|
D
|
A
|
N
|
G
|
E
|
R
|
S
|
E
|
E
|
K
|
E
|
R
|
S
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
  |
|
© DSFC |
HALLOWEEN
2
|
|||||||||||
| LATER THE NIGHT HE CAME HOME, BUT THEN WENT TO A HOSPITAL, WHICH IS ACTUALLY WHAT HE'D JUST COME FROM, BUT NOT THIS ONE | ||||||||||||
| by
pat The first, and best, sequel to "Halloween" stands to this day as one of the few truly successful sequels in horror. It has it's problems, but all sequels do. That's why they're so hard to do. First you have to everybody's memory of the original. Not the actual original, but how people remember it, and when something is as good and as successful as "Halloween," good luck. The first thing is to get back the people that made the first one work. Since it helped launch or relaunch everyone's careers, this was doable. While Carpenter didn't officially direct, he did co-write it with returning producer/co-writer Debra Hill. He also composed the score for the film, and when the movie started to get off track, he stepped into the director's chair to clean up. Most of the actors were back. The ones who died didn't return, of course, and there were some characters that really weren't needed, but everyone who counted was there. They also filmed in South Pasadena again, before moving Haddonfield to Utah for rest of the series. It was all there. What really made it work was that it truly was a continuation of the original. Many times sequels are forced. You have a hard time believing the characters would let themselves get into the same type of situation again, even if it's just skipping town, and when they do, the killer finding them is equally as forced. Here that's not an issue, because it picks right up at the end of the original and finishes out the night, fleshing out the story of the original as if they were one movie in two parts, a mini-series. Part one ends with a cliffhanger, part two closes it out as definitely as it can. One issue with any of the following films is that honestly there was no way to get around this ending except just pretend a lot of it didn't happen, or not to the degree it did. Carpenter wanted to end the Myers saga before it got ridiculous, and didn't see much more that could be done that was original, believable, and interesting, and saw his mistake in leaving the original open-ended. This time he closed it all out. The film continues the characters and events of the first by also filling in details we hadn't realized hadn't been covered. We find out that Michael is Laurie's brother, not mentioned in the original, but more importantly she finds out who was attacking her. Through the whole first movie, to her it was just some guy in a mask with no name who wanted her dead. When she finally finds out, halfway through the movie, it changes your perspective of the whole situation a bit. Also along those lines is the finding of the bodies from the first movie, which is usually overlooked, with the added impact of seeing the parent's reaction. When the sheriff discovers his daughter is one of the teens slain, he starts to break down. It humanizes the horror beyond just targets for detached brutality. Ben Tramer, Laurie's crush, actually gets crushed and killed, and therefore won't get to ask her out. Again, this event is out of her scope, so we can imagine how she'll react, but it's a nice tie to the original and makes a quick death more important. These movies become interlaced in a way that "Halloween II" almost becomes more supplement than sequel. We also get an indication of why Myers picked this holiday. He writes "Samhain" on the chalkboard at a local school, as opposed to a distant one. While on one hand it was a distraction as he made his way to the hospital housing Laurie, it was really a chance to tie some mythology and "why" to his actions. It implied he was basing his actions on an ancient Celtic holiday, and his murders may be sacrifices. There's not much more to it at this point, but the concept is expanded on far later in the series. Another thing expanded on is the idea that since he killed his sister when he was little, then stalked his other sister years later, that he wants to eliminate his family, the classic horror need for a traceable bloodline of some sort. Now let's discuss its weak points. For one, you can tell there were reshoots and two directors, because while it was scope, (director A) Rick Rosenthal just doesn't have the style or confidence of Carpenter (director B). This also shows in the rest of his entire body of work, which mainly consists of short lived TV series. Some people got excited when they heard he was doing part 8. Some quick research has killed that noise. He was Irvin Kershner to Carpenter's Lucas. Puppet. As mentioned above, sequels have to contend with the memory of the original. In most cases this was done in positive way, as mentioned above, but as far as the body count is concerned, they got gratuitous. People seemed to think the first was bloodier than it really was, so in this one we get more deaths, more creative deaths, and more on-screen blood and such. Normally I'd have no complaint. It's just that in comparison to the original, it seems cheap. Carpenter shot some of these kills himself, but I figure he saw no way to build suspense with Rosenthal's footage, and suspense doesn't do well in sequels anyway. It's understandable, just a shame. Besides, with what happened to some of the other films in the series, this is nitpicking a few mild tweaks. Part 6 was a travesty. |
 LOOMIS SNAPS (AGAIN)  BEN TRAMER ESCAPED WITH ONLY MINOR DEATH  JAMIE LEE MAKES A POOR DECISION WHILE DRUGGED  THE NOBLE NINJA BOWS HIS HEAD BEFORE STRIKING  WHEN WASHING LAUNRY, REMEMBER TO REMOVE ANY LOOSE CHANGE, PAPER, OR PEOPLE  ALL THAT WAS ON WAS "THE WORST WITCH" |
|||||||||||
