Dean, and much more logical story(He couldn't have been targeting Laurie for no reason, If he targeted her because he just wanted to murder, then it's illogical as he could murder anyone else like he already does with everyone else, Halloween I made it clear that Laurie Strode is his main target for some reason he's obsessed with her, and Halloween II answers that in the most logical way. The man who is still obsessed with the murder of his older sister is obsessed with murdering his younger sister Laurie. he's not a family murderer(That was invented in Halloween 4), he murders anyone and everyone, his ultimate desire is to murder his sister Laurie like he did Judith. Halloween II is right up there with the original, great characters, great script, great cinematography, some might argue that this is better than the original film.
But the problem is that in the original there wasnt any indication that Laurie was his sister and lets say that she was intended to be, how did Michael even know that Laurie was his sister? Why would the government put her in a home thats literally around the corner from the Myers house instead of placing her in a different city or state? In part 2 where she was dreaming where she met Michael as a little girl.....why would they have allowed her to even meet Michael if they worked so hard to keep her files secret just so he wouldnt find her. I dont agree that Michael and Laurie are brother and sister, the first film indicated that Michael was just trying to kill some teenagers and the one that was the most pure survived, it was a random act from Michael and thats what made him scary, Laurie was his main target that is true but hes had multiple chances to actually kill her and he didnt, Halloween 2 is a great film but it waters down the original.
Maybe the reason he knew what she looked like is because she was probably agreed to visit him every few years while he was locked away in Smiths Grove County Sanitarium for life. Loomis didn't agree for Laurie to visit him there after 4 years of being sent there, seeing as she was 6 in that dream of hers which made Michael 10 at the point and his evil force kept track of her looks and informed him of her location or something. Evil knows everything. What I wanna know is how did Michael what night it was when he caused the carnage of escaping Smiths Grove with freeing the patients from their rooms to the outside before Loomis got there? I know I said that Evil knows everything but it doesn't know free will. So unless Michael kept track with a clock and notebook how did he know it was Oct 30st 1978 even it was his 21st Birthday 11 days before it. But though there's no info on when Laurie aka Angel was born accept it was in 1961.
He literally contradicted himself in this review. 8:37 He complains because there was no reason for Michael to kill her. 19:00 He complains that Michael now has a reason to kill. In his exact words "Pulling off that twist in this movie does nothing but negate the message of the first film, that Michael is walking chaos! Laurie Strode and her friends were targets in the same matter that you might be a target of a meteor falling on your house there is NO REASON behind Michaels choice of victims!" That right there shows me he is intentionally trying to be nitpicky. Im not gonna take a review seriously that contradicts itself. He first hates that he kills for no reason but then later on he complains that he has a reason to kill.
"Halloween II is fucking awesome" you say. Have you not watched the entire video? There's problems in this movie like with every other movie you can think of. You can't just ignore the problems and consider this as a masterpiece.
Why u hate the fact Halloween franchise has turned into a Slasher series, when u had no problem with that in Nightmare on Elm Street nor Friday the 13th, I mean come on Adam, I'm pretty sure if Michael Myers wouldn't become a more famous icon if he didn't spawn 31 Sequels, just sayin
I dubbed 1 and 2 together in the beginning of 2 where you can't tell it ever changes movies. It's like one 3 hour movie that way. No need to compare the differences when it's one long movie the second one just finishes the night and the whole story.
I usually like your reviews, but this is honestly one of your weakest. Most of your gripes with Halloween 2 really just felt like you were nitpicking (especially with the opening reenactment). As for the twist, I personally thought that Laurie being Michael's sister made sense when placed into context with the first film and even made Michael a more interesting killer. Why is this monstrous man so obsessed with eliminating his sisters? The twist served to give Michael a very vague motive while still clarifying that he is indeed a walking force of evil and chaos.
111highgh I actually think Adam is a very good reviewer, but this was one of his worst. As I previously explained, most of his gripes really just felt like petty nitpicking. Is Halloween 2 perfect? Of course not, but his primary reason for disliking it seems to stem from the plot twist with Laurie being Michael's sister. While I can understand if he didn't care for it, condemning the entire film for it seems a little too harsh. Regardless, I do recommend checking out his reviews for Halloween 4, 5, 6 and Resurrection; they're actually pretty solid reviews.
+Masked Guy Every time I watch Halloween II, I always think, why was Ben Tramer not the love interest in this movie? Why was it Jimmy Lloyd? Come on. Who gives two flying shits? I also thought it was really stupid for him to complain about how making Laurie Strode the sister of Michael Myers, turned this movie into a soap opera, but than he goes on to complain about who should have been the love interest for Laurie in the film!! Is this a serious review? I'm asking you that? And calling the Jimmy Lloyd character a creep. Seriously? This, coming from a guy who has probably never had a date in his life. Heaven forbid a guy shows a liking and an interest in a girl and talks to her. That makes him a creep? I wonder what super-reviewer over here thinks of actual creeps? According to this guy, Jimmy Lloyd is as bad as Michael Myers himself. And the part about how the kills in this movie serve no purpose. Really? Saying something like that about a slasher movie is like saying that the sex scenes in porno movies serve no purpose. It's utter rubbish. Also, saying that Halloween is not a slasher movie is utter nonsense. Granted, in 1978, the sub-genre that would become known as the slasher movie did not exist, and even the term slasher movie didn't exist, and would not be coined until, roughly, the early eighties, 37 years later, Halloween is a slasher movie. Maybe it would have been tough to call it a slasher movie in '78, but you certainly could today. This guy saying that Halloween is not a slasher movie, basically gives him another excuse to bash the worthy sequel, Halloween II. He also complained about other nonsense, like Jamie Lee Curtis' hilariously bad wig. You mean to tell me, between the years of 1978 and 1981, Jamie Lee Curtis got a haircut!! The madness!! This "reviewer" should have his youtube license revoked on the grounds of complete and utter stupidity. This, so called review, was an epic fail.
111highgh I agree with most of the points you made, but I still think you're being too harsh towards Adam. Don't completely write him off because you disagreed with one of his reviews.
+Masked Guy There is a guy on youtube called Oliver Harper, who does some nice reviews of movies. For his retrospective/review of Halloween II, one of his criticisms is that the movie is just not scary. He says, that after watching the first Halloween, he gets an unsettling feeling, that he doesn't get with Halloween II. He goes on to say that, the movie is just not scary, and that is one of its main flaws. Now, I don't particularly agree with Oliver Harper on that. I have always found Halloween II to provide me with a good fright, granted, not like the original, but it does provide me with a good scare. Although, I don't agree with what Oliver Harper said, that is a proper critique of the film. That is something that I can understand and respect. He never thought the movie was all that scary, fine. Nitpicky bullshit is something I have no patience for. Nothing is perfect. Not movies, not anything. Who cares.
Jimmy knew Laurie. Rememeber when she's being transported and Buds like "do you know this broad?" In which Jimmy responds "Yea, her name is Laurie Strode."
Michael killed Annie, Bob & Lynda strategically to lure Laurie into the house & he killed off the hospital staff so it would be easier to kill Laurie without being alerted obviously.
The whole concept of HALLOWEEN 2 was terrific. Picking up where the first one left off on the same night. Good observations, but when you're watching this for the first time, you aren't seeing flaws. You're having a great time being scared and listening to the awesome music.
Some minor continuity errors, is all. It was a very satisfying sequel. And it delivers on the one metric each horror movie needs to deliver on; it was a good scare.
Actually you sort of have your history wrong on how Halloween 2 came about. What I am posting is from the making of Documentary called "The Nightmare Isn’t Over! - The Making of “Halloween II” on the Scream Factory blu-ray for Haloween II from an interview with Irwin Yablans, producer of Halloween. Yablans wanted to make Halloween II after 1 was a hit. He talked to Carpenter about it, and Carpenter wanted to make The Fog as his next film. So Yablan's said "Okay we are going to the Cannes film festival next week, I will get the money for The Fog and we make that first, and after that I want you to commit to Halloween II as the next film. Carpenter said yes and signed a contract. One the flight to Cannes, Yablans introduced Carpener to Bob Rehme (President of Avco Embassy) who was also on the plane. They went to Caans and Yablans started raising money. They got back from Cannes and a week later Yablans opened Variety to see an article announcing Carpenter signed a 2 picture deal with Bob Rehme and Avco Embassy and the first picture was The Fog. Yablans took both Avco and Carpenter to court and the case was decided in settlement. He let The Fog go to Avco in exchange for locking Carpenter in an iron clad agreement now enforceable with a court order to make Halloween II after Carpenter finished production on the second picture for Avco Escape from New York was completed. Carpenter did not want to do it but he was now locked in and had no choice. So he got drunk every night on Michelob and wrote the script shitfaced. Laurie becoming Michaels brother was in Carpenter's own words, because he was drunk, had no clue what to do at one point in the script knowing he had to explain why Michael was going after her. He said in an interview (paraphrasing from memory of the interview) "I was stuck and drunk and it was 2 in the morning and I had to have the script done (I think in 2 more days) which was coming up. I actually started tying it before I thought about it and while I was typing it could not believe I was typing it. I typed "that Strode girl. That's Michael Myers sister" He said he stopped typing, stared at it for a few minutes and then said "I don't care" and completed the script. He now regrets getting drunk and felt he could have made a much better movie had he not been so pissed about having to do it. Carpenter freely admits that Michelob wrote most of Halloween II. So initially it was supposed to be in production before Friday the 13th was released.
Believe it or not, I liked this movie better than the original; though it might have to do with me watching this one first years ago when I was about 12 because the rental store did not have the first one and there was no other good horror movies to rent. When I finally got around to watching the first one, I personally found it kinda boring and predictable with Michael, Laurie and Loomis being the only characters I liked. But I still did appreciate it for all the reasons you listed in the video. I liked the sequel because I liked the setting of the hospital which was more claustrophobic as opposed to a neighbourhood, and there was a certain irony that a place of healing and health became a place of danger and death. Plus, it tapped into the fears quite a number of people have about going to a hospital. For me, the twist about Laurie being Michael's sister, made him more sinister and evil rather than being just totally at random. It reminded me of killers who we profiled in my Forensic Psychology class who actually brutally murdered their own siblings or a close blood relative. Though I do believe it could have been executed a lot better because in here it does come right out of nowhere. The deaths of the hospital staff, I would not say, are entirely purposeless. The way I always looked at their deaths and the deaths of all of Laurie's friends in the previous movie as being prime examples of a combination of what TV Tropes calls "For the Evulz" and "Dangerously Genre Savvy". They have two entries on Michael Myers in the "Films - Live Action" section: tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ForTheEvulz tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DangerouslyGenreSavvy Michael picked off Laurie's friends in the neighbourhood and the hospital staff for two reasons: (1) to freak Laurie out and make her more vulnerable, since being The Boogeyman also entails instilling fear into victims before striking and what better way to do that than to pile up the bodies and leave them where they can be discovered by your target. And (2) to get rid of anyone who could stop him. If Michael just went straight for Laurie, she could've screamed or done something to attract attention or he could've been noticed and all would've ganged up on him to help her, so he killed them one by one to get Laurie alone. But this all is just my take on it and it might all be a case of what TV Tropes calls "Your Mileage May Vary". I do see many of your criticisms as valid and I do respect your opinions on the film.
Well you're not alone. I like Halloween II better than the original too. I like the original (1978) the second best. What's your favorite scene in Halloween II? My favorite scene is when Bud and Karen get into the whirlpool bath for a skinny-dip.
Skinny-Dipping Steve My favourite scene would probably have to be when Michael is chasing Laurie through the hospital and the basement after having just murdered the nurse by stabbing her in the back and lifting her up for Laurie to see.
*Here's what was wrong with Halloween II:* *1. The opening scene of the film was not consistent with the final scene of the previous Halloween. Loomis shoots Michael out of the bedroom window of the Doyle house and then looks down from the balcony to see Michael has disappeared. The look on his face says, as John Carpenter put it, "I knew this would happen." But Halloween II begins with Loomis shooting Michael and then rushing downstairs to the front yard with a look on his face that says, "I can't believe he's gone!" This is a glaring error that assumes that the audience is stupid and doesn't remember how the first film ended. Also, the position of the balcony in the first movie is different from the second film. In the first movie, the inside of the master bedroom shows the balcony window facing the left side of the house, yet Halloween II depicts it as facing the front of the house. And don't get me started on the number of gunshots Loomis fired. In the first film it was six, but Halloween II showed Loomis firing seven shots from a six-shot 357. magnum revolver. The guys in the sound editing room totally screwed up.* *2. The only time that the camera showed the audience Michael's point of view in the first movie was in the opening sequence when a six-year-old Michael kills his sister, Judith. For the rest of the film, the camera is situated adjacent to Michael, with Michael always just out of frame or slightly in frame. This makes the audience, as John Carpenter put it, helpless passengers forced to follow Michael and watch him stalk and kill his victims, as if the audience is handcuffed to him. Halloween II, however, often shows POV shots of Michael as he stalks his victims, which is inconsistent with the first film where the camera never once shows the audience the view through the eyes of "The Shape."* *3. Having the majority of the action take place at the hospital was a mistake. Having Laurie Strode drugged and barely coherent for most of the movie gave Jamie Lee Curtis very little to do other than play the helpless victim. The best scenes in Halloween II are the ones that take place in the darkened streets of Haddonfield, just as in the first movie. But the scenes in the hospital lack the dark foreboding that the first film had, where Michael could be lurking behind every tree or around every corner, and Halloween II did not make as effective use of the town's atmosphere as the first film did. Haddonfield Memorial Hospital was a bland, sterile environment that lacked the "house-of-horrors" element that the Wallace and Doyle houses had in the first film. Not to mention that Haddonfield Memorial Hospital seems like the worst-run hospital in history. On Halloween night, one of the busiest nights of the year in terms of potential accidents stemming from pranks and other trick-or-treating incidents, we're supposed to believe that this hospital's third watch is staffed with only four nurses, two paramedics, one incompetent security guard, and one drunk doctor? Seriously? Where's the rest of the staff? And where are all the patients, for that matter?* *Also, Laurie Strode's injuries in Halloween II are inconsistent with her injuries in the first film. In Halloween, Laurie turns suddenly just as Michael brings down the knife and cuts into her arm. Laurie falls backwards over the railing to the bottom of the staircase and injures her foot, but is seen getting up and easily able to run to the kitchen and escape through the back door. Her arm is bleeding and she's shown to be limping, but she's still able to stagger at a pretty fast pace across the street to the Doyle house. The cut to her arm is obviously superficial, as she's shown to be lucid and conscious, and not passing out from a loss of blood. Yet in Halloween II, her injuries are described as "stab wound, left anterior chest, possibly penetrating." This is simply not the case, as such an injury would've caused a lot more blood loss, and is also inconsistent with the location of where Michael's knife made contact with Laurie in the first movie, which was along the side of her arm. Her sleeve is plainly shown to have been ripped open, not the front of her shirt. Also, Halloween II shows Laurie has having "cracked a bone" in her ankle. This is also impossible, because if any of the tarsal bones in Laurie's foot had been fractured she could simply not have moved as fast as she did in the first movie. She'd barely be able to put weight on her foot. The first film showed the injury to her foot as being more consistent with a sprained ankle, where the swelling would cause severe pain, but she'd still be able to walk and be somewhat mobile.* *4. The sequel really did not give much of an explanation as to why Michael was doing what he did. The Halloween novelization by Curtis Richards gave a quite fascinating explanation that Michael had been possessed by an evil spirit that was the result of an old Celtic curse created by the Druids in ancient Ireland on the night of Samhain, the Druid harvest festival that would eventually become Halloween. The sequel could've delved more deeply into the old myths and legends of Halloween, and how its Druid origins could have something to do with what is driving Michael Myers. The reason that he's called "The Shape" is because it's implied that Michael is not the one in control of his own actions. When Laurie pulls off his mask at the end of the first movie, he has the look of a young man in a trance, as if he's asleep and something else is controlling him. This other force is none other than "the Boogeyman."* *5. Not having Nick Castle return as Michael Myers, a.k.a. "The Shape," really affected the overall feel of the movie. Stuntman Dick Warlock, who was Kurt Russell's stunt double in John Carpenter's Escape From New York, stepped in as Michael, but he lacked the same presence that Castle had. Castle's graceful, effortless, inimitable "gliding walk" defined Michael's persona as much as the painted William Shatner mask did, and Warlock simply could not replicate Castle's performance, often appearing stiff and robotic.* *6. Making Laurie Strode Michael Myers' sister was a huge mistake on the part of John Carpenter and Debra Hill. Not only does it contradict Michael's behavior in the first film, it also lacks logic. You cannot just tack on a plotline in a sequel that doesn't have a basis in the original film. In the original film, Laurie Strode was NOT Michael's sister. Michael Myers killed his older sister Judith in 1963 when he was six years old. Michael breaks out of Smith's Grove Sanitarium in 1978, which puts his age at twenty one. Laurie Strode is shows to be between sixteen and seventeen years of age in 1978, which would mean she had to have already been born in 1963. Yet there's no evidence of any infant in the Myers home in the first film. Judith's boyfriend asks her if they are alone, and she mentions that "Michael is around somewhere." No mention is made of any younger sibling. And would Mr. and Mrs. Myers really leave an infant in the care of their teenage daughter while she was spending time with her boyfriend? And if Laurie was Michael's younger sister there's no way that Dr. Loomis could not have known about her, as Laurie would have to have been born shortly before Michael killed Judith.* *Also, if Michael broke out of Smith's Grove and returned to Haddonfield just to kill his "other sister," then why didn't he kill her earlier in the film? He had plenty of chances to kill Laurie Strode, but instead he spends most of the first half of the night stalking Annie at the Wallace house. He never once goes near the Doyle house where Laurie is babysitting Tommy Doyle. Then, after killing Annie, Michael remains at the Wallace house and awaits Linda and her boyfriend, Bob. After killing them both, Michael re-enacts the night he murdered his sister by placing Annie's body on the bed in the master bedroom with Judith's headstone placed above Annie's head against the headboard. Michael does not go after Laurie until she goes over to the Wallace house, and it isn't until then that she becomes his prey. It just makes no sense to have Laurie be Michael's sister because if that were the case then he wouldn't have wasted his time with Annie and Linda and would've just stalked the Doyle house where Laurie was. John Carpenter said that the actual reason that Michael was interested in Laurie in the original film was because she was a "watcher," a voyeur, like Michael was, and she fascinated him. Laurie was not like the other girls; she was quiet and introspective, always observing her surroundings. That made her similar to Michael in many ways, which is what made him interested in her, and that's what the sequel should've stuck with. Making Laurie Michael's sister was unnecessary and illogical.*
excellent points but if he killed halfway through it would have been a very short film glad you read the first book, the shape term came from carpenter favorite film the thing listen closly when lindsey is watching it you hear the voice on the tv spread out you guys were gonna find out the shape of this thing dont tell me thats a coincidence carpenter admits he was drunk when he came up with the brother sister thing, he should have just assumed lauire went to the hospital and then start killing everbody to pad the movie out bad direction by rosethal it shows hiss fist film and he did not get better years later with part 8 warlock should have closed his eyes to give the appearance that they were shot out how hard its that GKroll1963@gmail.com
What a finicky review. I'm so glad I can pres that 'suspend disbelief' button in my head rather than looking for continuity errors and other things to nitpick over. Halloween 2 is great.
The way I see it= If you just want Halloween (1978), then you have it and pretend all the others don't exist. If you just want Halloween 1+2, then you have them and pretend the others don't exist. If you want just Halloween 1,2,4,5 and 6, then do the same. Same thing if you just want Halloween 1,2, H20, Resurrection. Same thing with Rob Zombies Halloween series and same thing with Halloween 1 and 2018. Let's also not forget about Halloween 3 which has nothing to do with Michael Myers. The Halloween franchise is so convoluted with so many timelines (dimensions) that any Halloween fanboy would have many types of Halloween stories to enjoy. At first, I didn't like how Halloween evolved. But recently I realized it's probably best for the fans since the fanbase is so mixed.
