Halloween II 4K UHD (1981)

[Mean Streak]

Originally Posted by Matt89

I do love Halloween II as a cheesy '80s slasher, but "masterpiece"? The only film in the entire series that deserves that praise is the original. HII is a fun romp, but it was clearly a money grab intended to cash-in on a huge surge of slashers in the early '80s. There's nothing wrong with that, but let's not pretend HII has much merit on its own. The stupid brother-sister angle ultimately overshadowed almost everything else about the first film. You entirely lose the point of the boogeyman. The whole point was that he hides in the shadows and kills anyone, anywhere. That's what made him so scary. That's all lost when you're told he's just out to get members of his family. And it's dumb. The boogeyman doesn't need a reason to kill, and that's what made him so frightening. I'm so so glad they dropped that from the new ones. And I totally understand why Carpenter wanted that plotline dropped.

~Matt

Why this was lost with John Carpenter is beyond me. He created Michael Myers, he of all people should know this best FFS. He is solely responsible for the silly sister thing. That's why I will always roll my eyes at him anytime he expresses that he dislikes that plot line.

[Jay H.]

Originally Posted by Mean Streak

Why this was lost with John Carpenter is beyond me. He created Michael Myers, he of all people should know this best FFS. He is solely responsible for the silly sister thing. That's why I will always roll my eyes at him anytime he expresses that he dislikes that plot line.

He was drunk as a skunk when he came up with the whole sibling plotline. So technically, Budweiser helped.

[RLStern]

Originally Posted by Matt89

I do love Halloween II as a cheesy '80s slasher, but "masterpiece"? The only film in the entire series that deserves that praise is the original. HII is a fun romp, but it was clearly a money grab intended to cash-in on a huge surge of slashers in the early '80s. There's nothing wrong with that, but let's not pretend HII has much merit on its own. The stupid brother-sister angle ultimately overshadowed almost everything else about the first film. You entirely lose the point of the boogeyman. The whole point was that he hides in the shadows and kills anyone, anywhere. That's what made him so scary. That's all lost when you're told he's just out to get members of his family. And it's dumb. The boogeyman doesn't need a reason to kill, and that's what made him so frightening. I'm so so glad they dropped that from the new ones. And I totally understand why Carpenter wanted that plotline dropped.

~Matt

Hard disagree.

Before Carpenter's comments on the movie became wildfire on the net, Halloween II was critically acclaimed by horror fans(of course not critics, as even great horror movies are shit on)

The brother/sister angle was heavily praised and the most successful storyline, Michael Myers and Laurie Strode to mainstream audiences were brother and sister by default even if they didn't see Halloween II and only saw the first movie, that's how much that storyline resonated.

Carpenter hates it and that's his open, and people can parrot what he says, but let's not pretend it was horrible or wasn't successful.

Sure it got inspiration from Empire Strikes Back... So what? It was a successful inspiration and clearly worked.

It would be like shitting on Empire Strikes Back for creating the "stupid Father/Son storyline", that would be nonsensical because that storyline resonated as well, mainstream audience accepts Vader and Luke as father/son, same way mainstream accepts Michael/Laurie as brother/sister.

That's a great a film, and it nailed the inspiration in a clever way, we all know he murdered his sister Judith and now he wants to repeat it over and over again as exhibited in the first movie, and wants to repeat it for real again with Laurie, as he's obsessed and crazy.

The problems come with the sequels after two, now he's not crazy anymore, doesn't stalk, makes him a family killer(Now that isn't in first two movies, say what you want about II but he's not a family killer in that movie, he's just obsessed with Judith)and the plot makes him have to kill his family where the original two deal with the sick desires of an escaped murderer.

Halloween II doesn't make him only target Laurie, he's still the boogeyman of part 1, if you see the movie he actually gives up on Laurie and starts randomly murdering people, as shown with Alice. When Myer's hears Laurie's location at the hospital he continues his pursuit, even then like part 1 he doesn't only target Laurie, he takes his time murdering the whole staff.

If a niche fanbase of Carpenter's want to parrot him that's fine, but let's not pretend this wasn't one of, if not the most recognized and successful plot from the series, that being Myers and Strode being siblings.

