Halloween III: Season of the Witch (1982) User Reviews

Well it's different, that's for sure

[Mr-Fusion · 6/10 · 1 October 2019]

I was looking forward to this, if nothing else than just context for that "Silver Shamrock" ad that popped up on YouTube. How the hell does that fit into a "Halloween" film?

"Season of the Witch" is a bizarre exercise in creepiness that eschews Michael Myers in favor of . . . jeez, where do we start: lasers, humanoid drones, witchcraft, the Old Man from "RoboCop" as the villain. And then there's the protagonist, a sex-hungry physician (Tom Atkins) who gets caught up in this conspiracy because of . . . I think the writer forgot to add in a reason.

On the one hand, this was enjoyable because I wanted to see how it ended; and the good thing here is that they really went for the John Carpenter mood and ambiguous ending. But the script takes way too long in revealing the evil plot, and that's characteristic of larger pacing issues.

I tend to fall somewhere in the middle on this; it doesn't deserve the hate it received in '82, but it doesn't hold the rewatchable allure for me that would put me in the cult following crowd.

Misunderstood and under rated

[Smells_Like_Cheese · 6/10 · 4 October 2004]

This is probably the most controversial Halloween movie, simply because Michael Myers isn't in it. I know that this movie gets a lot of complaints, but actually I can see where the writers were going with this. They just had an idea to continue the Halloween stories, but just to do a different type of franchise, which I give them a lot of credit for. Does this movie deliver the same scares as the original Halloween or even the sequel? No, it doesn't, but it's still creepy and not given a proper chance by most. Just the song that is used alone in this movie was a bit intense. It's a great little ghost story that is sure to deliver chills if you have an open mind to it. The acting isn't as good as the other movies, we have some pretty below par actors, but over all they make the movie worth watching even if it was cheesy.

On Saturday, October 23, shop owner Harry Grimbridge is chased by mysterious figures wearing business suits. He collapses at a gas station clutching a Silver Shamrock jack-o'-lantern mask and is driven to the hospital by the filling station attendant all the while ranting, "They're gonna kill us. All of us." While Grimbridge is hospitalized, another man in a suit enters his room and pulls his skull apart. The man then returns to his vehicle, douses himself with gasoline and lights himself on fire, causing the car to explode. Challis, together with Grimbridge's daughter, Ellie, begins an investigation that leads them to the home of the Silver Shamrock Novelties factory. They learn from a hotel manager, Mr. Rafferty, that the source of the town's prosperity is Irishman Conal Cochran and his factory and that the majority of the town's population is made up of descendants of Irish immigrants. Challis learns that Ellie's father had stayed at the same hotel. Other guests of the hotel included shop owners Marge Guttman, Buddy, Betty and their son "Little" Buddy. All have business at the factory and eventually meet gruesome ends because of the Silver Shamrock masks.The Kupfer family views the Silver Shamrock commercial that will air on Halloween night. But there's more to these masks then meets the eye.

Is Halloween 3 the best sequel? No; is it the worst sequel? No; I'd say just a lot of people got the wrong idea about the movie and didn't know what the writers were thinking when the wrote for this franchise. I loved the ending scene, it actually did give me a nightmare, I don't want to give it away though, just trust me, it's a creepy scene. I do recommend if you love horror movies to give this movie a fair chance or if you want to see the Halloween movie franchise, just remember that the writers just wanted to try something new. I do honestly like this movie, I hope people will see it for what it is and it's just a good ghost story to watch on a night for Halloween.

6/10

An Admirable Sequel with Awful Characters

[Neill4797 · 5/10 · 18 July 2023]

Halloween III deserves credit for attempting to take the franchise in a fresh direction, moving away from the conventional slasher formula of its predecessors. Instead, it presents a Halloween-themed mystery with a brand-new cast of characters. It's worth noting that this is the only film in the Halloween series that doesn't feature Michael Myers, apart from a brief cameo where John Carpenter's original movie is playing on a TV.

However, the major drawback of Halloween III lies in its lacklustre central characters, Daniel and Ellie, portrayed by Tom Atkins and Stacey Nelkin. Both performances are subpar, and their romantic subplot feels so misjudged. The significant age gap of 24 years between the two leads makes their relationship feel very uncomfortable. Furthermore, Daniel's motivations are unclear throughout the film. We are left wondering why he is so determined to investigate the murder of Ellie's father, considering he has no personal connection to the victim and is a doctor, not a detective.

