Halloween II (Rick Rosenthal, 1981)

[AndyBlade]

Drawn in by the old Thorn EMI VHS cover, this was amongst the first batch of films I remember renting on VHS in the mid 80s. In fact, I saw this a good two or three years before I got to watch the original Halloween, and after that initial viewing, it was a long time until I saw it again – probably around 15 years or so. Since then, I’ve seen it a few times, although I always say I’ll watch this and Halloween back to back and never do. My recent trip to see Rob Zombies Halloween 2 prompted me to dig this out for a rewatch a few nights ago.

I’m always of the opinion that the Halloween movies would’ve been better without the revelation that Michael Myers is hunting his long lost sister – it better for me to believe that Myers can go after just about anyone, rather than just people connected to the sister subplot. As a result, it's difficult now to watch the original without the sequel's revelation that Laurie is Michael's long lost sister leaving a bit of a sour taste. I heard John Carpenter talk on a podcast a year or so ago, and he said that he came up with the sister revelation in conjunction with beer and cannabis one night when he was stuck for ideas. That’s not to say that as a storyline subplot it doesn’t work, because it does to an extent, even though it is a little clunky. I’d just prefer it to not be there at all. It’s popularly believed that Carpenter initially had no intention of making a sequel, yet that’s hard to take too seriously when you see the last couple of minutes of the first Halloween. Donald Pleasance also once said in an interview with Fangoria that the possibility of a sequel was discussed, albeit in passing, on the set of the first film. Either way, Carpenter still didn’t want the directorial duties, but along with Debra Hill, he did write the screenplay. Directing duties passed on to Rick Rosenthal. For a time, it was seriously considered making this a 3D movie, but by the time production began, that idea had fallen by the wayside and filed under the 'too difficult' heading.

Of course,, although Halloween 2 will always suffer in comparison with the first film, it perhaps works much better as a comparison piece – the original was almost sedate in its pacing and featured very little in the way of blood, whilst the sequel is less of a psychological piece and more of a straightforward slasher movie. If you’re able to leave the original out of the equation, however difficult that may be, then its sequel is still a minor classic in the early 80's slasher genre.

Starting off with a brief recap of the ending of the original, Halloween 2 famously continues the plot right after the events of the first film, which works very well and adds a degree of consistency to proceedings. And so, set on the same Halloween night, we get scenes of Michael stalking the shadows and backyards of the inhabitants of downtown Haddonfield. He steals a carving knife from right under the nose of a neighbourhood woman, who has taken a break from getting herself a sandwich to watch the breaking news bulletin as the authorities make the discovery of three bodies in a house nearby (those of Laurie's friends from the first film - Nancy Loomis even reprises her role of Annie briefly as her dead body) She discovers fresh blood on her chopping board, alerts a young woman across the yard, who is on the phone to her friend, before Myers wastes no time in putting his new carving toy to work. Appearing from the dark (in what is probably the film's best jump scene), he grabs her; his dead eye studying her briefly before burying the blade in her neck.

While this goes on, an understandably traumatized and worn out Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis, wearing a wig as she’d cut her hair short since the first film was filmed) is taken to the local hospital where the majority of the rest of the movie will take place. I’ve read quite a few reviews which state that the film's major weakness is the fact that her character – the MAIN character, arguably - spends the vast majority of the film either hysterical or asleep and/or sedated. Whilst this is believable for the character in the context of the storyline, it does mean that most of the film has to be carried by a cast of mostly new characters, and you don’t have to be a horror veteran to know that most of them are just on screen for the sole purpose of being killed off. Regardless, the bulk of the first half of the film is taken up with introducing us to the nurses, orderlies and one doctor at Haddonfield General (which, for a pretty big suburban hospital on Halloween night, is unrealistically quiet and seems to be populated by only a skeleton staff, Laurie Strode and some babies) and their reaction to the admittance of Laurie Strode and the events of earlier that night.

