Our editor-in-chief Nate Yapp is proud to have contributed to the new book Hidden Horror: A Celebration of 101 Underrated and Overlooked Fright Flicks, edited by Aaron Christensen. Another contributors include Anthony Timpone, B.J. Colangelo, Dave Alexander, Classic-Horror.com's own Robert C. Ring and John W. Bowen. Pick up a copy today from Amazon.com!

Halloween III: Season of the Witch (1982)

Review

Author
Date
09-22-2004
Comments
Halloween III poster
Runtime
96 minutes
MPAA Rating
R
Countries
Series
Cast and Crew
Production Companies

Upon watching Halloween III, I learned that I have spent most of my life believing a very inaccurate principle. Namely, I thought mankind came to some sort of agreement the word “sequel”. It surely didn’t seem like one of those words open to interpretation like, say, “God.” Yet Halloween III, considered by hundreds of people employed at the Motion Picture Association of America to be a sequel of Halloween, indeed failed in my definition. This brings me to the ultimate conundrum in horror movie reviewdom.

The movie is not about Michael Myers, barely mentions Michael Myers, nor involves anyone related to Michael Myers. The film is about a Halloween company overtaken by Celtic warlocks who make masks that cause children’s heads to explode. I am rather a fan of this concept. Yet, I am a much, MUCH larger fan of William Shatner masked serial killers. Thus lies my quandary. Should I review this film as a pitiful failure of a sequel or a halfway decent standalone movie? Well, why don’t you get comfy and we’ll figure this out together.

As a stand alone movie, I dug Halloween III’s plot. It bordered on unique (one rarely hears of Celtic warlocks infiltrating Corporate America these days). The storyline moved along quite well. It wasn’t scary, terrifying, or diarrhea-inducing by any stretch of the imagination, but it was damn fun (and funny, depending how many Bloody Marys you consumed before viewing). At one point upon viewing, I had a fleeting pipe dream of my computer’s screen saver being a flashing Atari-esque jack o’ lantern with the Shamrock Halloween countdown song playing behind it. Needless to say, this dream still remains grossly unfulfilled.

On the downside, the acting was positively atrocious. This was not aided at all by equally horrendous special effects. And the camera didn’t move, ever. If I didn’t have such a firm grip on reality, I may have thought I was watching a grammar school stage play. Still, these cinematic missteps were relatively OK. Instead of being unbearable, the film had a campy, not-taking-ourselves-too-seriously quality to it, kind of like Pieces. The scare factor was greatly hindered, but the “so bad, it’s good” light was switched way on. Removing it from its predecessors, Halloween III was actually not all that bad. In fact, it’s rather quirky and enjoyable.

The problem lies when you realize you are watching a movie entitled Halloween III. As fun as Halloween III is, it’s still a poor substitute for the first two Halloween movies. In Halloween III, the trailer for the original Halloween movie is shown on TV. The question remains: how can Halloween III be a sequel if it is clearly not even on the same plane of being as its predecessor? The excuse given to us by the movie company was that Halloween was going to be a series of movies based on the Halloween season, but with completely different stories. This would be a rather cool concept if 1) they let the viewing audience know about this concept, preferably in advance, and 2) Halloween II was about anything except Michael Myers.

My recommendation, oh future Halloween III viewer, is to stop referring to the movie as Halloween III. Instead, refer to it as Season of the Witch. If you say it enough you might forget it’s related to Halloween all together, or at least your Tourettesque screams of “sell out” will come to a minimum. It really is a fun little flick for the Halloween season if you go in with the right expectations. At very, very least, you can annoy your cubicle mates every morning with the “4 more days to Halloween...” song.

Comments

Between 1982 and 1984,

Between 1982 and 1984, several horror/fantasy/science fiction films showcased subplots proving Television to be an Evil to be destroyed (see Poltergeist too as another example).  Halloween III is part of this phenomenon.  The early 80's saw the emergence of VCRs, so films had quite a bit of competetion.  A similar problem occurred in the 1950's, giving rise to the "widescreen" format of VistaVision and 70mm prints.  The 80's solved the problem by providing violence and special effects that were "best seen" on the big screen.

Currently, in 2009, we're seeing the same problem and films have already answered with a "perfected" 3D system.

>As fun as Halloween III is,

>As fun as Halloween III is, it’s still a poor substitute for the first two Halloween movies.

 

I disagree. Halloween II was extremely poor. It had no subtelty whatsoever and Michael Myers hacked up everything in sight, even random strangers. That's not what John Carpenter's Halloween was about.  At least Halloween III had a new and fresh interesting idea.  I wish they had ended the series here.

I, for one, am glad that the

I, for one, am glad that the movie was titled Halloween III. I probably would never have watched the movie if it went by any other name. In the realm of movies, this gold nugget would've passed straight under the radar, undetected. Labeled as Halloween III, and hearing that it DIDN'T have Michael Myers in it, is the only reason I watched it. I thought it would be funny. Turns out, it's one of my favorite horror movies, ever.

Halloween III is a good

Halloween III is a good movie, so you are an idiot.

Disagree with a fair bit of

Disagree with a fair bit of this...but to say the camera doesn't move... there is a great long panaglide shot as Dr Challis awakes to find the man murdered in the hospital, and with the score building up he races down the eerily quiet corridoors waking up from a cat nap..... great sequence.

I love both Halloween II and

I love both Halloween II and III, though I hated III when I first saw it years ago because I wasn't aware it was Myers-less.  It's definitely grown on me, and I love the eerie early '80s synthesizer score,  But I can't rate it along with the other films in the series in terms of best to worst Halloween films because it's too different ... not necessarily a bad thing.

Post new comment

All comments should adhere to Classic-Horror.com's Comment Policy
The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <sup> <blockquote> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <i> <b> <br> <p>
  • Images can be added to this post.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Search