Despite these shortcomings, Season of the Witch does have its merits. The entire storyline revolving around the Silver Shamrock company is utterly absurd, yet I found its unpredictability enjoyable. Never did I expect Halloween III to feature an army of robots. The film's strongest moments occur in the last half hour, resembling an early James Bond movie, with the protagonist trapped in the villain's lair and fighting to escape. It's worth mentioning that John Carpenter's score is exceptional, evoking a sense of dread that the visuals sometimes lack.

An underrated film. Very moody and atmospheric. *** out of 5

[pumpkinhead_lance · 21 April 2005]

Let's get some things straight...

The only real reason people seem to hate this film is because Michael Myers was absent.

For those who don't know, John Carpenter and crew decided since Michael Myers was dead at the end of HalloweeN II, there was no reason to continue on with his story. The decision was to go ahead with the series making each new installment a different story revolving around the Halloween season. Personally, I think this was a wise decision. But after everyone saw it they were screaming 'That wasn't a Halloween movie! Where was Michael?'. Obviously the majority of the audience would rather more Michael Myers rampages than creepy stories set around Halloween time.

Oh well, this movie gives a taste of where the series could have and should have went, before the disappointing HalloweeN 4.

Overall, the acting is top notch. Tom Atkins is a great actor. The soundtrack is one of my favorite John Carpenter scores ever. It has themes, but it's more about synthesized mood and pulsating rhythms. The cinematography by the great Dean Cundey is fabulous. And the entire feel of the film is very unsettling. The film literally freaks me out.

I recommend all of you that diss the film, to check it out once more. Keep an open mind. If this hadn't been a part of the HalloweeN series you would probably like it.

As for myself, I'm glad that this carries the HalloweeN title. Th rest of the films didn't pick up until HalloweeN H2O which is a very worthy entry.

Not A Great One, But Accomplishes Rule #1 For A Horror Film

[102AFalcon · 5/10 · 13 June 2003]

I've read almost all of the reviews here and honestly, I cannot argue with many of the negative points that are raised here. The movie DOES use the "Halloween" name while having only one tiny thread of connection to the Michael Myers movies that came before it and would come later (and that thread, involving a lab technician, can be charitably described as really lame). It is boring in stretches, the idea of Tom Atkins hooking up with Stacey Nelkin is pretty ridiculous, and the plot makes no sense if you think about it for more than 5 seconds.

But I don't hate this film. Why? That's very simple. The first rule of a horror film is to scare the viewer and HALLOWEEN III has scared the hell out of me every time I've seen it! It's hard to pinpoint why, exactly, but the atmosphere of the movie is a huge factor. This film is jammed with ominous synthesized music (very 80's touch), cold and sharp-looking camera work, and a feeling of overwhelming dread and fear. It's very hard to establish atmosphere in any movie or TV show; I was talking about this movie with my brother--who said that he didn't think it was scary at all--and I compared it to THE X-FILES. Both that show and this movie were able to quickly drag me into their bizarre and frightening worlds.

I don't think I could flat-out recommend a movie with this many huge problems, but I'd say it might scare the viewer, and that's not so bad considering how many abysmal horror movies do nothing else right and cannot get that deceptively simple task completed, either.

"A good magician never explains."

[TOMASBBloodhound · 5/10 · 24 October 2004]

Let me begin by saying that I hated this film as a kid. After viewing it the other day on a whim however, I was surprised at how much better I liked it now. The story centers around an evil mask-maker planning to use ancient technology to murder millions of children on Halloween night by selling them masks with a nasty little secret inside. I found the story very interesting, though plenty of plot holes ultimately keep this film from being all it could have been.

The biggest obstacle in this film's way is the fact that it has nothing at all to do with the other "Halloween" films made either before or after it. That's certainly no reason not to give it a chance, though. Perhaps it should have been called only "Season of the Witch" or something so as not to anger the purists out there who demand the presence of Michael Myers in anything with the word "Halloween" in the title. That said, let's take a look at the good and not-so-good elements of this film, shall we?

Like the previous entries in the series, this film has some creepy and effective music. It is also buffered by some evil synthesizer sounds at every turn. The little jingle set to "London Bridge" is annoying, and I'm sure it was supposed to be.

There are some interesting deaths, to say the least. Early on, we see a robotic henchman pull apart a victim's skull, then blow himself up in a car. One hapless woman gets an energy beam projected through her face, leaving her mouth much larger than normal. (a bug then crawls out of her head, foreshadowing later events) Another man gets his head ripped completely off for threatening to torch the bad guy's factory. Later on, a family is murdered in a test demonstration of what happens when someone wearing one of these masks watches a certain commercial on TV. Bugs and poisonous snakes form inside the mask and attack anyone in the room. It seems the masks have some tiny pieces from one of the blocks from Stonehenge implanted in the factory seal. Something about the commercial triggers the effect within the mask. And just how does this happen, you ask? "A good magician never explains," the mask-maker points out in one scene. Sigh.