Back on the streets of Haddonfield, Loomis and Sheriff Brackett are on the hunt for the killer, with Loomis starting to show slight hints of the descent into relentlessness the character would take in parts 4 and 5, and as a result of his scaremongering, a teenage trick or treater (who is actually Ben Tramer, Laurie's love interest that never was in the first film) is mistaken for Myers and is burnt to death in a car crash. With the police under the mistaken impression that the villain of the piece is out of the way, they start to relax their efforts. Loomis is not so sure and his growing doubts over the identity of the charred body lead to a new, unsuccessful, man hunt. Meanwhile, Myers has left several macabre clues at a local school: there's a bloody butcher's knife jutting out from a drawing of a family, the tip of the blade puncturing the image of a sister, and in blood he has written the word "Samhain" on the blackboard, "The lord of the dead. The end of summer.” Loomis explains in a laughable scene where he talks at length about people sacrificing children and animals, before ridiculously concluding that “it’s just the same these days” to which the policemen he’s with NOD IN AGREEMENT. Incidentally, the Samhain story thread featured in the novelization of the first film but didn’t make it into the film, and wouldn’t be picked up properly by the movie series until part 5. In the meantime, in a nice little scene, Myers overhears that Laurie has been taken to Haddonfield Hospital when someone walks past with a typically 80s ghetto blaster on his shoulder and heads off to find her...

It has to be said that by the time he gets there, Myers, ever the perfect movie boogeyman, looks effectively creepy as he stalks the shadowy hallways of the (curiously near deserted) hospital, unseen except by the ever present primitive CCTV, which captures the fleeting and menacingly silent figure momentarily from time to time. There's one great scene where Myers stands unseen in the incubator ward, watching the nurses; juxtaposing his evil with the innocence of the babies around him. Although his end goal is Laurie, he's more than happy to pass the time by bumping off the hospital staff as he makes his way towards her. Ever resourceful, he makes short work of them with syringes to the eyeball and the temple; one is garroted; a nurse (who, lets be honest, has one of the finest racks in the history of horror - No review of this film would be complete without a screenshot, yet one was surprisingly hard to find online) is scalded to death in a boiling jacuzzi; a security guard gets a pick axe in the head; and one nurse - in a death scene which stretches credibility more than probably anything else in the film - is drained of all her blood on an operating table. Reportedly, Carpenter ramped up the gore level on some of these murder scenes after complaints that Rosenthal’s original cut just wasn't scary enough (he was probably also aware that in 1981 suggested violence just didn't do it with modern audiences who had seen blood by the gallon in any number of late 70s/early 80s slashers) Rosenthal reportedly then informed Carpenter that this ruined his slower paced original vision, which he had purposefully modelled on the first movie and tried to make another psychological thriller more than a standard horror film.

The final third of Halloween 2 kicks off when a still drugged Laurie and Myers finally set eyes on each other (in a memorable moment he stabs a nurse in the back in front of her and lifts her off her feet with the scalpel handle, as Laurie attempts to flee down a corridor). Michael follows her towards the hospital basement, scalpel in hand. A couple of scenes which might not have worked usually turn out to be pretty suspenseful - Laurie struggles to close the lift doors as Myers approaches, all the while not breaking his trademark walking pace, and when her hiding place in the car park is given away as a concussed victim falls against the car horn, the sound of which alerts Myers and he follows her across the car park as she attempts, but fails, to alert Loomis and Nurse Marion Chambers, who have just turned up to save her.

It all ends with the unoriginal concept of the purifying flames. Myers makes one last attempt to get Laurie before collapsing and being consumed in fire along with Loomis. Of course, neither is really dead and both came back seven years later for Part 4.