You complain that the sister plot takes away from him being a killer that kills whoever at random and then when he does randomly kill people in this movie you complain because its random?! Literally arguing in circles
I don’t see what’s so complicated about thinking the kills are random and stupid, when that’s the movies fault? In the first movie he killed at random so it was fine, but according to this movie he isn’t killing at random. In this movie he’s after Laurie. So now that they’ve established that, killing at random is stupid. Hardly arguing in a circle, the writers of the films contradicted themselves lmao
fun fact, there were 2 endings filmed for Halloween 1978, one where Loomis is surprised to see Michael gone, and one where Loomis isn't even surprised that he's gone, Loomis not being surprised was Donald Pleasence's idea.
I grew up with Halloween 2. I was only seven when this movie came out and grown to love it. It was dark with a lot of atmosphere. The mask in this was the coolest looking in the series.
My biggest bitch about Halloween 2 is the lack of people in that hospital. I mean, there's a scene where we see two nurses talking in front of the window to a maternity ward and there are babies present in that room. So naturally that must mean there are a few new moms and dads somewhere in that hospital. And what about visiting relatives? Oh and every hospital on the face of this planet has a few elderly patients who seem to live there. So where were they and why didn't any of them cross paths with Michael Myers? They must've been out there wandering around in that poorly lit hospital parking lot - you know, the kind that no hospital would ever have. And then there's that line about the hospital being understaffed because it was Halloween night... Yeah, I'm calling 'bullshit' on that one! When you are employed full time in the medical field, you're either on-call or working a series of 12 hour shifts. So that hospital should have had a full staff that night. Plus, a place that big should have had more than one security guard as well as a janitor or two. Okay, now back to those babies... We get to watch Loomis blow up an entire wing of the hospital to kill the Shape. By doing so, this sends a thick cloud of smoke into the rest of the hospital. Yeah, that's not good for those newborns and their unseen mothers and fathers and visiting family members. Of course, the real kicker was watching the TV news crew film Laurie being helped into the ambulance the next morning. Why wasn't anything said about those babies?
Dude it's his opinion and if you like it that's fine that's your opinion but don't judge other people or shun them for having different opinions. I don't do that neither should you
The only thing what I hate on Halloween 2 (1981) was the sibling thing. It's ridiculous! John was forced to do Halloween 2 (1981) because people wanted to know why Michael was behind Laurie. I know, people will hate me...
You give a lot of good points, but this is still probably the only sequel in the franchises that stays true enough to the original,Halloween II is to me one of my personal favourites, it comes close to the original TO ME, the music is amazing in this one and just surpasses the original (only just).
You literally contradicted yourself in this review. 8:37 You complain because there was no reason for Michael to kill her. 19:30 You complain that Michael now has a reason to kill. In your exact words "Pulling off that twist in this movie does nothing but negate the message of the first film, that Michael is walking chaos! Laurie Strode and her friends were targets in the same matter that you might be a target of a meteor falling on your house there is NO REASON behind Michaels choice of victims!" That right there shows me you are intentionally trying to be nitpicky. Im not gonna take a review seriously that contradicts itself. You first hate that he kills for no reason but then later on you complain that he has a reason to kill.
I felt that Halloween instead of being a franchise should have been a trilogy. Halloween (1978), Halloween II (1981) and Halloween H20 (1998). In fact I already only recognize 2 and H20.
I enjoy the second one immensely. ..it's not going to touch the first one...but not many movies can touch the first one. I almost always watch the first two back to back.
Dude you're tripping this movie was awesome one of the best sequals I've ever seen, John carpenter was part of it to, so how can you say it was a fail? Now Rob zombies Halloween movies were a fail and complete garbage lol but not this movie it was very well made especially how they continued it from the first movie that was good. I don't know why people slander this movie obviously no good taste
I don't see how Michael killing his sister is supposed to be jumping the shark. I mean he seemed to be targeting Laurie the whole time even wanting follow mainly her. But what convinced me that her being his sister wasn't a bad twist was the fact he took Judith's grave and placed it in the bedroom. I always assumed that he wanted to target her for a specific reason. So her being the brother of Michael wasn't jumping the shark.
The guy doing this review thinks he is a genius yelling like a moron picking apart a good movie. Everyone has a right to their opinion, but this guy is nitpicking at every little part. Hindsight is always 20/20. The reality is Halloween I & II were great, Halloween 4 was above average, Halloween 5 was okay, the rest all sucked. It was a great idea to start this movie where the last one left off. That is not common in film making and makes it more realistic drawing in the audience. Rarely, if ever, are sequels going to be as good as the first so the expectations should not be that. But they really did a solid job making this movie into a classic. Even though I like the piano version in part 1, the music was very creepy/scary in part 2 and an excellent upgrade. The dark scary hospital in the early morning hours was brilliant. The scare scenes were good. There was more gore in this movie, but it didn't ruin it. Each kill was creative. Revealing that Jaime Lee Curtis was Myer's sister gave the plot more meaning, rather than Myers just targeting random babysitters. Halloween 2 had its flaws and may not have been as good as the first one, but it was a solid movie and worthy sequel. If they would have stopped the series here I would have been happy. But moneymaking is the objective.
I watch a lot of these movie critiques for a laugh and honestly I get a lot of laughs from them, but this is the 1st one that seems to be literally the words out of my mouth! I must've watched 2 at lest 20 times and every time me and my dad (who thinks this is the best one of all) cannot for the life of me figure out why he kills the 1st girl! And also good catch on the amount of gunshots I noticed that too one time and rewound it even bc I was like NO way they actually messed that up! GOOD SERIES I LIKE THESE A LOT!
Sorry adam but Halloween (1978) is a Slasher film but with more horror, atmosphere, suspense, and tension than blood and gore, Black Christmas (1974) and Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) are perfect examples of this, so chill.
OK Adam I guess i'm going to have to explain to to you why this film is not only awesome but it has a purpose! Number 1 I agree making Laurie Michael's sister was a questionable move but I think in the end it worked out! Number 2 the reason Michael didn't kill Laurie right away is the original is because he is smart! He wanted to isolate Laurie to maximize the chance of killing her, Michael had a better chance of killing her in a house she's probably never been in and not only was the house dark but the shock of seeing her friends dead would throw her off her game! Number 3 the deaths in the sequel actually have a purpose which is the same as in the original to isolate Laurie! First Michael kills the phone lines so no one can call for help than kills the security guard and than knocks the power out (only shown in the TV version) but the hospital is suddenly darker running on emergency lights making it more difficult to see! Michael needed to kill the hospital staff to make it easier to get near Laurie and that's the purpose of i'll the hospital staffs deaths! If Michael didn't kill the phone lines and mess with the power and not kill everyone and just try and go straight at Laurie's room there's a very high chance Michael would have been scene and it would have set off alarm bells in the hospital and the hospital staff would have evacuated Laurie and called the cops and they would have shown up and stopped Michael! I agree the sequels not perfect but I think it's a pretty dame good sequel! You should review the TV version of Halloween 2 maybe that will change your opinion abet!
A lot of what you said I can agree with. But the sibling twist in H2 didn't make the deaths in the original pointless. Laurie was his target anyway. Exactly why is only speculation, personally I think her going to the house was what fixated him with her. The deaths of Bob, Annie and Lynda were just garnish, done to set the scene and terrorise Laurie. He didn't just want to kill her, he was messing with her psychologically first
I know this is from 8 years ago but it’s worth pointing out the criticism of the opening now matching up with the original was due to the fact the sequel was made with a different studio making it so they had to recreate the footage instead of getting it from the first movie (similar to Evil Dead II) but in Adam’s defence since both movies shared the same writers some inconsistencies should’ve been avoided when coming out with the sequel
In the original, Michael falls off the backyard balcony while Halloween 2 shows Michael falling off the front yard balcony. That's where the grass came from. It was from 2 different locations.
While I won't say everything this movie does is defendable, I will at least give it props for taking place directly after the first film. It's not all that often that we get to see the direct aftermath of a serial killing in a slasher film, and seeing how people react to fresh tragedy is certainly an idea I wish we'd see more, *especially* in horror films/sequels.
actually from the ben tramor scene, it actually isn't a boiler suit. it was mostly a shirt with a collar and jeans. i had to replay the scene before he the car hit him to see if it really was a boiler suit or not
Seriously in, the first few minutes this guy says "did we really need a sequel" its Hollywood. Of course they are going to take this further. The fact that this guy's poking holes in the franchise is ridiculous. It's fictional idiot. It captivated the Audience, case closed.
I know right! I’m afraid at the end of the day, the film industry is just that, an industry. It’s an incredible art form as well, but in the eyes of the executives it’s a money printer. This review was nitpicky as all hell.
That is a weak justification. Plenty of other sequels prove their existence, and Halloween doesn't. If the answer is yes, we did need a sequel, the sequel succeeded.
When it comes to reviewing movies I'm always down for hearing other peoples thoughts and opinions and especially when it comes to mixed reviewed movies like Halloween II, Some people love the movie and other people hate it or just seem to find it in the middle. I personally always loved Halloween II but like I said I enjoy hearing other peoples thoughts on the film however this review kind of annoyed me and its not because I'm a fan of the movie its rather because of how unoriginal the reviewer is, I'm not trying to be mean honestly, I know how difficult it can be trying to bring some freshness to the table as a youtube film critic but this review was like watching a Nostalgia Critic impersonator, everything from his voice, jokes, rants and just simply how he reviewed the movie was practically identical to the way the Nostalgia Critic reviews movies, again I'm not trying to be mean but I just think youtube reviewers should try have their own personality and not try to borrow so heavily from others.
Literally the only problem I have with this movie is the fact that they didn't keep the ending from the first installment as the opening for the second installment.
The beginning where Laurie tells the kids to get the police is not a reactment....It’s an outtake from the original film...You can tell as Jamie is not wearing that dodgy wig.
