Halloween II 4K UHD (1981)

[hungrywives]

I will admit the brother/sister element didn't ruin the series. Making it a series did.

[RLStern]

Originally Posted by hungrywives

I will admit the brother/sister element didn't ruin the series. Making it a series did.

I honestly blame Halloween 3.

I know there's people who like that movie, but back then it failed.

Not because it wasn't a Michael Myers movie, but because it failed to hit a home run with an Anthology.

If it's gonna be an Anthology it has to be an iconic movie, even more so than the original, they needed to write maybe a new slasher or something like Friday The 13th.

As a matter Friday The 13th kinda did this, in part 2 they make Jason the new killer as an adult and it was better than part 1 Ms. Voorhees.

If Jason failed with audiences in Part 2, they either would've ended the series or changed it to an anthology.

Had Halloween 3 not failed, audiences would've accepted no more Myers and viewed the original 2 as a one night classic, where Myers story warranted two pictures.

In fact audiences accepted Michael Myers getting killed in part 2, because part 4 had to retcon that.


Season of the witch may be liked but I think we can all agree that it wasn't something big enough, had it been say Jason or Freddy in Halloween 3, the Myers story would've been only been moved on from and looked at as a two part tale of an anthology.

Halloween isn't tales from the crypt if it's gonna be an be an anthology, it has to be Box Office Blockbuster level of Theatrical quality movies, like the first two movies.

[Jay H.]

Originally Posted by hungrywives

John Carpenter from Halloween-A Cut Above the Rest: "I will say that what got me through writing that script was... Budweiser. Six pack of beer a night, sitting in front of the typewriter saying, 'What in the hell can I put down?' I had no idea. We're remaking the same film, only not as good."

An obviously half-joking anecdote that the entire internet has been clinging to for almost two decades. Carpenter was just trying to find a cute way of saying he didn't want to make a sequel but powered through it the best he could. He wasn't actually, seriously saying the only reason it was bad, or the only reason he made Laurie and Michael siblings, was because he was drunk.

Exactly. He forgot to mention he was smoking weed, too.

I believe him 100% when he says he was drunk. Carpenter is a no-bullsh*t kind of guy and freely admits to every choice he has made, good or bad. After all, he said he shot additional scenes for the NBC airing for the money: "I ho'd out".

Is inebriation the only reason Halloween II was lousy? No, but it certainly explains a lot of the plot holes.

[dianabol5mg]

Halloween II still has the hottest chicks in it, by far (quantity and quality). That, right there, is a reason to watch it.

[RLStern]

Originally Posted by Jay H.

Exactly. He forgot to mention he was smoking weed, too.

I believe him 100% when he says he was drunk. Carpenter is a no-bullsh*t kind of guy and freely admits to every choice he has made, good or bad. After all, he said he shot additional scenes for the NBC airing for the money: "I ho'd out".

Is inebriation the only reason Halloween II was lousy? No, but it certainly explains a lot of the plot holes.

That doesn't make sense, the script has to go through several drafts, he wasn't drunk every second of everyday, so he clearly approved it sober.

Also what plot hole?

You may not like the brother/sister angle but it wasn't a plot hole.

[Jay H.]

Originally Posted by RLStern

That doesn't make sense, the script has to go through several drafts, he wasn't drunk every second of everyday, so he clearly approved it sober.

Also what plot hole?

You may not like the brother/sister angle but it wasn't a plot hole.

I wasn't referring to the sibling angle as a plot hole. The movie has plenty of them; they either don't bother you or you haven't noticed them. That's cool by me.

[DR Herbert West]

Originally Posted by Benh911f

Just a plot device so he’d have the lighter at the end of the movie when he needed it.

They should've had him use the Rabbit in Red matches he found in the first film.

[hungrywives]

Originally Posted by DR Herbert West

They should've had him use the Rabbit in Red matches he found in the first film.

I will never be able to unread this post.

[RLStern]

Originally Posted by DR Herbert West

They should've had him use the Rabbit in Red matches he found in the first film.

Never thought of that, great idea, further connects 1st two films.

[DaylightsEnd]

After watching all of these films again carefully, I'd have to rank them as follows, not necessarily for how "good" or "bad" each film is, per se, but for how much I subjectively enjoyed watching them, and not surprisingly, they pretty much fall right in rank and file for me.....