Some gigantic holes are present as the story unfolds. Tom Atkins, who plays our hero, has a useless love affair with the daughter of an early victim. If these two are so intent on solving a deadly mystery about the death of her father, and bad guys are all around, would they really stop to have sex? He is also much older than this woman. I guess since Atkins plays a doctor, the young woman finds that sexy. Maybe I'd better go to medical school if I want to score with hot young women when I'm his age.

Another problem concerns the time that these masks are supposed to go off. We are told by the mask maker that when the commercial airs at 9:00 pm on Halloween night, all the masks will react and kill the children. However, if it's 9:00 in California (where this takes place) it would be 11:00 where I live or midnight on the east coast. Children would mostly be in bed by then! Few parents would allow their kids up that late to watch any "big give-a-way". The plan is to wipe out kids all over the country, but it looks like only kids on the west coast would be up when the commercial airs. If there was an explanation about how this problem would be overcome, I missed it. I guess once again, "A good magician never explains."

And just how in the hell did this guy steal a piece of Stonehenge, anyway? He admits it was difficult, but again offers no explanation of how it was done!

And how many freaking times did the female robot attack Atkins at the end? I lost count.

Well, it's not a total loss. It was a neat idea for a film, but they shouldn't have glossed over so many things.

I'll give it 5 of 10 stars.

Happy Happy Halloween Halloween Halloween Happy Happy Halloween Silver Shamrock!

STOP IT!!!! STOP IT!!!! STOP IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So sayeth the Hound.

Oh Lord

[mikeiskorn · 2/10 · 27 February 2021]

That was the longest 1.5 hours of my life and a waste of a Saturday morning. Won't need to watch that again.

Pumpkin-based terror

[jp76-1 · 7/10 · 14 August 2006]

Saw this film again recently after watching it as a kid in the 80s. Nobody else seems to like this film but personally i thought it was great. Maybe its because I'm a sucker for nostalgia and 80's B Movie 'shockers' and sci-fi generally, but also because I love Carpenter's work, especially from this period (and even though he didn't direct this he did produce it and it has many of his hallmarks) - The score is excellent and the whole film has the mood of a period of film-making that is forever imprinted upon my psyche. The story is typically ludicrous and fanciful to the extreme, (the theft of parts of Stonehenge and transportation to Western US for example, and the formation of snakes and insects out of thin air, but then we are talking witchcraft here so fair enough...)

A very bizarrely positioned film in a series that was both preceded and succeeded by psycho-killer Micheal Myers' character, this is in my opinion a little b-movie gem.

No, it's not the lack of Michael Meyers

[MissSimonetta · 3/10 · 25 January 2021]

It's because the movie is BORING.

The protagonists are charismaless at best and boorish at worst. The premise of a corporation committing mass sacrifice of children in order to bring Halloween back to its pagan roots its super interesting, but totally wasted amidst dull exposition, a pointless sex scene, and some truly mind-boggling twists.

The scene with the kid's head turning into snakes and bugs deserved a better movie to belong to than this!

No Michael - Whew!

[packfanman · 7/10 · 1 April 2006]

For those of you who turn to 'Halloween' movies to get your Michael Myers on, you probably already know to avoid this movie like the plague. But, here is the truth. John Carpenter never wanted Michael Myers to become a series - he hated writing the second 'Halloween' - thought it was a totally useless concept that Michael turns out to be Laurie's uncle. That's why he blew him up at the end - so he didn't have to do the storyline anymore. Instead, he wanted to use the 'Halloween' title to come out with Halloween-themed movies - a new movie with a new them every year. I guess enough people didn't read that or understand what he wanted to do with it. Too bad. You're missing a decent show.

Abject disappointment

[bluedog-06340 · 2/10 · 10 October 2021]

It was a long time ago 1982 but not long enough to forget my abject disappointment at Season of the Witch. I have read the reviews and there are some valid points but why attach it to Halloween? It could have easily been a standalone film and without the Halloween tag OK. I remember not much about the film or the ludicrous premise on the narrative. If I go to the movies to see, for example, the latest Bond I expect to see him in that movie as I expected to see Michael Myers, good or poor and there have been a few now. So my disappointment wasn't directly the film it was unexpected in a bad way.

Happy, happy Halloween, Silver Shamrock!