[RLStern]

Originally Posted by Jay H.

He was drunk as a skunk when he came up with the whole sibling plotline. So technically, Budweiser helped.

That's an excuse, he's not be drunk 24/7, he clearly greenlit the storyline and thought it was good to go through SEVERAL drafts, so for him to claim he got drunk then regretted doesn't make any sense.

Truth is, he was forced to make the movie when he wanted to do other projects and not get pigeonholed with the series, hence why he got Rick Rosenthal to direct when he clearly had time to do it himself, even then did reshoots and new scenes for Halloween II himself.

Halloween II ended up being a success, where the brother/sister plot became the most remembered and iconic plot over the first movie, everyone saw them as siblings(perhaps this is also why he hates it)

It's ultimately his fault though, if he wanted to do other projects after Halloween 1 then he should've never put a cliffhanger at the end, making audiences expect a sequel.

Yeah we know he claims he didn't intend a sequel and that H1 was supposed to end there, but if that's the case he really messed up, because that's the biggest cliffhanger he's ever given in any of his movies, even Big Trouble in Little China

Carpenter's also full of it, for years he refused the franchise, but now he returns because he wants some dough, clearly doesn't wanna do it though because he just does the music.

If Carpenter hated part II like he claims(I don't believe him) then he HAS to hate the 2018 and 2021 films, those are like Halloween II on steroids, at least Halloween II had the same cinematography, level of acting, pace and feel as the original.

[Mean Streak]

Yeah, i'm a bit puzzled as to why John Carpenter decided to make that the ending to the first Halloween. If he really didn't want there to ever be any sequels. Even if he personally never wanted to make another one, he clearly left it open for someone else to make a sequel. It might have even made Halloween a better movie in a sense, if he had just had Michael Myers never get up. Because the movie was mostly believable (aside from him knowing how to drive a car) up to that point, but then the ending turns the movie into a supernatural one.

[Matt89]

He left the ending like that because it’s bleak. It’s your classic 1970s (and really, classic JC) ending where the killer gets away, or the pod people win, or the demon kid doesn’t die, etc.

Halloween is very much a film of the 1970s in its tone, its worldview, its slow burn execution. Halloween II is planted firmly in the 1980s and that’s why I think the films have never really worked as having taken place on the same night. I’ve never bought it because the movies are so different. (Still love HII on its own but as a proper sequel to Halloween, I think it’s vastly inferior in its craftsmanship.)

~Matt

[Sman]

It's funny because as a kid whose first viewing of Halloween was actually the TV version of the first movie on USA, I automatically assumed the sibling angle was always meant to be part of the story. It wasn't until I got older that I realized how forced and unplanned the reveal actually was.

[RLStern]

Originally Posted by Matt89

He left the ending like that because it’s bleak. It’s your classic 1970s (and really, classic JC) ending where the killer gets away, or the pod people win, or the demon kid doesn’t die, etc.

Halloween is very much a film of the 1970s in its tone, its worldview, its slow burn execution. Halloween II is planted firmly in the 1980s and that’s why I think the films have never really worked as having taken place on the same night. I’ve never bought it because the movies are so different. (Still love HII on its own but as a proper sequel to Halloween, I think it’s vastly inferior in its craftsmanship.)

~Matt

Halloween 1 and 2 feel like one movie together.

You can't generalize the 1980's as a whole, the early 80's was an extension of the late 1970's. you're acting like it was 1985 lol.

1981 is pretty much the same as 1978, we were still in the disco era, where independent movies thrived and music was electronic/synthesized until Thriller came out and the post disco, more conservative real 80's started.

It would be like arguing the year 2000 and a year like 2002 were similar, when in reality you'd be talking about 2 different eras and the 2000's didn't really kick off until the latter half of 2001. 2000 was just as extension of the 1990's, and really 1999 on steroids.

I think these type of posts so belligerent towards Halloween II are a product of people who weren't really around back then, or even 15 years ago when the internet still praised it before Carpenter's interviews got notice, then the parroting started. it's ok to like someone's work and see that they may be bias or unreliable in what they say.

