Universal Pictures | Release Date: October 30, 1981
8.0
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 491 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
379
Mixed:
59
Negative:
53
Watch Now
Stream On
Buy on
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Expand
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
10
HalloweenCostumeKaylaSep 9, 2009
The first of these retellings was excellent. It added new depth to characters that were lacking in portrayal and took new turns into unexplored territories of the franchise. This newest installment did nothing of the sort. I felt the The first of these retellings was excellent. It added new depth to characters that were lacking in portrayal and took new turns into unexplored territories of the franchise. This newest installment did nothing of the sort. I felt the original gave the appearance that the film was set in the 70s and then perhaps the 80s, however in this they have cell phones, make references to Fergie, there are new cars, etc. Also, they give no explanation as to how Michael miraculously survives multiple .357 (a gun designed to destroy tissue and organs) gunshot wounds. Also, it's indicated that Michael was only grazed by the round Laurie fired into his face at point blank range. However, there is quite a lot of arterial spray for a simple graze. Not to mention, even though Michael is supposed to be this behemoth monster, the pain would be so immeasurable that he would not have made it ten feet. Then of course, there was the portrayal of Michael. After his mother died he never speaks in the slightest. He takes several extremely damaging blows and doesn't so much as whimper. I would have no problem with this but for the most part when he kills someone he grunts like a caveman, something he did not do in the first. I understand that I am referencing the first installment of the retelling quite a bit, but I feel that if you're going to make a sequel that follows nearly directly after the first, then you should at least stick to your character designs and plot concepts. Now, for the final nail in this coffin, Sherri Moon Zombie appears quite a bit in the movie as a ghost. I don't really consider this a spoiler, so I didn't mark it as such. The real reason she is in the movie, is because she loves attention and I don't think Rob zombie could deal with the fact of making a movie that didn't involve his wife in some way. Her ghostly appearances would have been freaky and weird, if she wasn't in every other scene, looking ridiculous and rattling off her dialog in the poorest manner. Also, why is the child version of Michael a ghost with his mother? Last I checked he wasn't dead, he just grew up. I would accept that when Michael put on the mask it represented a fracture in his psyche, but the boy version of Michael is wearing a mask as well. So if Zombie was trying to achieve that point, he simply made it redundant. I only give this movie a 2/5 because the gore was quite good. But if you're looking for something more than that, or perhaps you hope that this movie will broaden the characters more-so than the first, I suggest you look elsewhere. Reluctantly 2/5. (Also, fun fact, a third is already slated and is going to be in 3D. The best part: Rob Zombie isn't directing it.) Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
bobhDec 13, 2008
I thought this movie was not as bad as everyone says it is. Of course it isn't as good as the original because the original is one of the greatest horror movies out there. This acting is ok but the music is foreboding and creepy. I thought this movie was not as bad as everyone says it is. Of course it isn't as good as the original because the original is one of the greatest horror movies out there. This acting is ok but the music is foreboding and creepy. It's campy fun. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
GavinCJul 26, 2009
Most of the kills are needless and the suspense from the original has gone.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
ScottNAug 29, 2009
Wow, what an utterly craptacular movie. Let me guess what Rob Zombie's favorite word is. One hint - It starts with an F, ends with a K, and has two letters in between. If you can get past the horrible dialague, we get to listen to Wow, what an utterly craptacular movie. Let me guess what Rob Zombie's favorite word is. One hint - It starts with an F, ends with a K, and has two letters in between. If you can get past the horrible dialague, we get to listen to Laurie scream her head off the whole movie, watch Dr. Loomis serve absolutely no purpose in this "film" other than to pimp his new book, and one unimaginitive hack-hack-hack murder after another. At least throw me a little creativity with the kills, if nothing else. Twice as bad as the remake of part 1, and that's only because Zombie had John Carpenter's original classic to base the storyline on. On part 2, Zombie was flying solo, making up his own storyline, and he crashed and burned horribly with this one. And you gotta love the old "fooled you!" endings. So unoriginal and cliche. Argh. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
BobHSep 11, 2009
This movie was horrible. And although there are a few cool visuals throughout the movie, (which felt like 3 hours more than it really was), it was almost unbearable to watch. it trys to be brutal and just comes off digusting and tasteless. This movie was horrible. And although there are a few cool visuals throughout the movie, (which felt like 3 hours more than it really was), it was almost unbearable to watch. it trys to be brutal and just comes off digusting and tasteless. Absolute garbage. Watch the original "Halloween II" from 1981. At least that one is watchable. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
eva3si0nNov 16, 2022
Halloween II is an excellent direct sequel to the first film. This is literally series 2, it cannot be considered separate from 1978's Halloween. And the sequel turned out to be excellent. Perhaps this is due to the fact that Carpenter shotHalloween II is an excellent direct sequel to the first film. This is literally series 2, it cannot be considered separate from 1978's Halloween. And the sequel turned out to be excellent. Perhaps this is due to the fact that Carpenter shot and cut most of the film on his own. Halloween II cannot be called a sequel, it is simply a continuation of the film in which the story of Michael Myers is told to the end. Perfectly conveyed suspense from the original is felt in Halloween II. It feels that the budget of the film has grown, the scenery has become more expensive, as well as costumes. The only thing that is annoying is the literal immortality of Michael Myers. If in the first part it was still possible to explain its survivability, then in the sequel it was literally elevated to absolute. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
DogeGamer2015Nov 7, 2021
Es una secuela decente, aunque se queda corta si es comparada con su predecesora; la trama es pasable y es lo suficientemente violenta para ser una experiencia muy tensa, es recomendable.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
3
LiammatherOct 15, 2021
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews