Halloween II - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

Halloween II Reviews

Page 1 of 139
Super Reviewer
October 31, 2011
A terrible, useless sequel that invests in mindless gore instead of creating any real tension, and it is ridiculous (and disappointing) how it turns Michael Myers into an indestructible monster and leaves the rest of the cast as mere bodies for slaughter.
Super Reviewer
November 2, 2012
Contrary to the critics, I actually quite liked this. No it wasn't as good or well done as the first, however it could have been a lot worse. There was still tension and unpredictability, which is good enough for a sequel.
Super Reviewer
½ August 6, 2011
I love the Halloween films, but my words can't save a failure movie. I think this movie in particular was pretty funny since NO ONE else seemed to be in the hospital as the mayhem was going on! What kind of realism is that?
Super Reviewer
½ October 19, 2011
Of course, 'Halloween' is the forefather of the 70's and 80's slasher genre only because of its inexplicable popularity. To me, it's dull, reductive and hardly worthy of being nominated as innovative (the stalking POV was implemented before and in a superlative manner in the predated masterpiece 'Black Christmas'). The posthaste sequel is immeasurably more claustrophobic mostly due to the hospital environment with its narrow, alabaster hallways and spotless surfaces. Pleasance is more inexorable and obsessive as Loomis who inadvertently causes the death of a trick-or-treater and doesn't hesitate at his task to vanquish Michael once and for all. His monologue about Michael being the "ideal patient" expands on the notion that Michael is completely alien to soulfulness. Unfortunately, the follow-up is still a plodding, slothful mess of gratuitous nudity from a female nurse and wrongheaded creativity in the murders (Michael shouldn't be premeditated in the various ways to kill people via scolding water, scalpels, etc.). The denouement nicely ramps the consternation as Michael thoughtlessly collides through a glass door and Loomis sacrifices himself with flammable oxygen tanks to finally eradicate Michael. Otherwise, this is an altogether superfluous extension of the mythology, but it contains instances of unnerving tension.
TheDudeLebowski65
Super Reviewer
June 8, 2010
As a diehard fan of the first one, Halloween II builds new tense moments and offers a new twist on this tale. After the events of the first film, Laurie Strode is still being hunted down by her homicidal brother. The film has effective, creepy moments and when something happens on screen, you're sure to get a few jolts here and there. The film is more violent than the first film, and there's more gore to be introduced in this film, unlike John Carpenter's horror classic that relied on suspense and atmosphere instead of gore. There are still the traditional elements which made the first one such a blast to watch, but considering that the first is such a classic, and is my personal favorite; Halloween II isn't flawless. There are some elements that could have been improved on, but that's the case with every film. Director Rick Rosenthal (who would go on to helm many sequels) crafts a film that's a worthy follow-up to the first film. I felt that the film was well done, and Jamie Lee Curtis was absolutely wonderful in this installment. As a fan of the first, I very much enjoyed this second film. The suspense and creepy atmosphere remain, but there's of course a lot more violence this time around, but this is still one chilling, effective horror film nonetheless. As the first sequel to Carpenter's classic, Halloween II is of course one of the best follow-up films.
blkbomb
Super Reviewer
½ September 11, 2011
Laurie Strode: Why won't he die? 

"More Of The Night He Came Home"

Halloween 2, the first of many sequels of the horror classic. I really like this sequel. It has a really good and cool idea to follow up with another movie that occurs the same night of the first. I'm so used to sequels that start with a timecard that says 5 years later or something like that. This one doesn't jump into the future. It continues the same story and shows the after effects of the first movie. Michael wasn't done that night.

Although Carpenter did hand the directing over to Rick Rosenthal, he's still very much involved. He wrote and produced this and while it's no where near the brilliance of the first; it's still a quality horror film in its own rights. We learn a lot more about Michael and why he's doing what he's doing. It's also reenforced that he's basically indestructible. 