[CSM101]

I’ve always really enjoyed this movie, but this time around it bothered me how little Jamie Lee Curtis was given to do.

[DR Herbert West]

On the plus side, Pleasence was given more to do.

[bobbyh64]

I prefer Michael and Laurie to not be siblings. I enjoy the sequels and I don’t think having them be related was a terrible idea; it was just kind of dumb. If Michael went after Laurie in H2 because she got away earlier that night, that’s enough motivation for me. He got his way up until then and was pissed that she bested him. He still goes after other people too so at least he’s still the boogeyman. But when I watch the original Halloween I don’t think of them as being related.

[Matt89]

Originally Posted by RLStern

Halloween 1 and 2 feel like one movie together.

You can't generalize the 1980's as a whole, the early 80's was an extension of the late 1970's. you're acting like it was 1985 lol.

1981 is pretty much the same as 1978, we were still in the disco era, where independent movies thrived and music was electronic/synthesized until Thriller came out and the post disco, more conservative real 80's started.

It would be like arguing the year 2000 and a year like 2002 were similar, when in reality you'd be talking about 2 different eras and the 2000's didn't really kick off until the latter half of 2001. 2000 was just as extension of the 1990's, and really 1999 on steroids.

I think these type of posts so belligerent towards Halloween II are a product of people who weren't really around back then, or even 15 years ago when the internet still praised it before Carpenter's interviews got notice, then the parroting started. it's ok to like someone's work and see that they may be bias or unreliable in what they say.

The biggest difference between 1978 and 1981 is that Friday the 13th came out in-between. That's what I meant when I said Halloween II was firmly planted in the 1980s. It had already shifted its focus towards the gorier bodycount-type of slasher film that became most associated with the '80s. Halloween is Hitchcock and Halloween II is a Friday the 13th movie.

And who's being belligerent? I've said multiple times that I like the film. It is possible to like something yet be aware of (or at least acknowledge) its flaws. HII is one of my absolute favourite slasher films, all I'm saying is that calling it a masterpiece is giving it way too much credit. Lol.

~Matt

[dcx4610]

Carpenter has said that Halloween was a stand alone story and ended exactly how he wanted with evil lurking everywhere. Michael was never meant to be a slasher villain that kept appearing in numerous sequels.

To secure funding for the Fog, his hand was basically forced to do Halloween II. He said he didn't want to repeat himself and it was difficult to come up with a plot to give the story some kind of meat and the sister angle was what they came up with. Halloween II was basically going to happen whether he liked it or not so he wanted some say-so in it but at the same time, you could tell that really jaded him even further to Hollywood.

Watching Halloween + Halloween II, I do think the sister angle works and to JC's point, you had to have *something* there or else it's just Halloween again.

If you prefer Halloween as a stand alone film though, I prefer Laurie just being a random victim. Wrong place, wrong time. To me, Michael latched on to her like a shark or a big cat stalking its prey and wouldn't stop until he was stopped or she was dead. That's way more scary to me than him just wanting to kill his sister.

I'm all over the place. I love Halloween II and love Halloween + Halloween II as a double feature. I've also done Halloween + Halloween 2018 and that works as well for a narrative.

Still, if I had to pick and choose, Halloween as a completely stand alone film with no single angle is my preferred vision.

[BerryTheMusicMan]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

The Dobly is indeed covering it up, thanks to what's called a Full Enhancement Layer (FEL for short). When they do these discs they start with the DV master and they use the metadata to generate the HDR10 grading. They take this HDR10 version and compress it for disc like normal. Then they compare the compressed HDR10 to the original DV master to create a set of difference data which is added to the disc, and it's this difference data that is the key: if the HDR10 has poor compression, if it has crushed blacks or clipped highlights, if it has the wrong grading, if it has banding, if it has outright encoding errors like "pixel tits", if any of these things do not match the DV master then the difference data is able to correct it (within reason).

But this only applies to discs with the FEL system, as some other studios use what's called Minimum Enhancement Layer (MEL) which only contains dynamic metadata on top of the HDR10, it has none of the difference data that 'rebuilds' the image. Compression guru David Mackenzie prefers MEL.

If you skip to the end of my Total Recall write up you can see images of this correction in action, turning a shockingly poor HDR10 encode into a rather passable one. https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...g#post18410554

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pele...ature=youtu.be

[kannibaliztik]

Originally Posted by Gacivory

I didn't know about the comics. I'll check those out.

Not connected to the comics mentioned before, but this one titled 'One Good Scare' was always a favorite, would love a story like this to be done in live action.

https://readcomicsfree.com/comic/hal...R8IuXw59AbXwc8

[ronnie21]

ok amazon shipped. says arriving tommorrow. i dont have a 4k tv so hopefully the blu will look better than steelbook..

[King O.A.]

Originally Posted by dcx4610

Carpenter has said that Halloween was a stand alone story and ended exactly how he wanted with evil lurking everywhere. Michael was never meant to be a slasher villain that kept appearing in numerous sequels.

To secure funding for the Fog, his hand was basically forced to do Halloween II. He said he didn't want to repeat himself and it was difficult to come up with a plot to give the story some kind of meat and the sister angle was what they came up with. Halloween II was basically going to happen whether he liked it or not so he wanted some say-so in it but at the same time, you could tell that really jaded him even further to Hollywood.

Watching Halloween + Halloween II, I do think the sister angle works and to JC's point, you had to have *something* there or else it's just Halloween again.

If you prefer Halloween as a stand alone film though, I prefer Laurie just being a random victim. Wrong place, wrong time. To me, Michael latched on to her like a shark or a big cat stalking its prey and wouldn't stop until he was stopped or she was dead. That's way more scary to me than him just wanting to kill his sister.

I'm all over the place. I love Halloween II and love Halloween + Halloween II as a double feature. I've also done Halloween + Halloween 2018 and that works as well for a narrative.

Still, if I had to pick and choose, Halloween as a completely stand alone film with no single angle is my preferred vision.

Yup, supposedly he was giving a decent amount to make H2, but he needed a valid reason for Michael to keep chasing Laurie. Best thing he could come up with, apparently.

[IncrediblesFan82]

Originally Posted by RLStern

That's an excuse, he's not be drunk 24/7, he clearly greenlit the storyline and thought it was good to go through SEVERAL drafts, so for him to claim he got drunk then regretted doesn't make any sense.

Truth is, he was forced to make the movie when he wanted to do other projects and not get pigeonholed with the series, hence why he got Rick Rosenthal to direct when he clearly had time to do it himself, even then did reshoots and new scenes for Halloween II himself.

Halloween II ended up being a success, where the brother/sister plot became the most remembered and iconic plot over the first movie, everyone saw them as siblings(perhaps this is also why he hates it)

It's ultimately his fault though, if he wanted to do other projects after Halloween 1 then he should've never put a cliffhanger at the end, making audiences expect a sequel.

Yeah we know he claims he didn't intend a sequel and that H1 was supposed to end there, but if that's the case he really messed up, because that's the biggest cliffhanger he's ever given in any of his movies, even Big Trouble in Little China

Carpenter's also full of it, for years he refused the franchise, but now he returns because he wants some dough, clearly doesn't wanna do it though because he just does the music.

If Carpenter hated part II like he claims(I don't believe him) then he HAS to hate the 2018 and 2021 films, those are like Halloween II on steroids, at least Halloween II had the same cinematography, level of acting, pace and feel as the original.

Well said! And I agreed!

I have never believed him when he said he wrote it drunk. That was just his excuse to cover his bad writing choice. He could had many chances to change it. And I agree also that he is just doing these films today for money. Probably needs retirement money.

But I do give Carpenter props for trying to kill Michael once and for all in HII. I still believe this is where Michael's story should have ended. Loomis taking Michael out feels more justified than Laurie taking him out. Michael was Loomis' arch nemesis , and a much more interesting protagonist than Laurie.

[ronnie21]

i also believe that they knew they were gonna have a major hit with this... they acted like that didn't know.. now maybe they didn't know it was gonna carry on for 2000000years either... also, interesting that they waited till 1988 to bring Michael back. thats kinda a long time since 1981..

[JCRW82]

Just got Halloween II in the mail, looking forward to putting this one on tonight.