This is fucking hilarious, you becoming the "person who is looking out for movie mistakes" the guy that actually does movie mistakes program could've done this
I dont know man. You made some good points like the obvious intro being different than the ending of part 1 or the fact that Ben Treymor didnt have to die so abruptly and he SHOULD HAVE been the guy looking after Laurie in the Hospital instead. Or when you say Dr. Loomis is baddass in every installment, I totally agree. But with the score, inventive kills, and some twists like the brother and sister thing, Halloween to me became that much more interesting. More of the night he came home. Yes. I really dig it. It should have stopped there. Halloween 3 was pretty fuckin eerie too. Halloween 4 was awesome but they just didnt get Michael down right. The mask was stupid, and George just didnt have that creepy walk. I think things went to shit from then on. Halloween 1, 2 & 3 should have been it.
In the TV version Michael doesn't kill Alice :) And is it just me or wasn't the TV version of Halloween 2 the only version that stations like USA and the main movie stations like HBO ever showed until like the late 90's?? I NEVER SAW this version of Halloween 2 EVER when i was a kid until the late 90's
"Halloween" by John Carpenter is a masterpiece on its' own. I loved this review and the way it points out the various inconsistencies of H2. The Jack Palance reference from BATMAn was funny! I did like Halloween II and these "flaws" I can overlook and just enjoy this good horror flick.....
Aside from the needless bitch about the recreated beginning, you are spot on. The film is pointless, especially how it takes Michael like 45 mins to find Laurie in a tiny hospital which doesn't seem to have staff or any other patients.
I personally love this Halloween but a lot of good points I never really picked up on. I think since I saw H2 before the original I never really noticed that the kills in H1 were so random and Laurie wasn't being targeted as his sister.
i was wrong but you still didnt mention was a hudge asset pamela susan shoop was to the film by the way is this not done on purpose the nurses name is marion chambers do you think this is a play on maryln chambers the por star its too close to be just a throw away gag and she should have had her hair tied back like in the last one it is still the same night you know
Something people forget, this was a hospital!! That fire could'v killed the babies, old people over night, janitor etc. They acted like the cast were the only people in the hospital
cool review. agree with a lot, but sorry, love H2, grew up with it. but how can you say 4 is better than this. yes. this one had lots of flaws but 4 didn't feel like a Halloween film like this one did.. But your reviews are awesome..
In the original, Michael wasn't shot off of the front balcony as in the reenactment in the beginning of the film. Aside from the altered dialog, It always bugs the hell out of me when I see it.
At the end of part 1 he fell off the balcony and landed in the backyard, in part 2 he falls off the balcony onto the front yard, that's why the grass is different
In the original film, it stated how Ben Tramer was out drinking with friends, during the scene where Laurie was pleading to Annie to call Ben and tell him that she made the whole thing up, thus making that Jimmy should be Ben part of the review highly unlikely.
I wonder why they even reshot some of the scenes when they could’ve just reused the old footage, I loved that wide shot of Michael falling off of the balcony.
It's a horror flick . The opening scene was not reshot, as she has a wig on. It's was another take of her telling Tommy and Lyndsey aka Kim the mega wealthy REAL Housewive of BEVERLY Hills
![Kodak Black - Catch Fire [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/A4ch-olIuZo/mqdefault.jpg)
Disagree. This movie is a class act and my personal favorite. I love 4, but Return sure as hell isn't better than this. Keep in mind, Carpenter and Hill still had creative control.
Could NOT disagree more. This film aged very well, granted there is a few mistakes. Very underrated movie overall.
He literally contradicted himself in this review.
8:37 He complains because there was no reason for Michael to kill her.
19:00 He complains that Michael now has a reason to kill. In his exact words "Pulling off that twist in this movie does nothing but negate the message of the first film, that Michael is walking chaos! Laurie Strode and her friends were targets in the same matter that you might be a target of a meteor falling on your house there is NO REASON behind Michaels choice of victims!"
That right there shows me he is intentionally trying to be nitpicky. Im not gonna take a review seriously that contradicts itself. He first hates that he kills for no reason but then later on he complains that he has a reason to kill.
James Champ exactly and how he doesn't like the girl killed in her house at the beginning for it having no purpose. But it did. The cops were outside and Michael needed a place to hide out as they passed. You could hear the sirens in the background...
Byron Herrera I like your first name
@@jameschamp1406 I LOVE Halloween II. Even though the original is the better movie, objectively speaking, I still prefer Halloween II to the original. It's the movie that made Michael Myers the iconic, infamous killer known in popular culture. That said, even though I completely agree that the majority of Adam's complaints are merely "nitpicking," I don't think that the complaint you're referring to is a true contradiction. I think that his complaint about giving Michael a reason to kill Laurie refers to the problem of giving him an internal motivation, whereas his complaint about the other kills "having no purpose" I think refers to their purpose within the story. I think he meant that by giving Michael a target, it raises the question of why he simply did not just kill Laurie in the first movie. That is, why did he waste so much time? He thinks, thus, that the murders in the hospital serve no purpose in the story other than simply to have Michael kill people before getting to Laurie. There are other problems with his complaint, though. Perhaps Michael wanted to toy with Laurie. He wanted her to feel absolute terror before finally killing her and it backfired. Perhaps even though Laurie is Michael's primary target, the other characters in the hospital trigger him as well. Or maybe he needs to kill those other characters to isolate Laurie. Anyway, I still agree that most of Adam's complaints about this movie are just minor quips.
@@TheMajorBlazer That's an excellent point! I never thought of that!
This is the best sequel in the franchise, this review is an epic review fail.
this jerk is a little late to the party with his comments I always wondered where looomis shot myers since he was facing sideways whenn he put his mask on not on the side of his face around the arm area
true dat
@@gkroll8467 did you forget to switch accounts
Pre 2018, sure. That doesn’t make it good. JC hates it and admitted he wrote it quickly for a cash grab … while drunk 🤣
I like all of your reviews but I have to disagree with you on this one Halloween 2 1981 is good its what a sequel should be
Benjamin Triplett Opinion
@Tom Ffrench is that what he said? Nope, so you shouldn’t put words in peoples mouth🤷🏻♂️
Wrong. Terminator 2, Aliens, Toy Story 2&3, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, Spider-Man 2, The Bourne Ultimatum and Dawn of the Planet of the Apes. Those are how a good sequel should be cause They're not lazy retreads of the original and they actually respected their audiences. Halloween 2 1981 and the other Michael Myers sequels are just an attempt to milk some cash
@@josefengelhardt2767how do you mention all those and The Dark Knight is arguably better than all of them 🤣 but agreed
I honestly feel this film is underrated. Obviously it wasn't the best, but I thought it was done good in some areas. I disagree with the point of halloween 2 starting on the same night at the first being bad. I thought it was perfect to start the next film and carry viewers into the hospital.
I love during these years bob gale said this was the first film to take place exactly from the last one no halloween 2 1981 back to the future 2 1989
@Tom Ffrench A good ending is subjective. It depends on what you want from a film. A lot of people like open-ended cliffhanger endings, but a lot of people like closure in an ending. I personally liked Halloween's ending, but Halloween 2 does a great job at continuing the story of the first film, and delivering a satisfying ending.
@Tom Ffrench
The problem is, any sequel would slightly cheapen the ending of the first movie, it’s unavoidable.
You're basically nitpicking at the beginning..
6:22 the reason Loomis gets a surprised look is because he saw the ground go from dirt to grass and was like: HOLY S***!!!
haha!
dont you mean bloody grass didnt care for the exact outline of his body still love the film
out of all the reviews this is the only one i disagree with this is my favorite Halloween movie. but you do make compelling arguments. Amazing job breaking down these movies. hope you do more. would to see you do a Friday the 13th series reviews.
A great sequel. Lot's of intense and chilling moments throughout the movie.
James Thames
I don't think reviewing those movies would be that interesting, mainly because the only thing that connects most of the movies is Jason himself. There really isn't any kind of continuing story arc for the characters involved like there was with the halloween series (Tommy Jarvis being the one exception). Not to mention, a lot of the movies feel the same to me so I think most of the jokes would get repetitive.
James Thames Right on! i just bought this film today and it is a master Sequel, I love the film. I wish it was longer though. Hey could you review the series on your channel? I would love to get your reviews and thoughts on the series.
i did lol
Oh. Sorry, what about Nightmare On a Elm Street Series?
EPIC FAIL REVIEW
No it's a movie epic fail not a epic fail review
I don't think it was a reenactment rather just out takes from the first film.
The way Loomis went out in this movie is the way he should've gone out in Halloween 6. Also, at no point in the original Halloween was it ever established that Laurie and Michael are related. The movie clearly showed that Michael only had one older sister - the one which he murdered. I know a lot of people don't like Rob Zombie's Halloween, but at least that movie established that Laurie was born into the Myers family and she really was Michael's sister.
Amen to that.
back to the future 2 sucked on somany levels no heart to the film like the first one
I thought the climax between Loomis and Michaels was just awesome. When he declares, "It's time Michael...", I thought it was one of the great "The jig is up bad-guy" lines in all of horror, right up there with "Smile you sonova..."
kforcer especially when the blood drips from his eyes
THAT WAS THE MOST BADASS MYERS MOMENT
EVERYTIME I SEE IT I GO "THIS GUY IS THE FUCKING DEVIL"
who cares what this prick thinks bad actor@@_SHADOWMAN4EVER
@@gkroll8467 Do you mean Loomis or Michael? Either way, I thought they were pretty good.
Look i respect opinions but ... He called EVERY halloween sequel an epic fail film. This guy is just insane.
that is because all the halloween sequels are crap thats why
+JAMIE LESTER ok ive heard of other people who wish halloween was didn't spawn sequels, or at least didn't spawn any after Halloween II. But i wonder if you truely hate all the sequels for what they are, or if you just knock them all out because you think Halloween is too good and the sequels aren't good enough?
SerialKillerX No i can just see how brilliant the first was and how all the sequels ruined it... There were never meant to be any sequels
JAMIE LESTER so thats why? Becauae they ruined the first one? Do you at all care about the story and thrill of the sequels, or you only care that they ruined the first one?
