Movie no good. Movie called Halloween III, but movie no retread of previous two movies and every other movie with serial killer. Me no like. Me want movie to be same as Halloween and Halloween II. Me can't handle change. This movie especially confusing because plot is slightly more complex than chase girls with knife.
shareLOL 😂😂😂 I see what you did there
shareHoly shit! Bizarro, is that you?
shareThe OP is a fucking MORON. Halloween 3 is easily the BEST of the Halloween movies, because it covers Halloween itself, and not some dumb serial killer.
To be honest, I find some old Irish toymaker with aspirations and the ability to recreate some ancient pagan festival with a massive bloodbath (and whose grand plan comes to fruition) more interesting than some deranged killer with a knife wearing a frickin' William Shatner mask bleached white killing insignificant young people over and over again (yawn). COME ON!!!!!!!!
EDIT: I failed to detect the sarcasm earlier. Apologies, OP.
I think the OP shared your opinion.....Perhaps, once you got your (obviously broken) 'sarcasm-radar' fixed, you could make amends?
shareHaha, it's funny that you don't see the OP is making fun of people who DON'T like Halloween III.
shareTo be fair, making a 3rd movie in a series the beginning of an anthology is a pretty poor idea.
shareIt wasn't intended to be that way. The 2nd Halloween movie was supposed to be what this was: a completely standalone story. Carpenter intended for Halloween to become an anthology movie series -- think of it as a cinematic version of The Twilight Zone, or Night Gallery -- where each movie would be its own, independent thing. And every year, at Halloween, one of these horror movies, made under that banner would come out. It was never supposed to be "The Michael Myers Show."
What ruined it was that the original Halloween was such a big success, and made such a huge amount of money (it had been a very low-budget film, so the profit margin was enormous when it became a hit), that the studio wanted a direct sequel. That was enough to establish in the minds of the public that a Halloween film was supposed to feature Michael Myers as the villain. If it didn't they wouldn't embrace it. I had that reaction myself back when the movie came out. But I was a kid then, and I had no idea at the time that Halloween was intended to be an anthology series. I think if Carpenter had been able to make this film, as the follow up to the original, and the movie's marketing made sure to inform people of the intent for each film to be a standalone story, it might have worked. It's a pity it didn't; it would have been better than what we got: an endless series of increasingly formulaic and unoriginal slasher movies, featuring the now-stereotypical indestructible villain. They should have left that sort of thing to the Friday the 13th films.
It's tragic what happened to this movie. The hate it had to endure for decades all because it's not a slasher film with Michael Myers. It's good to see that so many online now consider this the second best of the franchise (after the original film) or even the outright best.
I've had interesting debates over this with a pal. I contend that this film should be viewed on it's own merits, outside of a 'Halloween franchise' perspective. My pal thinks that a film being part of a franchise is bound by it's franchise's rules and is at the mercy of the franchise fanbase and by breaking them and going in a completely different direction that all hate it gets from the Halloween fanbase is deserved with the fault being the production companies for trying to cash in on the franchise's brand.