1) H1978 (best creepy paranoia horror)
2) HII (best creepy slasher, still a very nasty boogeyman)
3) HIII (best creepy, wack atmosphere, and back on the 70's paranoia trail)
4) H20 (a fun romp, JLC can still ACT, needed a much more powerful score to feel less "made for tv")
5) H4 (some solid ideas/imagery but starting to unravel, trying to find its way back to H2 slasher roots but Michael not menaching enough, feels more amateurish than H2)
6) H5 (starts solid as a fun continuation of H4 but unravels quickly, still a fair late-80's slasher)
7) H6 (just feels too disconnected from the franchise for me, feels more like Wrong Turn 7)
8) Were there any other Halloween films? I don't think so.....

It would've been SOOOOOO easy to pick up after H20, in a much better-scripted and better-directed H2018. It would've taken a whole 20 seconds to set up. The preamble simply could've been a flashback to 1998 that had Laurie wake up still strapped into the van, having imagined or dreamed her actions in the very last seconds of the last sequence of H20, due to her head trauma from the van crash among other things, and.....Michael's body is gone. Then jump ahead 20 years yet again, and pick up with the beginning of 2018 from there, with a clean, blank slate to do anything they wanted, and not having to sh*t-can H2 OR H20, or implausibly explain away or re-invent anything. The DGG films just come off as an incredibly lazy, stupid, uncaring cash-grab to me, even moreso than H4/H5, and I didn't think that would be possible. Those now feel like classics. But for me, DGG's aimlessly meandering messes and tiresome family drama skits simply reflect NONE of Carpenter's talent or vision in horror. The "slick" modern production values don't help it one bit in that regard. That's just me doing me.

I don't consider the Zombie films to be a part of the franchise, and wouldn't necessarily recommend them to H1978/HII fans. But I do find Zombie's H1 to be a more compelling homage to H1978/H2 than H2018 is, in Zombie's own sick, twisted, crass, gore-amped way. Of course, Zombie ruined the boogeyman-of-pure-evil angle by putting a child's face and temperament on the boogeyman, now more or less crafting a prequel/nihilistic documentary on the making of a serial killer, which people hate about that film. Suddenly Myers is just a psychotic sociopath, a fat little unpopular kid in a clown mask, not a supernatural force. In a way, Zombie pulls back the sheets and exposes an overly down-to-earth image that most folks didn't want, removing supernatural fear and the viewers' ability to define/imagine their own inexplicable boogeyman. Notwithstanding, the scene where a young Myers, still just a child, catches up to his nemesis bully schoolmate in the woods

[Show spoiler]and bludgeons him repeated and slowly into pulverized annihilation with a huge, broken tree branch

is some of the most sadistic, brutal imagery in the entire "extended franchise", like it or hate it. Zombie's fairly (surprisingly) effective directing, editing, and lighting choices force you to be front and center, up-close, unflinchingly and unblinking, for the nastiest bits of the action. It's not very "Halloween franchise", but it's brutal in a "Hills Have Eyes Remake' kind of way. YMMV.

While the new Shout 4k discs certainly aren't without their usual flaws, and would have greatly benefited from better compression/encodes, this franchise, much like the Friday the 13th franchise, has received much love, attention and renewed interest partly as a result of these new 4k catalog releases, making it highly likely that we'll see more highly-desirable horror output on home video of a similar nature very soon. It's almost shocking that Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm Street, two of the largest horror franchises in American cinema, still haven't seen even ONE single 4k uhd release, to date. That needs to change.

[OgamiittoMcJ]

looks like MM helped to ship my Halloween II lol
weird spine slash on front, right hand side
mostly just bit at top and bottom, middle is ok

oh well spine's are ok, and slipboxes aren't crushed or dented
and Pt1 is all good

[Jay Mammoth]

Glad to get these awesome new Halloween films, cant wait for Halloween Ends.

[dcx4610]

Originally Posted by DR Herbert West

They should've had him use the Rabbit in Red matches he found in the first film.

Damn. How did they miss that. That would have neen incredible. It was always bizarre to me why they focused on those matches twice in 1. If it all got tied together in 2, mind blown.

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by hungrywives

John Carpenter from Halloween-A Cut Above the Rest: "I will say that what got me through writing that script was... Budweiser. Six pack of beer a night, sitting in front of the typewriter saying, 'What in the hell can I put down?' I had no idea. We're remaking the same film, only not as good."

An obviously half-joking anecdote that the entire internet has been clinging to for almost two decades. Carpenter was just trying to find a cute way of saying he didn't want to make a sequel but powered through it the best he could. He wasn't actually, seriously saying the only reason it was bad, or the only reason he made Laurie and Michael siblings, was because he was drunk.

That's perfectly acceptable, and knowing exactly what was said, I don't have any issue with any of that.

Obviously the internet, as usual, ran away with that and turned it into something entirely different from his intended meaning.

Personally, I think it was the wrong decision to ignore Halloween II, which was the best of the sequels, and the sibling angle was certainly not where the series went wrong. But it's nice to know exactly what he said, and not the internet's interpretation of what he said.