SerialKillerX No because i like a good film with a good story with good acting. The original was a great suspenseful masterpiece and the sequel was a cheap cash in that even John Carpenter who came up with the idea regrets to this day.. Im sorry but the sequels were just dreadful and pointless... There were never meant to be any sequels...
I actually enjoyed it
But I respect your opinion
Santiago Gambarottaspatola Again, I totally get the appeal behind it and I can understand why some people like it. Thank you so much for watching.
No problem
I don't respect it, fuck nice shit. Come on tell that nigga what you really think. What is wrong with this society?
i'm sure he isn't going to cry if you hurt his feelings.
"They were just in his way"
No, he stalked Laurie and it was made obvious in the first part that Laurie Strode is Michael Myers target and made clear that he had a satanic obsession with the murder of his older sister.
That was the plot of Halloween II, "he murdered one sister and now he wants to murder the other."
The Family Plot started in Halloween 4 where they had him as a family killer, yet in the first two parts he wasn't, all he was, was a sociopath who murdered anyone and wanted to re-do the sister of his murder with Laurie Strode, his younger sister.
Also, Halloween II makes it clear that Michael Myers wants to murder his sister Laurie, but also due to his sick desire wants to murder other people too, even if they don't get in his way(Alice).
Halloween and Halloween II go together well, the mainstream audience was left wanting more at the end of the first one and felt the story wasn't concluded, hence why Halloween II was made only 3 years later, same characters, same look, same cinematography from Dean, and much more logical story(He couldn't have been targeting Laurie for no reason,
If he targeted her because he just wanted to murder, then it's illogical as he could murder anyone else like he already does with everyone else, Halloween I made it clear that Laurie Strode is his main target for some reason he's obsessed with her, and Halloween II answers that in the most logical way.
The man who is still obsessed with the murder of his older sister is obsessed with murdering his younger sister Laurie. he's not a family murderer(That was invented in Halloween 4), he murders anyone and everyone, his ultimate desire is to murder his sister Laurie like he did Judith.
Halloween II is right up there with the original, great characters, great script, great cinematography, some might argue that this is better than the original film.
RV C right on, couldn't have said it better! Halloween I and II Were perfect films and I love watching Halloween II to this day!
But the problem is that in the original there wasnt any indication that Laurie was his sister and lets say that she was intended to be, how did Michael even know that Laurie was his sister? Why would the government put her in a home thats literally around the corner from the Myers house instead of placing her in a different city or state? In part 2 where she was dreaming where she met Michael as a little girl.....why would they have allowed her to even meet Michael if they worked so hard to keep her files secret just so he wouldnt find her. I dont agree that Michael and Laurie are brother and sister, the first film indicated that Michael was just trying to kill some teenagers and the one that was the most pure survived, it was a random act from Michael and thats what made him scary, Laurie was his main target that is true but hes had multiple chances to actually kill her and he didnt, Halloween 2 is a great film but it waters down the original.
Maybe the reason he knew what she looked like is because she was probably agreed to visit him every few years while he was locked away in Smiths Grove County Sanitarium for life. Loomis didn't agree for Laurie to visit him there after 4 years of being sent there, seeing as she was 6 in that dream of hers which made Michael 10 at the point and his evil force kept track of her looks and informed him of her location or something. Evil knows everything.
What I wanna know is how did Michael what night it was when he caused the carnage of escaping Smiths Grove with freeing the patients from their rooms to the outside before Loomis got there? I know I said that Evil knows everything but it doesn't know free will. So unless Michael kept track with a clock and notebook how did he know it was Oct 30st 1978 even it was his 21st Birthday 11 days before it. But though there's no info on when Laurie aka Angel was born accept it was in 1961.
He literally contradicted himself in this review.
8:37 He complains because there was no reason for Michael to kill her.
19:00 He complains that Michael now has a reason to kill. In his exact words "Pulling off that twist in this movie does nothing but negate the message of the first film, that Michael is walking chaos! Laurie Strode and her friends were targets in the same matter that you might be a target of a meteor falling on your house there is NO REASON behind Michaels choice of victims!"
That right there shows me he is intentionally trying to be nitpicky. Im not gonna take a review seriously that contradicts itself. He first hates that he kills for no reason but then later on he complains that he has a reason to kill.
James Champ
Yea i just realized that lol. Full contradiction
Halloween 2 is the reason why I don't like hospitals
same here I'm always terrified of spending the night at the hospital because of this movie
Bro, Halloween II is fucking awesome, don't know what you're smoking...
The brother and sister thing is ridiculous.
"Halloween II is fucking awesome" you say. Have you not watched the entire video? There's problems in this movie like with every other movie you can think of. You can't just ignore the problems and consider this as a masterpiece.
Ash Greninja/Flurriko the atmosphere of the film is great & I consider it a very good film from start to finish. Just my opinion.
@@Ur2ez4me81 And you decide to overlook the problems in this movie? Not every movie is perfect, you know
Why u hate the fact Halloween franchise has turned into a Slasher series, when u had no problem with that in Nightmare on Elm Street nor Friday the 13th, I mean come on Adam, I'm pretty sure if Michael Myers wouldn't become a more famous icon if he didn't spawn 31 Sequels, just sayin
I dubbed 1 and 2 together in the beginning of 2 where you can't tell it ever changes movies. It's like one 3 hour movie that way. No need to compare the differences when it's one long movie the second one just finishes the night and the whole story.
I usually like your reviews, but this is honestly one of your weakest. Most of your gripes with Halloween 2 really just felt like you were nitpicking (especially with the opening reenactment). As for the twist, I personally thought that Laurie being Michael's sister made sense when placed into context with the first film and even made Michael a more interesting killer. Why is this monstrous man so obsessed with eliminating his sisters? The twist served to give Michael a very vague motive while still clarifying that he is indeed a walking force of evil and chaos.
+Masked Guy Great comment. I agree with you completely. This reviewer is an absolute shithead.
111highgh
I actually think Adam is a very good reviewer, but this was one of his worst. As I previously explained, most of his gripes really just felt like petty nitpicking. Is Halloween 2 perfect? Of course not, but his primary reason for disliking it seems to stem from the plot twist with Laurie being Michael's sister. While I can understand if he didn't care for it, condemning the entire film for it seems a little too harsh. Regardless, I do recommend checking out his reviews for Halloween 4, 5, 6 and Resurrection; they're actually pretty solid reviews.
+Masked Guy Every time I watch Halloween II, I always think, why was Ben Tramer not the love interest in this movie? Why was it Jimmy Lloyd? Come on. Who gives two flying shits? I also thought it was really stupid for him to complain about how making Laurie Strode the sister of Michael Myers, turned this movie into a soap opera, but than he goes on to complain about who should have been the love interest for Laurie in the film!! Is this a serious review? I'm asking you that? And calling the Jimmy Lloyd character a creep. Seriously? This, coming from a guy who has probably never had a date in his life. Heaven forbid a guy shows a liking and an interest in a girl and talks to her. That makes him a creep? I wonder what super-reviewer over here thinks of actual creeps? According to this guy, Jimmy Lloyd is as bad as Michael Myers himself. And the part about how the kills in this movie serve no purpose. Really? Saying something like that about a slasher movie is like saying that the sex scenes in porno movies serve no purpose. It's utter rubbish. Also, saying that Halloween is not a slasher movie is utter nonsense. Granted, in 1978, the sub-genre that would become known as the slasher movie did not exist, and even the term slasher movie didn't exist, and would not be coined until, roughly, the early eighties, 37 years later, Halloween is a slasher movie. Maybe it would have been tough to call it a slasher movie in '78, but you certainly could today. This guy saying that Halloween is not a slasher movie, basically gives him another excuse to bash the worthy sequel, Halloween II. He also complained about other nonsense, like Jamie Lee Curtis' hilariously bad wig. You mean to tell me, between the years of 1978 and 1981, Jamie Lee Curtis got a haircut!! The madness!! This "reviewer" should have his youtube license revoked on the grounds of complete and utter stupidity. This, so called review, was an epic fail.
111highgh
I agree with most of the points you made, but I still think you're being too harsh towards Adam. Don't completely write him off because you disagreed with one of his reviews.
+Masked Guy There is a guy on youtube called Oliver Harper, who does some nice reviews of movies. For his retrospective/review of Halloween II, one of his criticisms is that the movie is just not scary. He says, that after watching the first Halloween, he gets an unsettling feeling, that he doesn't get with Halloween II. He goes on to say that, the movie is just not scary, and that is one of its main flaws. Now, I don't particularly agree with Oliver Harper on that. I have always found Halloween II to provide me with a good fright, granted, not like the original, but it does provide me with a good scare. Although, I don't agree with what Oliver Harper said, that is a proper critique of the film. That is something that I can understand and respect. He never thought the movie was all that scary, fine. Nitpicky bullshit is something I have no patience for. Nothing is perfect. Not movies, not anything. Who cares.
Jimmy knew Laurie. Rememeber when she's being transported and Buds like "do you know this broad?" In which Jimmy responds "Yea, her name is Laurie Strode."
If it weren't for the sequels, we wouldn't have gotten Ellie Cornell and Danielle Harris.
the balcony scene is different too
Michael killed Annie, Bob & Lynda strategically to lure Laurie into the house & he killed off the hospital staff so it would be easier to kill Laurie without being alerted obviously.
That sounds like trash plotting logic.
The whole concept of HALLOWEEN 2 was terrific. Picking up where the first one left off on the same night.
Good observations, but when you're watching this for the first time, you aren't seeing flaws. You're having a great time being scared and listening to the awesome music.
I used to love Halloween II to death when I was 16-17. Now I almost despise it. I agree with this review.
Can't believe I was in my late 20s when I saw this during its 1st run. Now I'm an old man.
Some minor continuity errors, is all. It was a very satisfying sequel. And it delivers on the one metric each horror movie needs to deliver on; it was a good scare.
We're you smoking weed before you started recording? H2 is a true film/sequel to Halloween because we get some info on why Michael is after Laurie.