On the negative side of things, as I mentioned before, the whole business of the Laurie/sister subplot is tedious and unnecessary. To my mind, Michael Myers never needed a back-story beyond establishing that he killed his sister all those years ago and was a little unhinged. That’s all you need – it’s a horror film, and not a psychological test study. Almost 30 years after Halloween 2, Rob Zombie would remake the original Halloween and tack on a needless 45 minute long look into Michael’s childhood and try to why he kills at the start of the film which only succeeded in diluting the Michael Myers story. In films such as this, it doesn’t matter why, it only matters that they do. Adding the sister plot into the mix here actually makes Michael more human and so thus, less scary. To my mind, the unknown is always much better than the long winded explanation. Fair enough, the sibling connection gives the story a plausible reason, but it destroyed what made Michael Myers so special. Without this knowledge in the original, Michael was a genuine bogeyman who no one in Haddonfield could escape. Once you establish a relationship between Michael and his main victim, he isn’t a force anymore. He’s just a man. He’s just Michael Myers, an escaped mental patient who knew exactly what he was after. It doesn’t make him that scary anymore. As long as you’re not associated with Laurie or near her when Michael is on the loose, you’re safe. Plus of course, with the benefit of hindsight, the family issue would go on to bog down the remaining sequels until H20 came along and went some way to making it a little bit worthwhile, at least.

We also get to see far too much of Michael Myers here – he gets so much screen time he’s practically the main character. Again, the philosophy that less is more applies. While there’s no doubting that he’s in some effective and well made scenes, having so much of him on screen throughout also works towards ruining his mystique and impact more still.

The screenplay is sub-par at the side of the original, and at times it feels a little lazy and reflects the apparent lack of interest Carpenter had in the project. His original idea saw the setting changed to a high rise block a few years after the events of the original, and would have Michael working his way through the apartments to find Laurie. For whatever reason, this ended up being ditched in favour of the hospital setting, which works very well for the most part. True enough, the staff at the hospital just exist to die, and only Laurie and Loomis have any kind of character development, but giving your killer access to any number of interesting surgical implements and so on gives the film a fresher feel than that a standard sequel would have.

Despite the constraints he ended up having to work with, Rick Rosenthal did a pretty good job. There are quite a few memorable shots, and the film moves along fast enough so that it never even comes close to being boring. The hospital setting works well for the most part, and as a result, the kills are pretty good. Honourable mentions go to the hut tub scene (and, again, that phenomenal rack) the hypodermic needle to the eye and the scalpel to the nurses back. None of this makes the film particularly scary, but it does make it interesting, and I suppose that’s good enough. Rosenthal would eventually return to the franchise (and for all intent and purposes, kill it off) with Halloween Resurrection in 2002.

On the acting front, Donald Pleasance gets more screen time in this film and you can tell he is having fun with the role. He's quite good in this film and maintains the same dignity that made his character likable in the original while drifting towards the wild eyed, one track, obsessed Loomis who would appear in the fourth and fifth films. Pleasence was always a good actor, and as such he gives a passionate and watchable performance which evokes both sympathy and frustration. Pleasance really believes in his character, so we believe what he has to say and do. I think this is his best performance of the five appearances he made in the franchise. Pleasance is the heart and soul of the film, and I’m still thankful that they didn’t recast the role for H20 after he died.

Jamie Lee Curtis, on the other hand, was never a particularly great actress, and here she confirms that crying and looking miserable was always one of her best talents. She gets less screen time than in the first film, and is an altogether different character, despite it supposedly being the same night. I imagine that’s probably understandable given all that she’s been through, but I would’ve preferred to see her be a little stronger than she was here. Instead, she doesn’t really do much but whine, sleep, and limp away from Michael Myers. I’m sure the character was bound by the restrictions of both the wig and the script, but she’s just a supporting act to Michael’s rampage around the hospital for the most part. If nothing else, this film provides an effective halfway point between the strong Laurie of the original and the damaged Keri Tate of H20, many years later.

Music is used to very good effect too – the piano score from the original was souped up with a synthesizer, and the use of The Chordette’s Mr. Sandman is done well enough to mean that every time I hear the song anywhere else, it reminds me of this film.