[Hey_Sweden · 8/10 · 2 November 2013]

It's such a shame that this entry in the "Halloween" franchise isn't more appreciated. It DOES have its admirers (such as this viewer), but it just wasn't satisfying to an audience that only wanted Michael Myers. Certainly a franchise that revolved around different macabre stories told at Halloween time would have been more interesting than yet another "psycho on a murder spree" plot. Conceived by producer Debra Hill as a tale of witchcraft in the computer age, the idea was taken to noted writer Nigel Kneale, although his script would be re-written by producer John Carpenter and re-written again by debuting director / longtime Carpenter associate Tommy Lee Wallace.

Legendary stud Mr. Tom Atkins stars as the commendably flawed protagonist Dr. Daniel Challis (he's insatiable and has a weakness for drink), who's thrown for a loop when a panicked man is brought to his hospital and murdered later that night by a cold-eyed, well dressed assassin. Hooking up with the victims' daughter Ellie (cute as a button Stacey Nelkin), he decides to play detective and tracks the mans' actions to a Halloween mask factory in a small California town. Presiding over the business and town is cheerful Conal Cochran (Dan O'Herlihy, whom you'll recognize from "The Last Starfighter" and "RoboCop" 1 and 2), a maniacal villain putting into motion a horrible prank that he intends to play on the children of America. It's up to Daniel to save the day...if he can keep his hands off of Ellie for long enough.

As noted, this in-name-only sequel (the only nod it makes to past movies is a TV commercial for the '78 Carpenter-helmed "Halloween") owes a fair bit to "Invasion of the Body Snatchers", right down to naming the town Santa Mira. It's solidly entertaining and consistently amusing stuff, with Wallace (assisted by ace D.P. Dean Cundey) creating fine atmosphere, especially when it comes to the corporate-controlled town, where Cochrans' "eyes and ears" are everywhere. The film hits the ground running, and there's no let up right until the ending. Tom Burmans' makeup is excellent; there's good gross-out stuff here. Atkins is an appealing unlikely hero and Nelkin is pleasing to look at as the daughter who gets over the death of her father in record time. Supporting and bit parts are played by the likes of Michael Currie ("Dead & Buried"), Ralph Strait ("The Beastmaster"), Garn Stephens (the real-life Mrs. Tom Atkins at the time), Nancy Kyes (Annie in the first "Halloween"), Jonathan Terry ("The Return of the Living Dead"), Maidie Norman ("What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?"), stunt coordinator Dick Warlock, and Joshua John Miller ("Near Dark"). Carpenters' score is one of his best. And to top it all off, there's that insidiously catchy jingle (sung to the tune of "London Bridge is Falling Down") that pops up over and over.

If only it didn't have the name "Halloween" attached, some viewers might be more inclined to give it a break.

Eight out of 10.

no Michael Myers, get over it

[deheor · 7/10 · 26 March 2006]

After a sequel that ended the Michael Myers saga (or at least ended it until someone decided there was more money to be made) the producers were in a position of trying to decide where to go next. They made one of the most bold, and reviled decisions. They decided to give the audience something new.

Halloween 3:Season of the witch tells the story of a doctor who tries to understand what led to a murder in the hospital he worked at. He meets up with the victims daughter and they realize that the last appointment he had before he showed up in emergency was at a out of the way mask factory. When they head to the small town they find security cameras everywhere and no police force at all. Along the way they meet up with ace mask salesman Buddy Kupfer and his equally annoying family, Marge Gutman (that name should never had made it past the first draft), and company president (and legendary prankster) Conal Cochran. Although the company has a record of the order being picked up they happily provide a replacement and try to send our heroes packing but they manage to piggyback a tour on the backs of Kupfer family and during it, they spot her Father's car hidden poorly in one of the loading bays. When they attempt to bring some police in from the outside the company captures them and in James Bond villain style, explain their plans in great detail.

This movie drew a lot of criticism for several reason most of which were undeserved. Some seemed to find it confusing and they did not understand the motives of the villains but if they paid attention it is all explained quite clearly. The goal is two fold, return Halloween to its dark roots and to sacrifice millions.

Another complaint was the commercial jingle that plays dozens of times over the course of the film that seemed to annoy many but in all fairness, name a jingle that doesn't get under your skin. They are designed to seer into the brain and the Silver Shamrock commercial does just that.

Perhaps the most frustrating complaint are by people who are upset about the lack of Michael Myers. I think that book had been closed quite well in the second film and Carpenter's idea of continuing the series as unique stories that are related to the holiday Halloween instead of simply doing retreads of the first picture (an idea that was picked up by the most recent Hellraiser sequels as Pinhead and company have been pushed further into the background in favour of new stories of the damned) was great and more series's would benefit from such an approach.