Jamie's dialogue in the beginning was an outtake not used in the original Halloween. That's why she says extra wording.
no. that was filmed for this film, because that part of the scene adds the 7th shot (out of a 6 shooter).
no wonder its a different line reading
That's what I was wondering@Blue Skeptic
Actually you sort of have your history wrong on how Halloween 2 came about. What I am posting is from the making of Documentary called "The Nightmare Isn’t Over! - The Making of “Halloween II” on the Scream Factory blu-ray for Haloween II from an interview with Irwin Yablans, producer of Halloween. Yablans wanted to make Halloween II after 1 was a hit. He talked to Carpenter about it, and Carpenter wanted to make The Fog as his next film. So Yablan's said "Okay we are going to the Cannes film festival next week, I will get the money for The Fog and we make that first, and after that I want you to commit to Halloween II as the next film. Carpenter said yes and signed a contract. One the flight to Cannes, Yablans introduced Carpener to Bob Rehme (President of Avco Embassy) who was also on the plane. They went to Caans and Yablans started raising money. They got back from Cannes and a week later Yablans opened Variety to see an article announcing Carpenter signed a 2 picture deal with Bob Rehme and Avco Embassy and the first picture was The Fog. Yablans took both Avco and Carpenter to court and the case was decided in settlement. He let The Fog go to Avco in exchange for locking Carpenter in an iron clad agreement now enforceable with a court order to make Halloween II after Carpenter finished production on the second picture for Avco Escape from New York was completed. Carpenter did not want to do it but he was now locked in and had no choice. So he got drunk every night on Michelob and wrote the script shitfaced. Laurie becoming Michaels brother was in Carpenter's own words, because he was drunk, had no clue what to do at one point in the script knowing he had to explain why Michael was going after her. He said in an interview (paraphrasing from memory of the interview) "I was stuck and drunk and it was 2 in the morning and I had to have the script done (I think in 2 more days) which was coming up. I actually started tying it before I thought about it and while I was typing it could not believe I was typing it. I typed "that Strode girl. That's Michael Myers sister" He said he stopped typing, stared at it for a few minutes and then said "I don't care" and completed the script. He now regrets getting drunk and felt he could have made a much better movie had he not been so pissed about having to do it. Carpenter freely admits that Michelob wrote most of Halloween II. So initially it was supposed to be in production before Friday the 13th was released.
right on the money tell this dumb ass review that maybe hell learn something but I doubt it
youve done your home work young skywalker
Sounds like Carpenter is a major douchebag. No wonder work dried up for him later.
Believe it or not, I liked this movie better than the original; though it might have to do with me watching this one first years ago when I was about 12 because the rental store did not have the first one and there was no other good horror movies to rent.
When I finally got around to watching the first one, I personally found it kinda boring and predictable with Michael, Laurie and Loomis being the only characters I liked. But I still did appreciate it for all the reasons you listed in the video.
I liked the sequel because I liked the setting of the hospital which was more claustrophobic as opposed to a neighbourhood, and there was a certain irony that a place of healing and health became a place of danger and death. Plus, it tapped into the fears quite a number of people have about going to a hospital.
For me, the twist about Laurie being Michael's sister, made him more sinister and evil rather than being just totally at random. It reminded me of killers who we profiled in my Forensic Psychology class who actually brutally murdered their own siblings or a close blood relative. Though I do believe it could have been executed a lot better because in here it does come right out of nowhere.
The deaths of the hospital staff, I would not say, are entirely purposeless. The way I always looked at their deaths and the deaths of all of Laurie's friends in the previous movie as being prime examples of a combination of what TV Tropes calls "For the Evulz" and "Dangerously Genre Savvy". They have two entries on Michael Myers in the "Films - Live Action" section:
tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ForTheEvulz
tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DangerouslyGenreSavvy
Michael picked off Laurie's friends in the neighbourhood and the hospital staff for two reasons: (1) to freak Laurie out and make her more vulnerable, since being The Boogeyman also entails instilling fear into victims before striking and what better way to do that than to pile up the bodies and leave them where they can be discovered by your target. And (2) to get rid of anyone who could stop him. If Michael just went straight for Laurie, she could've screamed or done something to attract attention or he could've been noticed and all would've ganged up on him to help her, so he killed them one by one to get Laurie alone.
But this all is just my take on it and it might all be a case of what TV Tropes calls "Your Mileage May Vary". I do see many of your criticisms as valid and I do respect your opinions on the film.
Well you're not alone. I like Halloween II better than the original too. I like the original (1978) the second best. What's your favorite scene in Halloween II? My favorite scene is when Bud and Karen get into the whirlpool bath for a skinny-dip.
Skinny-Dipping Steve
My favourite scene would probably have to be when Michael is chasing Laurie through the hospital and the basement after having just murdered the nurse by stabbing her in the back and lifting her up for Laurie to see.
@@bjnboy Are you serious?
dont forget pameal susan shop wow even better body than pj
*Here's what was wrong with Halloween II:*
*1. The opening scene of the film was not consistent with the final scene of the previous Halloween. Loomis shoots Michael out of the bedroom window of the Doyle house and then looks down from the balcony to see Michael has disappeared. The look on his face says, as John Carpenter put it, "I knew this would happen." But Halloween II begins with Loomis shooting Michael and then rushing downstairs to the front yard with a look on his face that says, "I can't believe he's gone!" This is a glaring error that assumes that the audience is stupid and doesn't remember how the first film ended. Also, the position of the balcony in the first movie is different from the second film. In the first movie, the inside of the master bedroom shows the balcony window facing the left side of the house, yet Halloween II depicts it as facing the front of the house. And don't get me started on the number of gunshots Loomis fired. In the first film it was six, but Halloween II showed Loomis firing seven shots from a six-shot 357. magnum revolver. The guys in the sound editing room totally screwed up.*
*2. The only time that the camera showed the audience Michael's point of view in the first movie was in the opening sequence when a six-year-old Michael kills his sister, Judith. For the rest of the film, the camera is situated adjacent to Michael, with Michael always just out of frame or slightly in frame. This makes the audience, as John Carpenter put it, helpless passengers forced to follow Michael and watch him stalk and kill his victims, as if the audience is handcuffed to him. Halloween II, however, often shows POV shots of Michael as he stalks his victims, which is inconsistent with the first film where the camera never once shows the audience the view through the eyes of "The Shape."*
*3. Having the majority of the action take place at the hospital was a mistake. Having Laurie Strode drugged and barely coherent for most of the movie gave Jamie Lee Curtis very little to do other than play the helpless victim. The best scenes in Halloween II are the ones that take place in the darkened streets of Haddonfield, just as in the first movie. But the scenes in the hospital lack the dark foreboding that the first film had, where Michael could be lurking behind every tree or around every corner, and Halloween II did not make as effective use of the town's atmosphere as the first film did. Haddonfield Memorial Hospital was a bland, sterile environment that lacked the "house-of-horrors" element that the Wallace and Doyle houses had in the first film. Not to mention that Haddonfield Memorial Hospital seems like the worst-run hospital in history. On Halloween night, one of the busiest nights of the year in terms of potential accidents stemming from pranks and other trick-or-treating incidents, we're supposed to believe that this hospital's third watch is staffed with only four nurses, two paramedics, one incompetent security guard, and one drunk doctor? Seriously? Where's the rest of the staff? And where are all the patients, for that matter?*
*Also, Laurie Strode's injuries in Halloween II are inconsistent with her injuries in the first film. In Halloween, Laurie turns suddenly just as Michael brings down the knife and cuts into her arm. Laurie falls backwards over the railing to the bottom of the staircase and injures her foot, but is seen getting up and easily able to run to the kitchen and escape through the back door. Her arm is bleeding and she's shown to be limping, but she's still able to stagger at a pretty fast pace across the street to the Doyle house. The cut to her arm is obviously superficial, as she's shown to be lucid and conscious, and not passing out from a loss of blood. Yet in Halloween II, her injuries are described as "stab wound, left anterior chest, possibly penetrating." This is simply not the case, as such an injury would've caused a lot more blood loss, and is also inconsistent with the location of where Michael's knife made contact with Laurie in the first movie, which was along the side of her arm. Her sleeve is plainly shown to have been ripped open, not the front of her shirt. Also, Halloween II shows Laurie has having "cracked a bone" in her ankle. This is also impossible, because if any of the tarsal bones in Laurie's foot had been fractured she could simply not have moved as fast as she did in the first movie. She'd barely be able to put weight on her foot. The first film showed the injury to her foot as being more consistent with a sprained ankle, where the swelling would cause severe pain, but she'd still be able to walk and be somewhat mobile.*
*4. The sequel really did not give much of an explanation as to why Michael was doing what he did. The Halloween novelization by Curtis Richards gave a quite fascinating explanation that Michael had been possessed by an evil spirit that was the result of an old Celtic curse created by the Druids in ancient Ireland on the night of Samhain, the Druid harvest festival that would eventually become Halloween. The sequel could've delved more deeply into the old myths and legends of Halloween, and how its Druid origins could have something to do with what is driving Michael Myers. The reason that he's called "The Shape" is because it's implied that Michael is not the one in control of his own actions. When Laurie pulls off his mask at the end of the first movie, he has the look of a young man in a trance, as if he's asleep and something else is controlling him. This other force is none other than "the Boogeyman."*
*5. Not having Nick Castle return as Michael Myers, a.k.a. "The Shape," really affected the overall feel of the movie. Stuntman Dick Warlock, who was Kurt Russell's stunt double in John Carpenter's Escape From New York, stepped in as Michael, but he lacked the same presence that Castle had. Castle's graceful, effortless, inimitable "gliding walk" defined Michael's persona as much as the painted William Shatner mask did, and Warlock simply could not replicate Castle's performance, often appearing stiff and robotic.*
*6. Making Laurie Strode Michael Myers' sister was a huge mistake on the part of John Carpenter and Debra Hill. Not only does it contradict Michael's behavior in the first film, it also lacks logic. You cannot just tack on a plotline in a sequel that doesn't have a basis in the original film. In the original film, Laurie Strode was NOT Michael's sister. Michael Myers killed his older sister Judith in 1963 when he was six years old. Michael breaks out of Smith's Grove Sanitarium in 1978, which puts his age at twenty one. Laurie Strode is shows to be between sixteen and seventeen years of age in 1978, which would mean she had to have already been born in 1963. Yet there's no evidence of any infant in the Myers home in the first film. Judith's boyfriend asks her if they are alone, and she mentions that "Michael is around somewhere." No mention is made of any younger sibling. And would Mr. and Mrs. Myers really leave an infant in the care of their teenage daughter while she was spending time with her boyfriend? And if Laurie was Michael's younger sister there's no way that Dr. Loomis could not have known about her, as Laurie would have to have been born shortly before Michael killed Judith.*
*Also, if Michael broke out of Smith's Grove and returned to Haddonfield just to kill his "other sister," then why didn't he kill her earlier in the film? He had plenty of chances to kill Laurie Strode, but instead he spends most of the first half of the night stalking Annie at the Wallace house. He never once goes near the Doyle house where Laurie is babysitting Tommy Doyle. Then, after killing Annie, Michael remains at the Wallace house and awaits Linda and her boyfriend, Bob. After killing them both, Michael re-enacts the night he murdered his sister by placing Annie's body on the bed in the master bedroom with Judith's headstone placed above Annie's head against the headboard. Michael does not go after Laurie until she goes over to the Wallace house, and it isn't until then that she becomes his prey. It just makes no sense to have Laurie be Michael's sister because if that were the case then he wouldn't have wasted his time with Annie and Linda and would've just stalked the Doyle house where Laurie was. John Carpenter said that the actual reason that Michael was interested in Laurie in the original film was because she was a "watcher," a voyeur, like Michael was, and she fascinated him. Laurie was not like the other girls; she was quiet and introspective, always observing her surroundings. That made her similar to Michael in many ways, which is what made him interested in her, and that's what the sequel should've stuck with. Making Laurie Michael's sister was unnecessary and illogical.*
excellent points but if he killed halfway through it would have been a very short film glad you read the first book, the shape term came from carpenter favorite film the thing listen closly when lindsey is watching it you hear the voice on the tv spread out you guys were gonna find out the shape of this thing dont tell me thats a coincidence carpenter admits he was drunk when he came up with the brother sister thing, he should have just assumed lauire went to the hospital and then start killing everbody to pad the movie out bad direction by rosethal it shows hiss fist film and he did not get better years later with part 8 warlock should have closed his eyes to give the appearance that they were shot out how hard its that GKroll1963@gmail.com
When did John carpenter say that ?