While I’ve been a little down on Halloween 2, it’s not a bad film by any means, and it’s by far the best sequel in the franchise. Its uncomplicated by the nonsense which came with the druids in later films and is able to wear the fact that it’s a sequel proudly on its arm. Compared to the original, it’s almost the anti-Halloween as there’s blood, gore, violence and much less subtlety. But intentionally or otherwise, that’s probably a good thing. More of the same most likely wouldn’t have worked as well and taking things in a slightly different direction works for the best. Taken on its own and without the restrictions the obvious and unavoidable comparisons to the superior original will always bring, Halloween 2 is an above average slasher film which did well at the box office and went on to be the highest grossing horror movie of 1981.

Over the years and across the regions, Halloween 2 has appeared numerous times on DVD. On R1 Good Times released a bog standard fullscreen disc back in 2000, before Universal put out an anamorphic, sharper looking disc a few years later. This is the release I own, and it’s good enough for me to never consider any other release since. Its bare bones, but that’s not really an issue for me. On R2, Castle released a version missing 17 seconds from the hot-tub scene. As this loses 17 seconds of valuable phenomenal rack-viewing time, I can’t imagine anyone would want to see this. A later release from Sanctuary saw the cuts reinstated. I’ve never seen either, so I can’t comment on the quality. In addition to these, Halloween 2 has popped up several times on various double features and boxsets, as well as being a staple on late night TV around this time of year. For completists, there’s a different cut of the film which adds a few scenes and slightly alters a few others which ran on US TV a few times, but which has never been released on DVD as yet. Details of the (very minor and inconsequential) differences can be found on the films IMDB page.

[jacksmith1983]

Nice objective review Andy!

I've always quite liked Halloween II and personally I view it as a worthy sequel to Carpenter's original film. I agree that the fact Halloween II, rather than taking the "several years later" route most sequels go down, picks up at the exact moment Halloween cut off, gives it a welcome sense of immediacy. Unfortunately the revelation of Michael's relationship to Laurie really does muddle things unnecessarily and there are a few sluggish patches, but on the whole some nicely staged kills and typically good performances from Donald Pleasance and Jamie Lee Curtis keep Halloween II afloat on its own terms.

Not a patch on Carpenter's original but a good, entertaing sequel nonetheless. Whether or not they should have complied with Carpenter's wishers and laid Michael Myers to rest after this film is arguable as while Halloween 4: The Return Of Michael Myers was an effective, enjoyable slasher film, all of the four subsequent sequels, in my opinion, were crap.

Incidentally the UK Castle DVD of Halloween II (which I believe was later re-issued by Prism) in addition to being cut, also features a horrible, grainy, pan and scan presentation of the film itself. Definitely avoid that one.

[ecc]

It’s popularly believed that Carpenter initially had no intention of making a sequel, yet that’s hard to take too seriously when you see the last couple of minutes of the first Halloween.

Even knowing about the sequels, I always figured that the ending was just meant to be chilling, not necessarily an opening for a sequel.

The sequel lost me the first time we see Myers in the hospital parking lot when his mask is reflected in a car mirror and we see his eye. In the original, he was just an eyeless mask. It was always my interpretation that Michael Myers and "The Shape" were different beings in a way. That when he has the mask on, he is simply the boogeyman (notice that he immediately puts the mask back on after Laurie has ripped it off in the original; removing any indication of humanity). When we next see him in the bedroom after Loomis has shot him, he is just a dark shape.

That said, the sequel is entertaining and I do put it on now and then (I still have never seen parts 4 or 5, I saw the studio-tampered part 6 in the theater and was appalled by how bad it was, and waited for DVD for H20 and RESURRECTION).

How is the commentary on the UK release?

[ForestFilmsUK]

I have the Sanctuary DVD of Halloween II, which I chose over the r1 version as it had the original cover-art.
Sadly it's a really bad NTSC>PAL conversion, with really visible scan lines as a result. It looked fine on my little 14" 4:3 old set, where it was too small to see the problems, but on a big TV is frankly unwatchable.
The commentary is okay, but nothing thrilling.

I'm really hoping to see a good BD of this and Halloween III sometime soon.

I personally really like Halloween II. It might not ge a great whole, but it has some top moments in it, the music is fantastic, and it's so atmospheric.