Despite the negative view many people have this is simply the best sequel to Halloween of them all. Tom Atkins and Stacy Nelkin make a very enjoyable (though unlikely) screen couple, and Dan O'Herlihy makes a terrific villain. His explanation for how the Stonehenge rock arrived is a real laugh out loud moment. Sure the film sometimes looks a little cheap. The control room set up is really low tech, even for an eighties film but the special effects are so well done that all is forgiven.

I highly recommend this to anyone who is in the mood for something different.

The Weakest Entry!

[vengeance20 · 3/10 · 13 October 2021]

Knew from watching the first time years back that this entry didn't involve the masked killer, Michael Myers. But still, I watched it anyway & have seen it again for the first time in over 8 years & still have the same opinion.

The film this time around, features a mask making company designed to kill kids on Halloween via a TV Advert Jingle used to trance them to death on Halloween Night. It's a race against time for one man to stop this trance before it's too late.

I found the film to be poor, sorry not sorry but it was & not because it didn't feature Michael Myers. Now, I'm not one of those guys who dislikes the film because of that reason. The film itself was poor & even if it didn't share the same title I don't think it would've fared better, that's a matter of opinion. There's a lot of people think that the film would've been better received had the films title been different. I don't think so & that's a tunnel vision, rose tinted, myth that can never be proven. There's no solid fact that the film would've been better.

I for one know of the backstory behind what John Carpenter & Debra Hill were trying to do. The Halloween Franchise was supposed to be a bigger scale analogy like The Twilight Zone as John put it, but the success of the first film & the sequel had other ideas & as a result the film was put down, yeah, the film MAY have been better received but would have been better received any more than what we see or if at all.

I didn't like this film because the story sucked. The action was below mediocre & the whole premise was dumb & plot holed. Even if the film had been named Season Of The Witch & wasn't part of the Franchise I still wouldn't have liked it. In fact, I wouldn't have even bothered watching had it not been "apart" of the Halloween Franchise (sharing the same name).

There's not a lot in terms of redeeming qualities. The idea was unique & different but that's about it, well, that & the tad bit of eye candy we get. But to be honest, it's hard to find & think of anything I liked with this film as it wasn't great.

Overall, it's a disappointment & that's not because of Michael, sure I'd say it is a bit, but I generally think in itself, the film to be poor as.

3/10.

Very Underrated

[Michael_Elliott · 2 December 2008]

Halloween III (1982)

*** (out of 4)

Dr. Daniel Challis (Tom Atkins) has a man show up in his hospital holding a Halloween mask and refusing to let it go. The man is eventually murdered so the doctor teams up with the man's daughter (Stacey Nelkin) to try and determine why. This leads to a Halloween mask factory and its bizarre owner (Dan O'Herlihy) who plans on killing off children using the masks.

HALLOWEEN III was a critical and commercial flop when it was released and you can go to any internet message board and mention this film and usually a fight will quickly break out. Most people can't stand the film because it doesn't feature Michael Myers. I understand that as I still remember the first time I rented this I couldn't help but keep waiting for Myers to show up and when he never did I felt cheated. That also meant whenever I'd watch a HALLOWEEN movie I'd skip this one because it didn't have Myers.

Looking back on the film, history is starting to be kind because once you get over the fact that it doesn't have Myers then you'll see that it's an actual good movie. The original idea by John Carpenter was to have a new subject for each movie. Of course that didn't happen with HALLOWEEN II and after this one turned out to be a disaster the series quickly went back to the scary guy. This film here has a lot in common with INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS as you've got evil robots, a mad man and killer masks. Oh yeah, you've also got one of the most annoying songs in film history yet can you not sing along each time it comes on?

Another thing going in the film's favor are the two lead characters. Atkins is just a great blue collar guy and he's a lot of fun here. He has become a cult favorite over the years and it's easy to see why. Nelkin is also extremely good in her role and there's no doubt that the two work quite well together. O'Herlihy is also very good in his laid back approach to the mad scientist. There's also a nice score, some good cinematography and for the most part the story is good.

I do think the film runs on a bit too long and I think Roger Ebert was correct when he said it would have been better had we known why the guy wanted to kill off all the children. Perhaps another draft of the screenplay would have worked but either way, time has proved that HALLOWEEN III isn't nearly as bad as its early reputation.