No this isn't a masterpiece or a classic, but it is a fun continuation. Who after seeing Halloween didn't want more? It didn't need to be as good; it just needed to be respectable and an overall entertaining slasher. That this is. It's better than most slashers out there and way better than most slasher sequels. Fuck Jason I'll take this series over Friday the 13th any day.
FilmFanatik
Super Reviewer
April 23, 2007
Halloween II may not have been directed by John Carpenter but it was written by him and he was somewhat involved with the project (albeit indirectly). This sequel picks up where the first one left off, with Michael Myers still alive and stalking what we later to find out to be his sister. Now, as I said in my review of Halloween, I can understand why they decided to tie things together and make things more complicated, but I don't believe it was all that necessary. The story dynamics are handled in a ham-fisted sort of way and don't really create anything solid and simple as the previous film. We find out that Laurie Strode is Michael's sister and that her identity was kept a secret in a "secret file from the government." That just reeks of a first draft story idea that they just seemed to go with and never question, even though it's incredibly silly. Michael also seems to be less interesting this time around. He is one of the pickiest murderers I've ever seen - at least in this sequel. It's less about the stalking and build-up and more about just murdering random people for seemingly no reason, other than he's trying to get to his sister. I don't know, I just find it a great step back instead of forward. The film's not completely worthless, however. The entire main cast, as well as the secondary cast members, all came back to reprise their roles, making it one of the best sequels in a continuity-sense. Unfortunately, the sum isn't greater than the parts, making this entry feel more like an out-and-out slasher without any magic of the original.
Super Reviewer
½ March 21, 2009
the second best of the series, and yea, its actually pretty scary.
the earliest movie image i can recall that kept me awake at night is Michael with fresh blood running from his eyes and him stabbing directionless at the air. i remember thinking, "who the hell doesn't even scream or take off their mask or nothing after that? not even a grunt?" im sure thats not a big deal when in 2011 we can google "Bud Dwyer suicide video" but when you are eleven, it... you just can't go back to Rugrats after that, im sorry.
Super Reviewer
September 6, 2010
A good sequel to Halloween, it's exciting and full of horror and suspense. The only thing I didn't like was the ending. Overall a good movie.
Super Reviewer
August 10, 2010
Faster than the original, better than Nightmare on Elm Street Part 2.

P.S. If you want to kill Michael Myers, do you aim for the head? Bullets through his vital organs don't seem to keep him down. Isn't the head important? I mean, hard to imagine a decapitated Michael Myers stalking Laurie Strode through the streets of Haddonfield... Maybe better to just explode the whole body though.
Super Reviewer
August 3, 2006
Continuing from the exact point that the first left off, Michael Myers continues his murder spree, Myers has to be the slowest walking killer Horror history and with that in mind ? how on Earth did he escape from the Mental hospital?

Not as good as the first, but if you are working your way through the series ? then stick with it.
Super Reviewer
½ January 25, 2010
Halloween II is a depressing experience because it is such a different movie than its predecessor was. There's no horror in this movie whatsoever. I wasn't scared, or enthralled, just bored and wishing the movie was never made because it will live as an blemish to the classic original. The story takes place about 3 minutes after the original ends, but you can tell from the start that things just don't seem right. Instead of following all the victims and having a few shots of Michael, most of the movie follows Michael and gives you a few shots of the victims. It is not a good change. Revealing why he is stalking Jamie Lee Curtis is a shocker at first, but it really makes him less scary because we know his motivations, yet he is still an unstoppable force for some reason despite trying to humanize him. The movie has way more blood and gruesome shots than the original, probably because the originals imitators changed audiences expectations with slasher films after 3 years. Donald Pleasance is the lone strong point as he gives another good performance. Other than that, this is a fall from grace and one that will live on forever. I was incredibly disappointed, and you probably will be too.
Super Reviewer
½ November 18, 2009
I really enjoy this for being extremely brutal, even now. It spared no expense to mess with the viewer. It shows how much of an unstoppable force Michael is and how far he will take things just to get to Laurie. Loomis also flipped his switch in this, opening fire on trick-or-treaters which is priceless. The deaths were a lot more sneaky and creative, a lot like slashers of the time. That always gets me entertained, classic 80s horror. I think it's definitely on par with the original and doesn't fall under the unworthy sequel category.
Super Reviewer
½ August 15, 2009
"Halloween 2" is a great sequel to the first movie in the series. Michael Myers is at it again as the saga continues. Armed with only a fatal knife, he is killing everybody in his path. Of course, his ultimate goal is to find his main counterpart, Jamie Lee Curtis, and put her away. The police and everybody else must find Michael Myers and try to kill him before he terrorizes the whole city.
What makes "Halloween 2" so good is the performance that Jamie Lee Curtis puts on. "Halloween 2" goes along at a steady pace until it gets to the last 30 minutes. Once it gets to the last 30 minutes, the action and suspense pick up dramatically to make this a great movie. The main action in the movie takes place at a hospital that Jamie Lee Curtis is staying at. The movie also has one of the best storylines of any of the "Halloween" movies, and the effects aren't bad either.