[ecc]

Originally Posted by ForestFilmsUK

I have the Sanctuary DVD of Halloween II, which I chose over the r1 version as it had the original cover-art.
Sadly it's a really bad NTSC>PAL conversion, with really visible scan lines as a result. It looked fine on my little 14" 4:3 old set, where it was too small to see the problems, but on a big TV is frankly unwatchable.
The commentary is okay, but nothing thrilling.

I'm really hoping to see a good BD of this and Halloween III sometime soon.

I personally really like Halloween II. It might not ge a great whole, but it has some top moments in it, the music is fantastic, and it's so atmospheric.

The new music gives the opening recap an interesting feel. The scoring of the original ending of the original is scarier but since we already know that Michael's going to sit up behind Laurie, the scoring is not ruinous.

[Peter Neal]

My favourite part of the whole series, which I incidently also caught before the original.
"Halloween II" will always hold a special place in my heart, as the slightly cut rental version must just have gotten officially banned in Germany around the time I rented it
The film got removed off the video store shelves the very same day I returned it (in 1990!).
Foolish me, I simply should have kept it safely home...One never knows...
Anyway: The hospital setting, the atmosphere, the increased gore, performances and score made this a regular watch (on VHS and DVD) for me.
It strikes me as rather strange that Rosenthal is simultanously responsible for the best ("Halloween II") and the worst ("Resurrection") sequel in the series!

[ecc]

Originally Posted by Peter Neal

It strikes me as rather strange that Rosenthal is simultanously responsible for the best ("Halloween II") and the worst ("Resurrection") sequel in the series!

I didn't think RESURRECTION was that bad considering the loose ends it had to tie up from H20 (which was not all it was built up to be). It has its own problems (like abandoned threads left in such as Myers' sensitive hearing when a pulley or something squeaks and the heroine's glass-shattering scream which I thought would then crop up again later but never does). Granted, I have not seen 4 or 5 but I found part 6 to be the worst.

[Peter Neal]

H6 is a chaotic mess, yet there were still bits and pieces and Pleasance's presence to make it rate higher in my household than "Resurrection" which I felt got just plain annoying as soon as Jamie Lee Curtis left the scene...And Busta Rhymes wasn't even the biggest problem; this part clearly has THE most irritating teens of them all...and I usually have a good tolerance for the adolescent characters in slasher fare....The remake felt like a godsent after "Resurrection".
Let alone that making a sequel to "H20", which had tied things up rather nicely, wasn't the smartest move.
A remake was the only way to go for the franchise since "Resurrection" clearly pointed in a direction which would have meant most likely "DTV"...
I tend to ignore this attrocity on my anual "Halloween series marathon"...
To me, H5 is the second worst sequel after "Resurrection".

[jacksmith1983]

Halloween 6: The Curse Of Michael Myers I have only ever seen in its studio tampered form and while it is essentially a pointless, crap sequel it does have its moments. It's by far the goriest film in the entire series up to that point and features some nice kills, in particular a splattery exploding head effect. However, the attempt to link Michael Myers to some sort of paganistic mumbo jumbo is idiotic, Donald Pleasance looks visibly ill and just seems to be in the background for the sake of it as Loomis and Paul Rudd's male hero comes across as a sociopathic wierdo.

Not really a good film at all aside from a few grisly bits, but I still prefer it to its immediate predecessor Halloween 5: The Revenge Of Michael Myers which was just downright dull in my opinion and easily my least favourite film in the entire series.

[fredzilla]

Halloween 2 is without a doubt the best sequel in the Halloween-saga. Well, I even prefer it before the first part.

[cloud]

I have a soft spot for Halloween VI having watched it on Sky Movies one night while off sick from school, I think it was the bonus of the late(r) nights that did it. VI in itself is a good film, it has flaws and lots of them, for example, the TV look, the annoying editing, and the bullshit explanation of why Myers was a killer, but flaws aside it's entertaining and was a huge improvement on the lifeless part V. Let's also remember that VI was made in the '90s, need I say more?