What a finicky review. I'm so glad I can pres that 'suspend disbelief' button in my head rather than looking for continuity errors and other things to nitpick over. Halloween 2 is great.
@Tom Ffrench Is the re-filmed ending all you care about?
@Tom Ffrench you’re really replying to EVERYONE who thinks different from you, I feel bad for ya man🤦🏻♂️
The way I see it= If you just want Halloween (1978), then you have it and pretend all the others don't exist. If you just want Halloween 1+2, then you have them and pretend the others don't exist. If you want just Halloween 1,2,4,5 and 6, then do the same. Same thing if you just want Halloween 1,2, H20, Resurrection. Same thing with Rob Zombies Halloween series and same thing with Halloween 1 and 2018. Let's also not forget about Halloween 3 which has nothing to do with Michael Myers. The Halloween franchise is so convoluted with so many timelines (dimensions) that any Halloween fanboy would have many types of Halloween stories to enjoy. At first, I didn't like how Halloween evolved. But recently I realized it's probably best for the fans since the fanbase is so mixed.
Dude, his boiler suit wasn't stolen by a trucker in the original Halloween. You got that from the Rob Zombie reboot.
......yes it was
the biggest flaw u gave this movie was it gave michael a purpose a motive. But you also get mad that his killings have no purpose
Well John Carpenter has gone on record as saying he was drunk when he wrote this script.
He also didn't want michael and laurie to be related to each other in this film either
@@scottwarnick5126 : But he's the one who wrote that relationship into the story.
@@mel2000 he was drunk as shit when he wrote the script for Halloween 2 and he was against the idea for them to be brother and sister
@@scottwarnick5126 : Sounds like he needs to take responsibility for the result instead of making excuses.
@@mel2000 what responsibility. It wasn't even his idea to have them related in the first place.
You complain that the sister plot takes away from him being a killer that kills whoever at random and then when he does randomly kill people in this movie you complain because its random?! Literally arguing in circles
Yea he exposed himself basically nitpicking for nothing
I don’t see what’s so complicated about thinking the kills are random and stupid, when that’s the movies fault?
In the first movie he killed at random so it was fine, but according to this movie he isn’t killing at random. In this movie he’s after Laurie. So now that they’ve established that, killing at random is stupid. Hardly arguing in a circle, the writers of the films contradicted themselves lmao
Yes, because by this movie's rules he shouldn't kill random people. This is pretty simple criticism.
fun fact, there were 2 endings filmed for Halloween 1978, one where Loomis is surprised to see Michael gone, and one where Loomis isn't even surprised that he's gone, Loomis not being surprised was Donald Pleasence's idea.
I grew up with Halloween 2. I was only seven when this movie came out and grown to love it. It was dark with a lot of atmosphere. The mask in this was the coolest looking in the series.
My biggest bitch about Halloween 2 is the lack of people in that hospital. I mean, there's a scene where we see two nurses talking in front of the window to a maternity ward and there are babies present in that room. So naturally that must mean there are a few new moms and dads somewhere in that hospital. And what about visiting relatives? Oh and every hospital on the face of this planet has a few elderly patients who seem to live there. So where were they and why didn't any of them cross paths with Michael Myers? They must've been out there wandering around in that poorly lit hospital parking lot - you know, the kind that no hospital would ever have.
And then there's that line about the hospital being understaffed because it was Halloween night... Yeah, I'm calling 'bullshit' on that one! When you are employed full time in the medical field, you're either on-call or working a series of 12 hour shifts. So that hospital should have had a full staff that night. Plus, a place that big should have had more than one security guard as well as a janitor or two.
Okay, now back to those babies... We get to watch Loomis blow up an entire wing of the hospital to kill the Shape. By doing so, this sends a thick cloud of smoke into the rest of the hospital. Yeah, that's not good for those newborns and their unseen mothers and fathers and visiting family members. Of course, the real kicker was watching the TV news crew film Laurie being helped into the ambulance the next morning. Why wasn't anything said about those babies?
Horrible review. Halloween 2 is easily the best sequel in the franchise.
Dude it's his opinion and if you like it that's fine that's your opinion but don't judge other people or shun them for having different opinions. I don't do that neither should you
That's not saying much.
i agree with him 100% i noticed most of these mistakes myself. and besides i like it and he was nitpicking but thats what reviewers do
What are you even talking about?
The only thing what I hate on Halloween 2 (1981) was the sibling thing. It's ridiculous! John was forced to do Halloween 2 (1981) because people wanted to know why Michael was behind Laurie. I know, people will hate me...
I feel this is one of the best sequels ever! I feel like your nitpicking. But to each his own.
Y’all notice Ben framer fell on the car and then the next scene he was standing up ?😂
"Ben Framer"
You give a lot of good points, but this is still probably the only sequel in the franchises that stays true enough to the original,Halloween II is to me one of my personal favourites, it comes close to the original TO ME, the music is amazing in this one and just surpasses the original (only just).
You literally contradicted yourself in this review.
8:37 You complain because there was no reason for Michael to kill her.
19:30 You complain that Michael now has a reason to kill. In your exact words "Pulling off that twist in this movie does nothing but negate the message of the first film, that Michael is walking chaos! Laurie Strode and her friends were targets in the same matter that you might be a target of a meteor falling on your house there is NO REASON behind Michaels choice of victims!"
That right there shows me you are intentionally trying to be nitpicky. Im not gonna take a review seriously that contradicts itself. You first hate that he kills for no reason but then later on you complain that he has a reason to kill.
Are u serious?
That is a contradiction if you ignore what’s he’s actually saying
…
Lol tiny brain
Lol the deputy who hit Ben framer is Dick Warlock. The guy who played Michael!
I felt that Halloween instead of being a franchise should have been a trilogy. Halloween (1978), Halloween II (1981) and Halloween H20 (1998). In fact I already only recognize 2 and H20.
I enjoy the second one immensely. ..it's not going to touch the first one...but not many movies can touch the first one. I almost always watch the first two back to back.
Dude you're tripping this movie was awesome one of the best sequals I've ever seen, John carpenter was part of it to, so how can you say it was a fail? Now Rob zombies Halloween movies were a fail and complete garbage lol but not this movie it was very well made especially how they continued it from the first movie that was good. I don't know why people slander this movie obviously no good taste
this reviewer needs an enema (another hilarious reference to gotham city batman 89)
I don't see how Michael killing his sister is supposed to be jumping the shark.
I mean he seemed to be targeting Laurie the whole time even wanting follow mainly her.
But what convinced me that her being his sister wasn't a bad twist was the fact he took Judith's grave and placed it in the bedroom.
I always assumed that he wanted to target her for a specific reason. So her being the brother of Michael wasn't jumping the shark.
The guy doing this review thinks he is a genius yelling like a moron picking apart a good movie. Everyone has a right to their opinion, but this guy is nitpicking at every little part. Hindsight is always 20/20. The reality is Halloween I & II were great, Halloween 4 was above average, Halloween 5 was okay, the rest all sucked. It was a great idea to start this movie where the last one left off. That is not common in film making and makes it more realistic drawing in the audience. Rarely, if ever, are sequels going to be as good as the first so the expectations should not be that. But they really did a solid job making this movie into a classic. Even though I like the piano version in part 1, the music was very creepy/scary in part 2 and an excellent upgrade. The dark scary hospital in the early morning hours was brilliant. The scare scenes were good. There was more gore in this movie, but it didn't ruin it. Each kill was creative. Revealing that Jaime Lee Curtis was Myer's sister gave the plot more meaning, rather than Myers just targeting random babysitters. Halloween 2 had its flaws and may not have been as good as the first one, but it was a solid movie and worthy sequel. If they would have stopped the series here I would have been happy. But moneymaking is the objective.