Incredibly corny

[Archie-Leech · 2/10 · 3 April 2021]

Jeeze Louise. What a hoot. On one hand, as a cult schlocky laugh out loud movie, it's a 10. On the other, I don't know where to start, weird subplots, terrible acting, a director who doesn't know where to point a camera... it's really an awkward, terrible mishmash of ideas thought up at a 12 year olds sleep over. One redeeming feature is the soundtrack, very 80s but very good. For years I assumed this movie was about child killers in masks... that would have been a far better film than this mess.

Vote brigading, etc

[jacobss-37403 · 5/10 · 8 September 2020]

People on the internet who get angry enough at an old film in 2020 to bombard it with negative reviews filled with ad hominem attacks on strawmen whom they've invented who have apparently conspired together to pretend to like something that is "objectively" bad are usually a good sign that whatever it is they're attacking has a great deal of merit. This film tries something different and it pays off for those of us who like horror films and not just popular images repeated ad nauseum. Who cares if this isn't about Myers? Didn't the latter films prove that we never needed any more than the first film and maaaaybe the second to close the entire arc of the franchise neatly? Add to that the somewhat clever premise that none too subtly casts the Myers archetype as a business exec, mirroring Carpenter and Co's frustration with having to continue to pump out these films in a silly and fun way and I think Halloween III is an incredibly impressive third outing for a series that had no right to be this good for this long. Is it a ten? No. But neither is it "inarguably" a zero, so I say two can play at that game.

Not without its charm

[leumas3765 · 4/10 · 7 March 2007]

Halloween III has taken on a new life on the AMC cable channel. It is used to pad some time during their "Monsterfest" marathon in the 10 days leading up to Halloween.

It's not a good movie. People who like it, when asked, "Do you want to see a movie that's like the Twilight Zone, only slower, longer, and not as good?" would probably answer, "You had me at Twilight Zone."

There are a few things to enjoy about this movie:

1) The 1-man synthesizer soundtrack is pure early 80s. 2) Also for nostalgia lovers, this movie came out when personal computers had been out for about a year and any kind of computer graphics were considered cool. 3) The producers showed some guts by breaking from the formula (and unfortunately got creamed at the box office for it.) 4) It doesn't have an eye-rolling formulaic ending. 5) It turned out to be somewhat prophetic. 15 years after this movie came out, hundreds of Japanese children were stricken with seizures after watching an episode of "Pokemon." 6) If you like the song "London Bridge," this is the movie for you.

Unfortunately, it's kind of plodding and layers implausibility upon implausibility until it just gets too much. If you watch this movie, here are some things NOT to think about. It'll just make your head hurt: (Spoiler alert)

*How could someone steal a 5-ton rock from Stonehenge?

*If you're a supervillian, is there a better use for your lifelike androids?

*How does Silver Shamrock pay for all those TV ads that must change on a daily basis?

*How much revenue can a company generate with a product line that features a whopping three different masks? (two of which are pretty lame.)

*Did stores used to carry Halloween merchandise for longer into October? (since currently, the Halloween stuff is moved to clearance by about October 20th to make room for Xmas stuff)

*Would a factory so paranoid that it enforces a curfew on its citizens be a little suspicious of two buyers who showed up to get masks on October 29th without phoning first?

*Why is Buddy Kupfer's family staying in a motel if they have a big RV? In fact, why is "one of the richest men in the country" staying in a cheap motel at all?

*When are football games televised on Friday afternoon?

*What makes divorced alcoholic 47 year old deadbeat dads attractive to hot 23 year olds?

*Why are there so many leaves on the trees on October 31?

*Has there ever been a lazier attempt at a montage of cities than the one that appears in this movie?

*Wouldn't time zones put a kink in Cochran's wicked scheme?

*Did network TV used to air horror movies at 7:00 PM? ("The Big Giveaway" at 9:00 follows the airing of the original Halloween movie, with a run time of about 2 hours, including the inevitable commercials.)

*Whom can you call to immediately pull programming from multiple networks, especially if you don't have any special credentials?

*What did this movie have to do with witches or the Donovan song?

I could have overlooked all those glaring problems if Cochran had shown even a modicum of motivation for his evil plan to murder all his customers (and ensure bankruptcy even if he dodges criminal proceedings) but the plot is so preposterous by the time Challis confronts him that Cochran can't even offer up a response. "Do I even need a reason? ... In the end, the planets determine our actions." That's right. Blame it on astrology.

Sheesh!