I've never fully warmed to Halloween II despite watching it numerous times, it all feels very forced with very little spark. It's alright but I'm confident I will enjoy Halloween II (2009) more having been wowed by Rob Zombie's truly underrated remake; with its grindhouse trailer trash approach mixed with standard late '70s slasher formula it's films like Halloween (2007) that make me realise why I'm so in love with film.

Halloween IV is my favourite of the sequels, far better than II imo and I couldn't believe how good it was. Halloween H20 is another I have a soft spot for as it was one of the last films I got to see at the old Kings Square Cinema in West Bromwich before they closed it down. And Halloween Resurrection was pants, why they went down the Big Brother route I will never know. I keep seeing Resurrection in bargain bins but I still haven't bought it, in fact I've not seen it since watching it in the cinema, never a good sign!

And if anyone dares say that Halloween III is fucking underrated for the umpteenth time I will scream. Maybe HIII was underrated once but since the internet started it's become overrated!

[ecc]

I rented HALLOWEEN II through Netflix and was fortunate to get the Universal reissue copy. The first shot after the credits - the steadicam prowling the backyards of the houses - is immediately different from the original film's look. Something about it says the eighties (possibly the relative glossiness of the image compared to memories of the original).

Once the first victim appears onscreen, you also know that this is not the same Haddonfield as the original. She's more stereotypical of the eighties slasher victim. In this one, the filmmakers also show us what weapon Myers is going to use and his presence is already known in most kill scenes (less popping out of nowhere, you know when he's in the immediate vicinity of the victims). The hospital is no only ridiculously underpopulated but it also does not seem to be anywhere near Haddonfield despite a shot showing Myers walking down a busy street and turning a corner with a sign that read "Haddonfield Memorial Hospital."

There are only a few good shot setups where Myers actually looks scary (like the hallway scene where he comes up behind the nurse). For the most part, his movements and the camera coverage of them is not as effective as in the original. The imdb trivia mentions that stuntman Warlock was shorter than original Shape actor Nick Castle (and it shows in the early shots where Myers is outside the first victim's house) and the mask was the same but fit differently (that is evident in the first shot of Myers face seen in the car window outside the hospital). Dean Cundey's lighting is beautiful but the hospital environment is less interesting than the rest of Haddonfield at night.

I still enjoyed seeing it again, though. I might give parts 4 and 5 a chance this Halloween.

[claire]

Great review of an underseen an underappreciated film. Thanks for reminding me that I need to revisit this film. A good read, you covered every aspect without waffling - and sold the film again to the converted.

[ecc]

Continuity error - when the police car that hits the Michael Meyers lookalike hits the van, the dummy is slumped over the hood. In the closer shot of it burning, it is standing.

Apparently, the blond guy the blond female reporter is talking to outside the house early on is Dana Carvey (would've been fun to see his yet-to-be created "Church Lady" make an appearance as a concerned citizen).

[Dave Jay]

Gotta agree with cloud that I reckon part IV to be the best of the sequels... Halloween II is okay but had the scope to be so much more effective. Can't say I share his love for Rob Zombie's remake, though - I actually think Zombie is a pretty good director but he really shouldn't be allowed to write his own scripts. And the word on his own part II is that it's worse than useless...

But let's face it, Carpenter's original is untouchable...

[cloud]