If you like the "Halloween" series, I recommend getting "Halloween 2." If you haven't ever seen any of the "Halloween" movies, I would recommend seeing the original before you see this one. NOTE: That was my Amazon review from the year 2000. Can't say I remember much at all from this movie, so it can't be a favorite, but oh well, still good.
Super Reviewer
½ March 28, 2007
A wonderful example of how 2 directors with the same material, can come up with wildly different levels of effectiveness.
TheGame90
Super Reviewer
½ January 10, 2009
Boring. This was crap. Nothing new at all. Not interesting and a little stupid at times. Come on Michael...you can do better
Super Reviewer
December 31, 2006
A quite good sequel following on from the same night as the first.
cancercapricorn2002
Super Reviewer
½ July 1, 2007
"Halloween II" picks up right where the first film left off, with Michael Myers pumped full of bullets courtesy of Dr. Loomis (Donald Pleasence). But while he may be down, he's anything but out, and has followed Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) to Haddonfield Memorial Hospital where she's receiving treatment for her injuries. Haunting the hospital's deserted hallways, Myers makes use of medical equipment on whomever he finds in ways that the AMA certainly wouldn't approve. While Laurie tries to evade her would be killer, Dr. Loomis obsessively hunts Myers, leading to a fiery conclusion.

Taking over for director John Carpenter, Rick Rosenthal (who would return to the franchise more than 20 years later with "Halloween: Resurrection") lacks the style that made the original "Halloween" so memorable. Nevertheless there are some scary and gruesome incidents as Michael dispatches of the hospital staff in his search for Laurie. In fact, the sequel is a bit gorier than its predecessor, adding more to the shock value quotient. Rosenthal's use of POV shots are nearly as effective as Carpenter's in the original adding to the illusion that we're seeing events through Myers' eyes. Rosenthal also knows how to use shadows and darkness, making things seem scarier than they are. Must mention the "Camera Angels" are once again CLASSIC.

The script by John Carpenter and Debra Hill essentially gives us more of the same. The setting is changed to a hospital, and it's revealed that Laurie is Michael's sister, but little else is added to the night Myers came home. As for the concept that Michael Myers is possessed by the Celtic Lord of the Dead - that innovative concept is mentioned, but never really explored. Which is kind of for the best.

Jaime Lee Curtis is back as Laurie Strode , the 1st film she was front and center this time it's Donald Pleasence, as Dr. Loomis, who is more of the films focus Pleasence has the right blend of desperation, single-mindedness and fear that makes him the centerpiece player in not only this film but the whole franchise. You can even feel his commanding presence even when Loomis is off screen.

The second "Halloween" film, while not quite as good as the first, It comes pretty close, and is still a very entertaining entry. More importantly, it sets up ideas that come into play in future sequels. Overall, "Halloween 2" is a scary and effective treat, and the final classic of the "Halloween Franchise".
FiLmCrAzY
Super Reviewer
½ September 10, 2007
saw this one wot aload of shit
Page 1 of 139