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by RLStern

That doesn't make sense, the script has to go through several drafts, he wasn't drunk every second of everyday, so he clearly approved it sober.

Also what plot hole?

You may not like the brother/sister angle but it wasn't a plot hole.

Agreed. Alcohol (and other influencing substances) or not, he was sober some of the time, and that script had to be approved by multiple people before it went into shooting. They obviously, at that time, felt fine with how it was written.

As far as plot holes, I don't think there are any major plot holes; I think there are several lapses in logic, mostly due to cuts and trims, like why the hospital is suddenly dark without explanation (which a deleted scene answers).

The biggest issue for me is always why is the hospital staffed with as many people as a small local grocery store just before closing time? Is the entire hospital other than that wing shut down? It doesn't make much sense without some kind of explanation. That's my biggest issue with it. Maybe it should have taken place not in a hospital, but a small medical clinic. Though I do admit I like the hospital setting.

The mood, tone, music, acting and style come together for me enough to enjoy it for what it is. It's a shame it's no longer "cannon", but it is to me.

[BillieCassin]

Originally Posted by RLStern

I don't accept that narrative, but some do, I just view the series the same way the mainstream audience has since 1981, escaped psychopath who murders at random Michael Myers wants to murder his sister Laurie like he did his sister Judith. it was brilliant, it worked, no one complained about it until they wanted to parrot Carpenter(out of some form of respect??)

Unfortunately I seem out of likes (LOL, I don't think that has happened before?) - but I'll be returning here to your post as soon as I do. Your whole post just beautifully illustrates exactly my feelings on the entire thing.

FWIW, anecdotally - it's been reinforced by the "normies" in my life who saw the last film. My mom and her friends are of the age where they were teenagers/early 20's when the first two films came out. They were utterly baffled by the last movie. They would have not noticed retconing out the other sequels, but the fact that they erased the sibling connection just didn't make any sense to them.

Michael and Laurie have been brother and sister for 40 years. It just...is. And they could have mostly made the same film they did without removing it. Based on some of the comments from people who supposedly saw the film early, saying "oh there is stuff in Kills that would totally negate that being possible" which...it doesn't.

Yes, they clearly have willfully written it out, but this same story could have been told without bowing down to this new revisionist narrative that the sibling connection is "stupid". It actually would have been nice to have more of a reason for them to turn Laurie into a cowering pathetic mess, instead of the route this film takes - basically affirming that she has been bat crap crazy all these years, and Michael apparently doesn't care about her.

The arguments against it all also seem to willfully ignore the fact that Michaels first act in the original is to...kill his sister. It isn't like they just made up some wacky idea, it built on what was already in the first film.

[BluProofie]

Originally Posted by BillieCassin

Unfortunately I seem out of likes (LOL, I don't think that has happened before?) - but I'll be returning here to your post as soon as I do. Your whole post just beautifully illustrates exactly my feelings on the entire thing.

FWIW, anecdotally - it's been reinforced by the "normies" in my life who saw the last film. My mom and her friends are of the age where they were teenagers/early 20's when the first two films came out. They were utterly baffled by the last movie. They would have not noticed retconing out the other sequels, but the fact that they erased the sibling connection just didn't make any sense to them.

Michael and Laurie have been brother and sister for 40 years. It just...is. And they could have mostly made the same film they did without removing it. Based on some of the comments from people who supposedly saw the film early, saying "oh there is stuff in Kills that would totally negate that being possible" which...it doesn't.

Yes, they clearly have willfully written it out, but this same story could have been told without bowing down to this new revisionist narrative that the sibling connection is "stupid". It actually would have been nice to have more of a reason for them to turn Laurie into a cowering pathetic mess, instead of the route this film takes - basically affirming that she has been bat crap crazy all these years, and Michael apparently doesn't care about her.

The arguments against it all also seem to willfully ignore the fact that Michaels first act in the original is to...kill his sister. It isn't like they just made up some wacky idea, it built on what was already in the first film.

It’s scarier because it just happened for no reason. That’s it. Many of us watch the original film and don’t think about the sister connection at all. It’s the original film that’s considered a classic, not HII.

[DaylightsEnd]

Originally Posted by mar3o

The biggest issue for me is always why is the hospital staffed with as many people as a small local grocery store just before closing time? Is the entire hospital other than that wing shut down? It doesn't make much sense without some kind of explanation. That's my biggest issue with it. Maybe it should have taken place not in a hospital, but a small medical clinic. Though I do admit I like the hospital setting.