What really impressed me with Halloween was how Zombie experimented instead of trying to make the same film John Carpenter did. My two biggest passions as far as films go are slashers and exploitation flicks and judging by what I've seen from him in interviews Rob Zombie is about the same so when I watched it I was so happy he had gone in the direction I for one hoped he would. I make no secret of how bored I was sitting through House Of 1,000 Corpses, studio interference or not that was a pretty lousy effort with plenty of nice ideas and some lovely imagery but bugger all to show for it, he may as well have recycled it and used it in his music videos. Anyhow without wanting to knock this off topic I've really enjoyed Zombie's work since then, The Devil's Rejects was a breath of fresh air and Halloween continued from there though it wasn't as good as Rejects. Wouldn't the remake have been boring had he just rehashed the same old formula that ran the original series into the ground? If he had played it safe and done a formulaic by numbers remake he would have faced criticism and because he went for a darker, edgier and more nihilistic tone he got criticism anyway. I don't have much negative to say about Halloween 2007 at all, Halloween 1978 was what it was, it wasn't the first slasher ever made (contrary to what some clueless idiots without one iota of film knowledge have sometimes claimed) and it certainly wasn't the last. All in all I put them on the shelf close together, they both have their own personality and both work in their own way. Zombie's film borrowed from Carpenter's film and on top of that he added his own vision and what we got was an in ya face crossover of horror and exploitation and he made no apologies for that, it was never going to please everyone anyway but like with what I say about the Carpenter original, it was what it was, love it or hate it.

As for H2, again before watching the last one I heard lots of bad things and it still continues to split others down the middle so I'm not taking much notice of the bad reviews it's received as well as its poor IMDb score. I tend to like films that others can't stand anyway, the most modern example would be the SAW series and as I can't get enough of this new wave of horror/exploitation I look forward to the trio of H2, Trick 'r Treat and SAW VI this Halloween .

[Dave Jay]

Yeah, I wouldn't have wanted a slavish copy of the original either, cloud... but Zombie's a real one trick pony when it comes to characterisation, with most of the characters from any film he's written proving pretty much interchangeable. And his idea of hardboiled dialogue is often laughable - even THE DEVIL'S REJECTS, which I liked, had some piss-awful attempts at 'quotable dialogue' in places. I just think he'd be better served in future by co-writing with someone else who can harness his energies and make a little more out of them beyond all that trailer trash schtick.

And, for the record, I certainly don't find myself swayed by comments on the IMDb... who on this forum does? IMDb-ers are the type of bell-ends who tend to rate any latest hyped blockbuster as one of the best 250 films of all time, irrelevent of its quality. It makes for pretty disturbing viewing much of the time!

[Someone Weird]

Hmm, now lets see:

Halloween: The original and still the best.
Halloween 2: I vaugely remember it being ok. Will have to rewatch it some time, certainly the best of the 'Michael' sequels.
Halloween 3: Such an underrated little gem this, even since the internet started. I like how Carpenter tried to do something new with the series...he failed but, still, its the best of the sequels.
Halloween 4 - The Return of Michael Myers: Death by thumb in this one. I was impressed as a child, but the more I re-visit it, the crappier it becomes.
Halloween 5 - The Revenge of Michael Myers: Absolute piss.
Halloween 6 - The Curse of Michael Myers: Oh dear oh dear oh dear...why has this series not been shot in the back of the head yet and put out of its misery?
Halloween H20: Brings back a little bit of dignity to the series...
Halloween Resurrection: Any dignity that was clawed back by the previous entry is smashed to pieces by this lousy excuse of a movie. Cringe worthy doesn't begin to describe this. So bad I can actually taste some hideous tasting bile in my mouth and throat just writing these words. Urgh! Anyone who says this is even 2% good is clearly wrong and deluded and should see a doctor post haste!
Halloween: Rob Zombie's re-invention on what is, upon looking back on it, a mostly very mediocre and lame series of films, is unsurprisingly a very lame and mediocre film itself. Teeth gnashingly bad.

They should have ended the series with the underrated little gem that is Halloween 3 that never has gotten the praise it deserves even since the internet started and....oh...

Originally Posted by cloud

...And if anyone dares say that Halloween III is fucking underrated for the umpteenth time I will scream. Maybe HIII was underrated once but since the internet started it's become overrated!

...oh, I say!

I prefer the Friday the 13th series.

[jacksmith1983]

While Halloween III: Season Of The Witch may have a large and dedicated cult following amongst the online horror community I have to say that whenever I have personally bought up the film in conversation with friends and acquaintance's who do not frequent online forums I have invariably encountered a dismissive comment along the lines of "Is that the one that didn't even have Michael Myers in it? That was shit that one was!"