One Of The Best

[deepblueseajaws · 7/10 · 1 April 2006]

Halloween III to me is one of the better Halloween sequels. Sure it didn't have Michael Myers in it, but who cares? I mean the whole scenario of a escaped maniac stalking people with a knife just gets old after a while. Halloween III however, tried to start the series in a more fresh approach. Maybe it does have some silly concepts such as Cochran stealing a five ton monolith from Stonehenge, but it's the movies from heavens sake. I personally believe that this movie is one of the best. The entire story is fresh. It's actually in a way almost good. The whole idea of killing children with Halloween masks is not bad for a movie based on the idea of Halloween. It also features some of the coolest props in all of Hollywood: the masks themselves, which are in very good detail. But anyway, i think the movie is very enjoyable.

Truly dreadful

[jim_w92viking · 1/10 · 17 October 2021]

Not because it doesn't have Michael in it, but because the plot is dire, the acting horrible, it's dull boring, makes no sense, the kills are uninteresting.

Save yourself hours if your life and avoid this tripe.

Film-makers can't win

[darrens5 · 7/10 · 18 May 1999]

Film-makers can't seem to be able to do anything right. Instead of churning out the same old tired sequels, which they get criticised for, they have tried to be creative here and get abused for that.

Most comments I have read have said that this is a bad film because it doesn't include the old 'favourites', but then they call the rest of the series for being very similar to each other.

I will concede that this film, with the exception of the first ten minutes, is NOT scary; but it's still an ok film. It's different than any other film I can recall seeing, and does have a few surprises and a good ending.

I would say that if you were going to watch with an open mind you may well enjoy this

Darcy Lied

[nixflixnpix · 1/10 · 3 July 2021]

So many problems.

Completely socially and technologically outdated.

Tom Atkins isn't that hot *in this particular movie.* He's got a jiggle-beer-belly, no chest hair, and eats boobs in this one. He's also a doctor known for drinking and smoking for hours at the bar down the street. Work lets him take a week off.

It's all about scheduled-TV broadcasting, of which the children have control over, while they stay in on a holiday.

No good fight scenes. Open, unresolved, sudden ending. Worst Halloween movie, veryyyyy little slashing or worth-it actresses.

An excellent, underrated, and unjustly maligned horror/sci-fi outing

[Woodyanders · 8/10 · 24 September 2012]

Shrewd and ruthless master mask maker Conal Cochran (marvelously played with jolly sinister aplomb by Dan O'Herlithy) devices an ingenious way to kill countless innocent children on Halloween. It's up to Dr. Daniel Challis (a fine and sympathetic performance by Tom Atkins) and pretty young Ellie (a sweet and appealing portrayal by the lovely Stacey Nelkin) to figure out a way to stop Cochran before it's too late. Writer/director Tommy Lee Wallace relates the gripping story at a steady pace, does an ace job of creating and sustaining a spooky mysterious atmosphere, and maintains a grim tone that stays bleakly true to itself right to the devastatingly downbeat and nihilistic end. Moreover, the diabolically clever premise combines horror and science fiction elements with tremendous startling imagination as the holiday's ghastly Celtic druid roots concerning mass virgin sacrifices are brought into contemporary times through the use of advanced modern technology. The filmmakers warrant extra praise not only for having the guts to kill a kid on screen in a truly sick and disturbing way, but also for providing several spot-on satirical potshots at capitalism and consumerism. The make-up f/x are quite grotesque and creative. Michael Currie contributes a hearty turn as folksy motel proprietor Rafferty, Nancy Kyes makes a brief appearance as Challis' bitter ex-wife Linda, and the engaging presence of Essx Smith as helpful gas station owner Walter Jones bookends the picture. Middle-aged alcoholic and womanizer Challis makes for a touchingly flawed average guy hero. Dean Cundey's sharp widescreen cinematography gives the movie an impressive polished look. The pulsating score by John Carpenter and Alan Howarth further enhances the overall ominous mood. Good creepy fun.

I don't care what you say, it still scared me

[GoreMonger · 7/10 · 16 June 1999]

Despite all the flak that this movie catches, I think that it's a great horror movie. I don't think that it fits in well with the rest of the Halloween series, but as a stand alone film I think it gets the job done. There are two things that I mainly look for in a horror movie. One being creative death sequences, and two being a decent ending. This one delivers with both. I hate it when a horror movie is gritty and tough all the way through and follows up with a happy ending (Scream, Scream 2, should I continue?). Put your prejudices aside and I think you can enjoy this one.

Halloween 3: Season of the Witch deserve another look. It's not as bad as people make it out to be. Happy Halloween!