I watch a lot of these movie critiques for a laugh and honestly I get a lot of laughs from them, but this is the 1st one that seems to be literally the words out of my mouth! I must've watched 2 at lest 20 times and every time me and my dad (who thinks this is the best one of all) cannot for the life of me figure out why he kills the 1st girl! And also good catch on the amount of gunshots I noticed that too one time and rewound it even bc I was like NO way they actually messed that up! GOOD SERIES I LIKE THESE A LOT!
@Doctor Octagon r u serious?
need less victim add to body count
Sorry adam but Halloween (1978) is a Slasher film but with more horror, atmosphere, suspense, and tension than blood and gore, Black Christmas (1974) and Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) are perfect examples of this, so chill.
13:33 Adam that was a glaring flaw with the original as well
This guy is out of his mind. Halloween 2 was great. It's like saying part 1 was amazing, but it started sucking when she went to the hospital.
OK Adam I guess i'm going to have to explain to to you why this film is not only awesome but it has a purpose! Number 1 I agree making Laurie Michael's sister was a questionable move but I think in the end it worked out! Number 2 the reason Michael didn't kill Laurie right away is the original is because he is smart! He wanted to isolate Laurie to maximize the chance of killing her, Michael had a better chance of killing her in a house she's probably never been in and not only was the house dark but the shock of seeing her friends dead would throw her off her game! Number 3 the deaths in the sequel actually have a purpose which is the same as in the original to isolate Laurie! First Michael kills the phone lines so no one can call for help than kills the security guard and than knocks the power out (only shown in the TV version) but the hospital is suddenly darker running on emergency lights making it more difficult to see! Michael needed to kill the hospital staff to make it easier to get near Laurie and that's the purpose of i'll the hospital staffs deaths! If Michael didn't kill the phone lines and mess with the power and not kill everyone and just try and go straight at Laurie's room there's a very high chance Michael would have been scene and it would have set off alarm bells in the hospital and the hospital staff would have evacuated Laurie and called the cops and they would have shown up and stopped Michael! I agree the sequels not perfect but I think it's a pretty dame good sequel! You should review the TV version of Halloween 2 maybe that will change your opinion abet!
It's is his opinion relax damn
I know my opinion was professional! I didn't insult him in anyway or form, I just gave my opinion! I really like his video's!
There is a new invention out now. It's called a paragraph
This was the best sequel out of all the sequels of that era. "Elm St 2" & "F13th Part 2" were so-so but "Halloween II" is fantastic
I think Halloween 2 is really good! No hate
A lot of what you said I can agree with. But the sibling twist in H2 didn't make the deaths in the original pointless. Laurie was his target anyway. Exactly why is only speculation, personally I think her going to the house was what fixated him with her. The deaths of Bob, Annie and Lynda were just garnish, done to set the scene and terrorise Laurie. He didn't just want to kill her, he was messing with her psychologically first
Your opinion is respected I personally love Halloween 2 I think it’s a great sequel to the original Halloween
But when he ranked the movies a few years later, he put this movie at number 4.
@@ashgreninja-flurriko2173 ok
I know this is from 8 years ago but it’s worth pointing out the criticism of the opening now matching up with the original was due to the fact the sequel was made with a different studio making it so they had to recreate the footage instead of getting it from the first movie (similar to Evil Dead II) but in Adam’s defence since both movies shared the same writers some inconsistencies should’ve been avoided when coming out with the sequel
In the original, Michael falls off the backyard balcony while Halloween 2 shows Michael falling off the front yard balcony. That's where the grass came from. It was from 2 different locations.
With the release of the 2018 film, one could look at the opening of this film as an alternate take to establish this as a different universe/timeline.
Really enjoying the content on the channel, but dude sounds dangerously similar to the nostalgia critic
While I won't say everything this movie does is defendable, I will at least give it props for taking place directly after the first film. It's not all that often that we get to see the direct aftermath of a serial killing in a slasher film, and seeing how people react to fresh tragedy is certainly an idea I wish we'd see more, *especially* in horror films/sequels.
actually from the ben tramor scene, it actually isn't a boiler suit. it was mostly a shirt with a collar and jeans. i had to replay the scene before he the car hit him to see if it really was a boiler suit or not
11:14 Even though I love this movie, I hated that scene too.
Seriously in, the first few minutes this guy says "did we really need a sequel" its Hollywood. Of course they are going to take this further. The fact that this guy's poking holes in the franchise is ridiculous. It's fictional idiot. It captivated the Audience, case closed.
I know right! I’m afraid at the end of the day, the film industry is just that, an industry. It’s an incredible art form as well, but in the eyes of the executives it’s a money printer. This review was nitpicky as all hell.
That is a weak justification. Plenty of other sequels prove their existence, and Halloween doesn't. If the answer is yes, we did need a sequel, the sequel succeeded.
The magic bullet trope is strong here. However, even awesome movies have it too. True Romance had the same exact scenario (7th bullet).
A 2nd gunman?
I know one thing, I can't watch Halloween without watching this one right behind it.
When it comes to reviewing movies I'm always down for hearing other peoples thoughts and opinions and especially when it comes to mixed reviewed movies like Halloween II, Some people love the movie and other people hate it or just seem to find it in the middle. I personally always loved Halloween II but like I said I enjoy hearing other peoples thoughts on the film however this review kind of annoyed me and its not because I'm a fan of the movie its rather because of how unoriginal the reviewer is, I'm not trying to be mean honestly, I know how difficult it can be trying to bring some freshness to the table as a youtube film critic but this review was like watching a Nostalgia Critic impersonator, everything from his voice, jokes, rants and just simply how he reviewed the movie was practically identical to the way the Nostalgia Critic reviews movies, again I'm not trying to be mean but I just think youtube reviewers should try have their own personality and not try to borrow so heavily from others.
11:40 falls down onto hood of police car. 11:47 pinned up against the van.
Literally the only problem I have with this movie is the fact that they didn't keep the ending from the first installment as the opening for the second installment.
What happened to your Halloween H20 review?
The beginning where Laurie tells the kids to get the police is not a reactment....It’s an outtake from the original film...You can tell as Jamie is not wearing that dodgy wig.
This is fucking hilarious, you becoming the "person who is looking out for movie mistakes" the guy that actually does movie mistakes program could've done this
This guy is pretty obnoxious
I dont know man. You made some good points like the obvious intro being different than the ending of part 1 or the fact that Ben Treymor didnt have to die so abruptly and he SHOULD HAVE been the guy looking after Laurie in the Hospital instead. Or when you say Dr. Loomis is baddass in every installment, I totally agree. But with the score, inventive kills, and some twists like the brother and sister thing, Halloween to me became that much more interesting. More of the night he came home. Yes. I really dig it. It should have stopped there. Halloween 3 was pretty fuckin eerie too. Halloween 4 was awesome but they just didnt get Michael down right. The mask was stupid, and George just didnt have that creepy walk. I think things went to shit from then on. Halloween 1, 2 & 3 should have been it.
In the TV version Michael doesn't kill Alice :) And is it just me or wasn't the TV version of Halloween 2 the only version that stations like USA and the main movie stations like HBO ever showed until like the late 90's?? I NEVER SAW this version of Halloween 2 EVER when i was a kid until the late 90's
"Halloween" by John Carpenter is a masterpiece on its' own. I loved this review and the way it points out the various inconsistencies of H2. The Jack Palance reference from BATMAn was funny! I did like Halloween II and these "flaws" I can overlook and just enjoy this good horror flick.....
Not to mention the fact that the porch Michael fell from was a completely different porch
Really good video. Thanks for taking the time to put it up
My order:
1. Halloween II (1981)
2. Halloween
3. Halloween 7
4. Halloween 4
5. Halloween 3
6. Halloween 8
7. Halloween Rob
8. Halloween 5
9. Halloween 6
10.Halloween II Rob
Aside from the needless bitch about the recreated beginning, you are spot on. The film is pointless, especially how it takes Michael like 45 mins to find Laurie in a tiny hospital which doesn't seem to have staff or any other patients.
I personally love this Halloween but a lot of good points I never really picked up on. I think since I saw H2 before the original I never really noticed that the kills in H1 were so random and Laurie wasn't being targeted as his sister.
i was wrong but you still didnt mention was a hudge asset pamela susan shoop was to the film by the way is this not done on purpose the nurses name is marion chambers do you think this is a play on maryln chambers the por star its too close to be just a throw away gag and she should have had her hair tied back like in the last one it is still the same night you know
Came for the movie
Stayed for Metallica
Came back for the reviewer
This is a good sequel but the original is a true masterpiece which I always like to view as a stand alone film.
Something people forget, this was a hospital!! That fire could'v killed the babies, old people over night, janitor etc. They acted like the cast were the only people in the hospital
cool review. agree with a lot, but sorry, love H2, grew up with it. but how can you say 4 is better than this. yes. this one had lots of flaws but 4 didn't feel like a Halloween film like this one did.. But your reviews are awesome..
In the original, Michael wasn't shot off of the front balcony as in the reenactment in the beginning of the film.
Aside from the altered dialog, It always bugs the hell out of me when I see it.
At the end of part 1 he fell off the balcony and landed in the backyard, in part 2 he falls off the balcony onto the front yard, that's why the grass is different
and bad continuity
In the original film, it stated how Ben Tramer was out drinking with friends, during the scene where Laurie was pleading to Annie to call Ben and tell him that she made the whole thing up, thus making that Jimmy should be Ben part of the review highly unlikely.
Could have changed it to Ben was at work
Seems unlikely a high school student would have a job as an emt 🚑
halloween 2 was even better than the original in my opinion
@The Wolf is Awesome did you think Halloween 2018 was better than Halloween 2 ?
Okay the whole Ben Tramer rant was a good point.
I wonder why they even reshot some of the scenes when they could’ve just reused the old footage, I loved that wide shot of Michael falling off of the balcony.
It's a horror flick . The opening scene was not reshot, as she has a wig on. It's was another take of her telling Tommy and Lyndsey aka Kim the mega wealthy REAL Housewive of BEVERLY Hills
The only thing I didn't like about H2 was the music, the synthesizer version of the theme...
The only problem i had with this movie is the mither and the boy that came to the hospital. I don't understand why that scene was needed