In fairness I think there are some horror fans who do big it up perhaps a little more than it deserves. On the whole though Halloween III: Season Of The Witch is a novel concept executed in a flawed yet newvertheless highly entertaining way and given the derision I've always heard about it outside of the online horror community I wouldn't personally call it overrated.

As for Friday The 13th series being superior to the Halloween series? On the whole I think I'm just about inclined to agree. In terms of the originals I think Halloween is a much better film than Friday The 13th, which I personally feel to be a film which has not aged at all well. However, Friday The 13th Part II, whilst derivatve, is one of the great slasher films of its era. In terms of the subsequent sequels Friday The 13th wins due to the fact that while the Paramount series is hit and miss (didn't like parts III, V and VII) The Final Chapter, Part VI: Jason Lives and Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan were all enjoyable up to a point. With the Halloween series for me everything after the entertaining fourth film sucked so therefore the Friday The 13th series just pips it for me, even if the later New Line installments were abominably bad.

To be honest I wouldn't want to sit and watch either series back to back in its entirety.

[cloud]

I agree with what you say about IMDb and you look at a lot of people who post on the message boards too and not all but some come across as disgusting little cretins with so much arrogance and little reason to be so. To be honest I often look at IMDb scores and maybe 8 times out of 10 I disagree with it, look at their worst 250 films of all time for example, I *ahem* rather like a lot of what's on there.

We'll have to agree to disagree over Zombie, had we been having this discussion prior to me seeing The Devil's Rejects and then later Halloween '07 I'd have agreed with you. I really enjoyed the dialogue in both Rejects and Halloween, Malcolm McDowell's banter was especially brilliant and with his choice of casting (which let's face it is a cult movie lover's wet dream) his dialogue is always said really well.

I revisited Halloween '07 last night actually and it held up brilliantly although I do think the Director's Cut is inferior to the Theatrical Cut for once. I liked how Sam Loomis lived in this one but the escape from the asylum was lame! In the version I saw in the cinema it showed how Myers had patiently awaited that time and how his overpowering of the security guards was no accident. I found it puzzling why Zombie would change that to one security guard's incompetence with Myers taking advantage of that on All Hallows Eve - that was poor. That aside as I say I really do hold it in high regard and even little details like how Michael Myers listens to heavy metal, watches horror movies all day, has a love of wearing masks (in between the kills), and has his hair long in my eyes is fucking kick arse stuff - maybe I'm a bit biased because it fits in with my personality and my interests and yes I even have my own collection of masks but I grew out of wearing them some years ago. I love how the stealthy Michael Myers has gone and in his place is a 6'9" powerhouse who rather than sneak from out of the shadows would rather face his victim head on and overpower them. Even the excessive dirt on his mask is significant showing a darker and meaner Michael Myers than what seen in the original series. Again though I do think Zombie wrote this film for a certain type of personality and as a result I can see why some can't relate to it and why it frustrates some, me? I love every minute of it. Yowza!

Finally regarding the remake, I want the Theatrical version on DVD and I've noticed multiple releases of this film already with most seemingly the stronger cut. Could anybody be kind enough to point me out the cinema version, preferably as a 1 disc release as I've seen all of the extras and am going to invest in the 3 disc set soon anyhow (the one that has the 4.5 hours making of documentary).

Regarding Halloween III, isn't that Someone Weird a lovable little chappy *said with gritted teeth* . Being serious though, yeah, as a standalone, as far as being well made and engaging is concerned I'd place H3 in behind Halloween '78 and Halloween '07 as the best of the lot. However, as I say I'm so tired of reading how underrated it's supposed to be, it's like a broken record.

As for Friday The 13th Vs. Halloween?

The original: Halloween
II: draw
III: Halloween
IV: Friday The 13th
V: Friday The 13th
VI: Friday The 13th
VII: Halloween
VIII: Friday The 13th

So pound for pound Friday edges it I'd say. Both are very good series of horror though!