Personally, I don't care about the absence of Michael Myers from this movie. I was very disappointed with Halloween II and was looking forward to a new direction. Little did I know that the direction was straight into the garbage.
The thrust of the movie is this; a toymaker has stolen a piece of Stonehenge and smuggled it into California. He has sold millions of masks (in only three, highly clichéd designs) and has enticed his young purchasers to watch a commercial, that will somehow be seen by all the children of the US at the same time, regardless of the time zone they live in. When they watch the commercial, the children will be eaten from the inside by bugs and snakes. Oh, and some uninteresting people are trying to stop him.
The movie falls apart when you consider that the villain has expended a huge amount of effort on his plan, but has neglected to give a reason why he should do so. He mentions wanting to bring back the fear of the old pagan gods, but for what? Wealth and power? He clearly has plenty of that already. Is he a religious fanatic? Okay, but how does mass murder further his cause? Is it all a big Halloween prank? You don't commit mass murder for a prank on the people of the US, you hire David Lynch and have him make a show called "Twin Peaks." Some will try to jump in and point out that Michael Myers had obscure motives for his murders. This reasoning neglects the fact that Myers was a solo operator using very simple methods. The audience isn't supposed to understand him, they are supposed to fear him, plain and simple.
The villain of Halloween III, by contrast, has an amazingly detailed and convoluted plan. He must have had moxie to set this up, and he must have had a clear goal to put out the effort he did. In a case liken this, the audience cannot help but think what his motivations and goals might be. When a movie sets the audience up for big payoff, then blows it off, it deserves nothing more than to be labeled a one-star cheat.
The thrust of the movie is this; a toymaker has stolen a piece of Stonehenge and smuggled it into California. He has sold millions of masks (in only three, highly clichéd designs) and has enticed his young purchasers to watch a commercial, that will somehow be seen by all the children of the US at the same time, regardless of the time zone they live in. When they watch the commercial, the children will be eaten from the inside by bugs and snakes. Oh, and some uninteresting people are trying to stop him.
The movie falls apart when you consider that the villain has expended a huge amount of effort on his plan, but has neglected to give a reason why he should do so. He mentions wanting to bring back the fear of the old pagan gods, but for what? Wealth and power? He clearly has plenty of that already. Is he a religious fanatic? Okay, but how does mass murder further his cause? Is it all a big Halloween prank? You don't commit mass murder for a prank on the people of the US, you hire David Lynch and have him make a show called "Twin Peaks." Some will try to jump in and point out that Michael Myers had obscure motives for his murders. This reasoning neglects the fact that Myers was a solo operator using very simple methods. The audience isn't supposed to understand him, they are supposed to fear him, plain and simple.
The villain of Halloween III, by contrast, has an amazingly detailed and convoluted plan. He must have had moxie to set this up, and he must have had a clear goal to put out the effort he did. In a case liken this, the audience cannot help but think what his motivations and goals might be. When a movie sets the audience up for big payoff, then blows it off, it deserves nothing more than to be labeled a one-star cheat.