I've been holding off on watching "Halloween 3" for the longest time, namely because it's not congruent with the rest of the franchise, and I heard some horror stories (pun intended) regarding just how notrocious it really was.
Dare I say I really, really liked it?
For those who can't brave the film, it's like this. It's 1982, a week before Halloween in California, and an old man is admitted to a hospital after being found prophecizing about impending doom come Halloween night. Not long after, the man is found in his hospital room, dead, with his skull crushed in multiples, in an act that seemed almost impossible by human standards.
A curious doctor who discovered the gruesome scene, as well as the old man's daughter decide to investigate, as she mentioned the last known location of her father was at the Silver Shamrock Novelty Company in Santa Anita, CA. He was purchasing masks for his store. The two are incredibly suspicous, as they notice that the town is curiously obedient, monitored by closed circuit camera, and abides by a curfue.
This is where a lot of people may be turned off, because at this point, we come to find that the [SPOILER - highlight to read]: missing link of Stonehenge is found inside the factory, and that Coburn, the owner of SSNC, is a devout [SPOILER - highlight to read]: practioner of witchcraft, and [spoiler]like his culture 3,000 years ago on the night of Halloween, [SPOILER - highlight to read]: he plans to make the land run red with the blood of children, as it was a way of doing away with pestulant children, and means of population control. His method? Every single Silver Shamrock halloween mask contains a [SPOILER - highlight to read]: transmitter that is to be activated on Halloween night, at 9:00 P.M. by a special commercial on television, which triggers said device, [SPOILER - highlight to read]: and since the "power" supply is derived from the Stonehenge piece, the power of witchcraft, those who were the masks are cursed, and upon their death, their heads morph into snakes, spiders, and insects. In addition, Coburn was also somewhat of an engineer and gadget aficionado, so we also learn that he had one of his [SPOILER - highlight to read]: robotic henchmen take care of the old man at the beginning of the movie, hence, no traceable evidence.
I know it sounds silly as hell, but in all honesty, and hopefully you guys appreciate my views on movies, and how I see them, it plays out better on film..seriously. It's a very fun movie, very schlocky, but at the same time, more creative and enjoyable than a lot of the crap that's out right now. Given a little more coherent, less complicated script, it would make for a great remake, as the actual storyline was great, IMO. C'mon, a [SPOILER - highlight to read]: witch who effectively rekindles an age old cleansation, on Halloween, with unsuspecting Halloween masks? Good stuff.
Halloween 3 wasn't THAT terrible of a film, IMO. I think the main thing that killed all hope for this movie was the fact that it was the THIRD (3rd) movie in a series called Halloween, and the fact that parts one and two focused on a Shatner masked mental hospital escapee on a killing rampage, yet there was no trace of said character in this installment. If the title of the movie was ANYTHING else but Halloween 3, because people were very much, and understandably, expecting Michael Myers to be the villain, I feel very strongly that the movie would have done much, much better (or at the very least helped with the credibility). However, you are right about the originality of this movie, and even though it's schlocky and seems like it was sponsored by Cheese Whiz, it makes for a fun flick. I should rent it again, now that you put it in my mind, because the last time I watched it was almost 5 years ago.
I have this movie, came with a trilogy VHS boxset I got years ago for christmas.
I only watched it once and remember thinking it was really shitty. It's cheesy, stupid, weird, poorly made, shit acting, and has no place in the Halloween series, both from a quality standpoint and a storyline standpoint (it has nothing to do with the other films, literally - nothing).
That said, it provided some unintentional laughs for me and my friends when we watched it, so I can't give it too much shit.
maybe the reason for this movie is so they could find a reason for micheal myers to be the way he is since it bombed they probably just went back to the original formula.
Gender: Male Location: ' I AM in a world..of shit. '
Account Restricted
BWHAHAHAHA! Yeah, I loved the first two Halloweens, coz they kick ass, and were influcential to the horro genre, whether you liked them or not. The third one was prettttty fawking lame. If you like LOW GRADE horror cheeze this is one is probably worth a 99 cent rental price. ANyways, yeah it was odd, and it was hilarious at some parts and at others it was BORING as fawk. But you cant argue with little kids heads turing into nasty, rotten flesh ( mixed up with creepy crawlers).
__________________
Shut up! It's Daddy, you shithead! Where's my bourbon?
I didn't read those spoilers because some day I might actually see it, due to some of these comments. Personally, I don't see what the f*ck is so great about the first one which I didn't really like at all, so seeing the sequels (for me at least) I think is a waste of time. Plus, with an apparent misleading title (which I really, really, hate when it comes to films) it makes me want to stray even further from it.
Well, it's like this...Halloween III : Season of the Witch is actually a pretty decent horror film...just not a very good "Halloween" film...and when I say "Halloween" I mean in the Michael Myers sense. I actually like and respect the film for what it is and for what John Carpenter was trying to do with the series. As far as he was concerned, he was done with the whole "Michael Myers" theme after the second one...and wanted to move on with a new movie(s) that all had a common "Halloween" theme...as in the Oct. 31st holiday. I think that would actually had been a better idea instead of bringing Michael back again, and again, and again because that just gets old after awhile. Now when you have a new part in the series coming out about a new killer or story, that keeps things fresh and interesting. But the fans had to b**ch and complain and get their way, so they brought Michael back because people love mindless and pointless movies that require little thought. That's not to say that I don't enjoy the "Halloween" movies, I do...but it would've been cool to see what other ideas John Carpenter had in mind for the rest of the films in the series they way he originally wanted to do them. I think if the film had been called just "Season of the Witch", it would've done better at the box office and better all around with horror fans...but I still respect the film and actually enjoy the film for what it is.
__________________
Conan, what is best in life? To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and sigs by Beta Ray Howard.
Last edited by Comicbook_kid on Apr 27th, 2006 at 08:13 PM
I just saw it today. I went into it knowing that Michael isn't in it so I could keep an open mind about it.
It wasn't as terrible as a lot of people say. Sure, it has nothing to do with the rest of the series (though, IMO, it's better fitting for the "Halloween" title as it actually has something to do with Halloween other than just taking place on October 31). As a stand-alone movie, not bad.
It's cheesy as hell but enjoyable. The gore was nice. Even I was grossed out when [SPOILER - highlight to read]: the lady got zapped in the face with the Shamrock coin thing. And that Silver Shamrock song was creepy.
I'm glad that they went back to Michael for H4 though. If Carpenter wanted to continue the series with completely unrelated stories, he could just make them without having to tack on the "Halloween" title to them. And the third movie is the wrong place to do something completely different. "Season of the Witch" would have done much better than "Halloween 3: Season of the Witch" did.
Well, Carpneter himself only wrote the first two movies. After that, he co-produced a couple, 3 included, which more or less he lent his name and money to the project with no creative imput.
KMC Community Forums
So I watched Halloween 3 today..
Apr 23rd, 2006 06:34 PM
