This movie is not nearly as scary as the original, but it makes up for that by being action packed and having great death scenes (The hot tub scene is one of the best all time kills) Jaime Lee Curtis has a great preformance as does Donald Pleasance. Overall, the film couldn't capture the non stop tension of the original, but it is a worthy and entertaining sequel

B+

errr...bump

Great follow up to the classic original. I liked it a lot. It had great pacing, and Jamie Lee Curtis is excellent. I really liked a lot of the kills, and the ending is good too. The score is also very good, and I thought it was a well done sequel. Halloween is one of my most favorite horror movies of all time, and I just love the whole franchise. This sequel is a close second, and I think its good.

B+

got way too much harsh criticism. although not as good as the original, it is still a top of the line horror movie

A-

One of the Best Horror Sequels ever made IMO, Great movie

B+

I'm impressed to see a lot of people like this. I bought the dvd, it was only $5.99 at BestBuy, and the dvd transfer is so nice, looks so crystal clear.

AS horror sequels go, this is one of the best. To me, it was a very worthy predecessor to the original. Carpenter should have been proud of this film, even though he didn't direct it. It continued the storry wonderfully and a few of the hospital sccenes were just terrifying.

9/10

After seeing Resurrection, you can see Carpenter may not have directed, but he certainly was probably the most important person there. Writing the script, and filming two days of reshoots himself. The result, not as good as the first, but a great followup (Awesome conclusion) As far as horror sequels go, perhaps only Scream 2, Exorcist III, and Jaws 2 are in the same league as just following very well.

The family reveal was a huge shocker from memory, perhaps only second to Darth and Luke. Great Twist.

Compared to Halloween, a generic slasher that's obviously trying to compete with the early 80's slasher phenomenon over doing its own thing. Nonetheless, it's on a slightly higher tier: it contains some effective moments, the continuity could have been much worse, and it did scare people at the time. So, I have to give it credit where credit is due.

I'm going to go against the grain here: I felt the brother/sister reveal was pretty cheap and nothing more than a plot device to extend this series for more money. Yes, it did establish the family angle; however, as much as I liked one or two sequels in this series, there was really no reason to continue the series after film one.

The writer (a distorted drunken John Carpenter himself) admitted having no ambition when writing this script, so that rubs me the wrong way. I think a little ambition could have improved this piece further. I'm sure there were several people at the time who would have put their heart and soul into the script.

Anyway, it's a slightly successful film, while, at the same time, a pretty big disappointment. The film had some big shoes to fill: it managed to stick a couple toes in, but not enough.

C+

B-

It's the original movie all over again, but without an ounce of suspense. It never really gains a life of its own until the last twenty minutes.

Well to be fair, I know exactly what your talking about with Carpenter, and he did state that he had no ambition because there was no possible way to outdo the original. He did his best, but knew he could never go up on himself.

As sequels go, this isn't a better movie than the original, but what it is and what it does well, it does really well. I have to say right away here that I was scared in this movie. There are some truly ingenious and horrific shots in this film. There are times when you really aren't expecting what's about to transpire, and when it does, it sends chills through you.

I first saw this film in my " horror " days in the mid 80's. I was 12 years old then. So I just recently watched it again to see if it would have the same affect on me now. I sat in my basement and turned off all the lights and you know what, I was spooked. Right from the opening number of Carpenter's ominous music and the pumpkin slowly transforming into Michael's angry face, I knew right there that I was in for a night of fear. And I was.

The story starts the same night as Halloween ended on. Laurie is being taken to the hospital and there is a massive manhunt to find Myers. Laurie eventually gets settled into the hospital and it becomes only a matter of time until Michael can find out where she is. He finally comes to get her and then all hell breaks loose.

One of the major players in this film is the locale. The hospital is dark and quiet and rather empty. And that adds to the atmosphere of the film. It gives us lots of long hallways so we can have a few shots of Michael hunting his prey. What we also get is an array of rooms to 86 his victims in and a slew of weapons to do it with.

Rick Rosenthal directed this film and I am amazed that he really didn't go on to do much because he almost copies Carpenter's style to the tee here. Brilliant in particular are two shots. One is where Michael appears out of the darkness in one room to attack his victim. The lighting is solely responsible for the affectiveness of this shot and it works so well that it still gives me the shivers when I watch it. The second is when Micael attacks one of the nurses while Laurie watched helplessly from a distance.

Not only is this a good horror movie, it is a good film and if the first rates a 10/10, this is certainly of a 9. It is that good. And if you don't agree with me, watch it again---by yourself and then answer that question.

The biggest difference between this and the first? Rick Rosenthal. The man can't set up a scare to save his life. With the first film you had the great camera shots with Michael's point of view that Carpenter used to set up the tension. In this film Michael isn't stalking, he's lurking. He's always in a shadow somewhere and just when he's about to kill he'll step out from under it and stop before he kills ruining any of the suspense. Rosenthal also ruins the hospital setting. With a decent director the hospital could've been claustrophobic. Instead Rosenthal opens everything up. There are hallways and corridors galore. There's one good shot that gets this feeling across and that's the one with Laurie sitting on the floor next to the door and the camera zooms in on her. Other than that it was a wasted opportunity.

And from a writing perspective you can tell that Carpenter and Hill were just bankrupt. They didn't want to write the sequel and it shows. Keeping the central character in bed for two thirds of the film was/is not a good idea.

Its not good.

*½

You can diss the logics of the franchise, but not the movie. This is the true ending to the series. Pleasance sacrificing himself and micheal is an awesome ending. And have you ever been in a hospital overnight BKB, its very darkened. They have dimmers and blacken areas with no patients.

Why does the poll have me rating this an A? Halloween II is not an A-movie.