repeating the process until it literally had a shit yo-yo going - pounding smelly brown bump marks all over the living room rug in the process !!!!

blah...the only thing pts 4-8 achieve was to "glorify" ol'Mikey with a carver knife going slash! slash! slash! at everything like he was in a kitchen stacked with veggies...

It was a much better idea for the Halloween franchise...what if they HAD made a series of annual movies of different stories due out each Halloween each year? It wouldnt have been repetitive, and probably more people would have flocked to it, just to see something different being offered every year...

But oh well...

\o/

^^ Kind reminds you of a popular jingle you hear frm a popular commercial. I think that part 3 was actually the greatest of them all. I think it was a intermissiom for micheal give him time to lay low and rest for part 4

No.... Just the IDEA of a FIRST sequel wrecked the original, there is no collection, just an amazing movie and then a pile of shit.

This sums it up - the gathering of movies, collecting them in sequence, building a film base, their relationships to one another...

It's a problem, particularly for younger viewers obsessed with losing themselves in pristine collections and hoarding things that they can get out and have another look at because they are bored or need to lose themselves in something.

I blame the DVD revolution, and special edition boxsets etc. (and of course the internet, where nerds and fanboys can flourish).

I like it that Halloween 3 is a real fly in the ointment for some people.

shit - i remember (people) bitching about it long before the DVD was a concept ..
it may bring a new breed of unbelievers now but that bitching was always there ..

i like it - i always did like it ... a hell of a lot more than any 'proper' sequel that came after ..

I don't think three is altogether incongruous. Michael, as the Shape, is a walking Halloween mask himself. No face, few lingering threads of identity, just a terrifying image. But, this terrifying image has the capacity to cut a swathe through everything it sees. Seems like a company that makes fatal Halloween masks is a pretty sensible parallel. That said, the protagonist of the movie is flat as a pancake and his acting is an embarassment. Maybe if they'd paralleled things and used Loomis as a connecting thread, having him in there somewhere investigating the insanity, it might have felt like a more organic sequel, not to mention more fun to watch. I know it was meant to stand on its own, but it would have disappointed fewer people with firmer bearings on the franchise. Halloweens 1 through five, I actually stand behind, with a little less loyalty to 3. The war between Michael and Loomis I think has an appeal that can somewhat excuse the redundancy, laziness and all around crapitude that sometimes runs rampant in the movies. (And yes, crapitude is the word.)

I'm going to admit something, I really didn't like this movie when I watched it. Looking back on it, it wasn't bad though. I just don't think it should be named "Halloween". Cool concept though.

Carpenter only directed the original Halloween. Every sequel thereafter had a different director. And as of yet, I haven't heard who's directing Halloween 9.