I always felt this way also, but a number of years ago, I did a lot of structured acquisition work, helping large medical management companies to merge with or acquire smaller hospitals and to purchase smaller medical/surgical centers and treatment facilities. I was SHOCKED to visit some of these smaller hospitals late at night, and often found it VERY difficult to even FIND any staff members, including occasionally security service personnel that were usually 3rd party staff and were SUPPOSED to stay at their posts such as intake desks at main entrances, but they were often nowhere to be found. Of course, nearly all the admin and billing staff has gone home at night, anyway. In the smaller and more poorly managed facilities, I found myself walking right in and out of ER facilities, no one in sight. Entire enormous hallways were darker and totally empty, along with staff rooms, changing rooms, the cafeteria area, all the scanning and testing and lab and xray areas....mostly all closed. The only place I found anyone was by going back into the CICU, NICU, MICU (intensive care) units directly, and even then they were sometimes on a ghost staff of just a couple or few shift nurses, and ONE charge nurse or supervisory nurse. And good luck finding the doctor-on-staff.

You can tell that the hospital in the film is very small because of how small the parking lot is. If someone crept into a facility like that in the middle of the night, and killed several of these people off very quickly, especially in a smaller facility that has very few beds filled in the patient rooms, most of whom can't even get out of bed anyway and are tethered to IV units and respirators and heart monitors and whatnot.....Parts of HII suddenly almost felt more plausible. And absolutely YES, those facilities are absolutely CREEPY AS HELL around midnight. My experiences in some of those places have helped cement HII as my favorite Halloween sequel, despite how implausible some parts of it still are. In reality, the poorly-staffed little hospital is not quite as ridiculous as it may seem, considering how many people he did in fact already kill in the hospital, from security to admin to staff nurses, to the physician on call, the emt and ambulance drivers, and who knows who else he got to off-camera, perhaps some of the patients in the rooms.....

[BillieCassin]

Originally Posted by DaylightsEnd

If someone crept into a facility like that in the middle of the night, and killed several of these people off very quickly, especially in a smaller facility that has very few beds filled in the patient rooms, most of whom can't even get out of bed anyway and are tethered to IV units and respirators and heart monitors and whatnot.....Parts of HII suddenly almost felt more plausible. And absolutely YES, those facilities are absolutely CREEPY AS HELL around midnight.

As someone who used to work in an office at a hospital, often late at night - you are totally correct. They can be creepy AF.

I think this is one place where the deleted scenes would have actually been better had they been in the film. It's really the only one in the franchise that I think feels "missing" - if they had kept the story beat about the power being cut at the hospital, I think it would have solved a lot of these questions (though, on second thought - it may have brought up more - what about all the patients on ventilators, etc). I actually wonder if that may be the reason they cut it, to avoid that question (which inadvertently created the new one of why it is so dark).

[DaylightsEnd]

Originally Posted by BillieCassin

As someone who used to work in an office at a hospital, often late at night - you are totally correct. They can be creepy AF.

I think this is one place where the deleted scenes would have actually been better had they been in the film. It's really the only one in the franchise that I think feels "missing" - if they had kept the story beat about the power being cut at the hospital, I think it would have solved a lot of these questions (though, on second thought - it may have brought up more - what about all the patients on ventilators, etc). I actually wonder if that may be the reason they cut it, to avoid that question (which inadvertently created the new one of why it is so dark).

I always assumed he might have already gone room-to-room, dispatching a significant number of the helpless bed-bound folks quickly and quietly, probably while searching around for the room that contained Laurie. Many folks in bad enough shape that they are committed to a hospital bed for a longer-term or overnight stay are either going to be sleeping or unconscious (post-op, etc.) or otherwise immobile, and very easy prey.

Either way, it's ALL FAR more plausible than the idea of two podcasters being GIVEN a serial killer's "kill mask" out of an evidence locker of a pending legal appeal, by the state attorney general, just for thrills, and then being ALLOWED or ENCOURAGED to go into a criminal mental asylum facility and incite wide-open mayhem WITH the kill mask, accompanied by a doctor on staff, creating total pandemonium in the entire asylum and whipping all the inmates into a screaming frenzy? All this, in the year 2018, in the middle of the day, with cameras and security guards covering every inch of the place....And then, the doctor helps the inmates get out so they can try to kill some more, just for the doctor's personal entertainment......? UH....ok. NO. What moronic fantasy world do these dull-witted writers and producers live in, you have to wonder. It's so beyond ridiculous that I have to just shut it off, an almost involuntary reflex. I'll take Michael moving easily and freely about a small local hospital in the middle of the night on Halloween in 1981, killing the power and phone lines, and killing off a few staff and patients, as the WAY more plausible scenario, any day of the week and twice on Sunday.