[ironhorse_iv · 5/10 · 26 October 2014]

'Happy, Happy Halloween! Halloween! Halloween! Silver Shamrock! It's almost time, kids. The clock is ticking. Be in front of your TV sets for the Horrorthon, followed by the Big Giveaway at 9.' quote the commercial in this film. Directed by Tommy Lee Wallace, the movie is about a Halloween company's evil plot to kill millions of American children with deadly Halloween masks. These masks have a deadly computer chip made from a fragment of Stonehenge. When Silver Shamrock's commercial would air on Halloween night, the chip was to unleash a lethal swarm of insects and snakes, killing the wearer and anyone in the immediate vicinity. One might look at this film on paper, and call it silly at the time, but in a way, some people has smarten up and relooked it in a different light. It has gather somewhat of a cult status due to the fact that, it has taken as its own film and not part of the Halloween Slasher series. It also actually contains some interesting social commentary about commercialism and American greed. The movie is also has a lot of throwback to 1950s/ 1960 paranoia horror films like 1956's Invasion of the Body Snatchers & 1960's Psycho with hidden gems like the city of Santa Mira & the motel scene. You even see hidden homage to both of the previous Halloween films from 1978 & 1981 with clips of the previous film playing in the background and actors from the films having cameos like Jamie Lee Curtis as the curfew announcer. Still, it makes you wonder, if Michael Myer's Halloween was a movie than, why is Halloween 4 call Halloween 4, and not Halloween 3? It also makes you wonder how were; there even kids in 1988's Halloween 4: Return of the Michael Myers? The movie does have that fault, where the plot doesn't make a lot of sense. After all, it's mind-boggling to see oddly place twist and turns with robot androids, unexplained witchcraft, and random sex scenes. It drag the weak plot along with little to no exposition. How did they steal Stonehenge and shipping it secretly across the Atlantic? How does nobody in the western seaboard know about the fatal course-inducting ad? U.S does have four time zones. Even the film tagline doesn't make sense, "The night nobody comes home" is a play on the original Halloween movie's tagline, "The night, he came home.". If nobody came home, then does that mean that the children were saved, because none of them were able to watch the television program? By the end of the film, you're left with the question, 'WTF! Did I watch!?". Another fault of the film could be the overacting and underacting of the actors. Tom Atkins as the protagonist, Dr. Dan Challis wasn't what I call, memorable. He seem to fade in the background at times when stronger and more cartoony supporting characters are on the screen like Conal Cochran (Dan O'Herlihy). Cochran is great, and really steals the film from Tom Atkins. He's a lot creepier than Michael Myers ever can be. Another reason why people might not like this film is because Myers isn't in it. Due to the success of the 1978 original, a sequel was indeed made, but when the studio want yet another movie. Producer John Carpenter had enough with the tiresome slasher. John Carpenter decided to transform the series into a yearly anthology of films centered around various aspects of Halloween. John Carpenter even try to pull the Halloween name from the film, wanting it to be titled: Season of the Witch. The idea was made because they wanted to keep the franchise alive and fresh, but any one of the entries could in turn become a franchise in its own right, spinning off its own sequels. It sounded like a studio's dream. Other producers like Dino De Laurentiis went against it, as it could be used as a hook to get audience members to see the film. Instead, Dino De Laurentiis ask for more blood and gore to the story, to feed the audience hungry for Michael Myers. Too bad, the special effects for the film were pretty cheesy and mediocre. The original writer of the story Nigel Kneale left during the production, and sued the producers to take his name off the movie after seeing how violent cheesy, it was. Halloween III attempted to accomplish the violent task without Nigel Kneale and original director Joe Dante, but ended up met with a massive backlash from a fan base and critics. It performed poorly at the box office due to this reason. As a result, John Carpenter walked away from the franchise, which would be given a reboot with Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers continuing the story from the original two films. It's sad in a way, because Halloween 3: Season of the Witch is more a Halloween movie than the original 1978's slasher film as the theme of the holiday plays more into the plot. It's an intelligent, surprising, and disturbing holiday film with a number of nice touches like the Silver Shamrock commercial. Not only is the tune, catchy as hell, but it was haunting to watch. Yes, it could be a bit annoying due to the overplay nature of it, but that's what's scary about it. It's an evil thing, hidden under children innocent. A novelization of the film was published in 1982 by science-fiction writer Dennis Etchison under the pseudonym Jack Martin. Despite the film's commercial failure, the book became a best-seller and was even reissued two years after the film's release, in 1984. Overall: Halloween III: Season of the Witch is one of my favorite guilty pleasure horror movies besides the nihilistic ending. While, it's not a good movie at all. It's still, entertaining.