User reviews

The movie gets a bad rep for being a Halloween sequel. However, on its own as a b movie, I think its enjoyable. It is a little cheesy and doesn't really hold up well, but I think its a fun time. Some scenes are unintentionally funny, and the story is extremely dark, but its a fun Friday night movie. The soundtrack is awesome though. I think that's the best part of the movie. Chariot Of Pumpkins is a great track.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

This film has somewhat of a reputation surrounding it, so I was sort of looking forward to my viewing. "Halloween III: Season of the Witch" is the only "Halloween" sans the famous masked psychopath Michael Meyers. Since Michael Meyers 'dies' at the end of "Halloween II" (only to be resurrected in "Halloween: The Return of Michael Meyers"), John Carpenter's plan was to produce a new Halloween themed movie every year, and this film was to be the first film to kick off that new wave of anthology Halloween movies. This movie apparently didn't do at that well at the box office, so Carpenter's plans for an anthology series were scrapped, and "Halloween 4" featured Mikey once more.

Since I knew all that backstory going into this viewing, I knew I wasn't one of the people that was going to be disappointed by that lack of Mike; I was more curious to see where the series would've headed had Carpenter been able to take it in the direction he wanted (note- he has only producer and music credits on this, but he would've been the one to choose the stories to produce each year). As the story got started, I immediately found myself noticing a drop in quality between the first two films in the series. While the second film's directing style (and even the story) was noticeably less impressive than that in the first film, this third film seemed like it would've been passable as a Sci-Fi channel movie of the week. The acting is all around pretty horrible; the dialogue is stilted and uncomfortable; and the story is predictable. The only saving graces that this film boasts are some of the practical effects and it has a few cool ideas; the only problem is it doesn't know how to execute those ideas very well. As a "Halloween" movie, I don't think this really works, and as a standalone film, aside from a few moments, I feel pretty apathetic towards it. I suppose if you're a franchise completionist then you should see this, but I would have a hard time recommending it to anyone just on a whim. It feels too much like a cheap made for TV movie for me to really take it seriously.

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

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.

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.

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