Links News Contact Us About us Privacy Terms FAQ Add feedback Invite a friend Bookmark

The Ossuary Home BHM Home Members Forums Blogs Videos Photos Music Groups Events Polls chat

Halloween III: a dud or a classic?

 
New Topic
New Reply
Flag/Unflag
 
  • Author
  • Message
 
DoctorLoomis

posts: 53

Jun 01, 2008 00:41    Quote
Points: 1   Vote

Halloween III: Season of the Witch is often bashed upon for one reason: the lack of Michael Myers. I believe that if they had just called it "Season of the Witch" and left out the title "Halloween" it might be looked upon in higher regards. I don't think it's fair for people to hate the film just because of Myer's exclusion. People tend to look past the fact that John Carpenter and Debra Hill wanted to make an anthology with a new story each year. They never intended to bring Myers back.

The movie delivers plenty of good stuff:

1) One of the most badass horror heroes of all time, Dr. Dan Challis

2) A unique villain in Conal Cochran

3) A very creepy and atmospheric soundtrack

4) Some cool special effects

5) An interestingly creepy small town setting

6) A cliff-hanger ending

7) And those cool masks

I obviously enjoy the movie. What do y'all think about the movie?

Jun 01, 2008 03:03    Quote
Points: 1   Vote

Well the movie was a different type of Halloween. The movie isn't bad. I live in Tennessee that year the movie was out there were no kids here wearing masks. Believe it or not all the kids I saw had their faces painted, I think the adults were the most scared. I didn't wear a mask that year to give out candy I wore some kind of blow up thing on my head. You should do more of these why not ask about the other Halloween movies too.

lucy

posts: 58

Jun 01, 2008 17:51    Quote
Points: 1   Vote

Halloween III: Season of the Witch is often bashed upon for one reason: the lack of Michael Myers. I believe that if they had just called it "Season of the Witch" and left out the title "Halloween" it might be looked upon in higher regards. I don't think it's fair for people to hate the film just because of Myer's exclusion. People tend to look past the fact that John Carpenter and Debra Hill wanted to make an anthology with a new story each year. They never intended to bring Myers back.

The movie delivers plenty of good stuff:

1) One of the most badass horror heroes of all time, Dr. Dan Challis

2) A unique villain in Conal Cochran

3) A very creepy and atmospheric soundtrack

4) Some cool special effects

5) An interestingly creepy small town setting

6) A cliff-hanger ending

7) And those cool masks

I obviously enjoy the movie. What do y'all think about the movie?

Your observation is spot on.  When I first saw it I felt ripped off, because it was so different from the original and the second one.  The next time I watched it (because it was the only scary thing on), and this time not expecting a continuation of the Halloween franchise, I was pleasantly surprised.  The concept was very cool

The_Horror_Czar

posts: 419

Jun 01, 2008 17:51    Quote
Points: 1   Vote

My general opinion of Halloween 3 is that I hate it.  After thinking about it I can't tell you if I hate it because it wasn't what I expected from a Halloween sequel, or if I just thought it was bad.  I only watched it once, made my judgment and moved on. I have it in on my DVD shelf... I'll give it another watch and re-assess...

SelfMadeMMAn

posts: 9

Jun 06, 2008 06:21    Quote
Points: 1   Vote

I watched it again last night and ya know, it was just as horrid last night as it was the first time I saw it. I do agree, they should not have called it Halloween. Myers=Halloween. No Myers, no halloween. It stands by itself and even without the Myers thing, I wasn't impressed with the films plot at all. I just found it mediocre at best, but that is just my opinion.

ZombieLover

posts: 13

Jun 12, 2008 00:36    Quote
Points: 1   Vote

I Agree With Dr. Loomis & Lucy... I Think It's A Good Film On It's Own... Not, As Part Of The Halloween Franchise...

Squid

posts: 8

Oct 28, 2009 22:03    Quote
Points: 0   Vote

A decent movie when you think about it as its own film, but thats kinda hard to do when its called Halloween 3.

ShadowFreak

posts: 177

Nov 11, 2009 12:47    Quote
Points: 0   Vote

Actually the director admitted it was overkill.

The idea was to make Michael a supernatural killer.

Unstoppable, unkillable,and unharmable.

I agree with him, he was stupid.

But I respect everyone's opinions and I know alot of ppl who like it.

So, who am I to say it should have never been made?

Oh yeah me .)

Puddledive

posts: 20

Nov 11, 2009 13:03    Quote
Points: 0   Vote

I've always liked it. For me it is the best Halloween except for the first. Never cared for Michael with the direction they took him in. I almost didn't watch it at all simply because it was another Halloween movie and I was simply tired and bored with Michael.

I wish that they had stuck to their guns and went with the anthology instead of keeping Michael even in the second movie. So much good would have come out of that, formost being Zombie probably wouldn't have been doing remakes of it.

darkstar

posts: 1020

Nov 11, 2009 23:14    Quote
Points: 0   Vote

I can remember seeing this one in the theaters and feeling cheated as well, even though there were more scares than Halloween II. Cut to the early 90's and I found a old VHS at a garage sale for $1, and found I enjoyed this one as a stand alone movie, almost as much as I enjoyed the original Halloween.

Its been said before here, if it had been named simply "Season of the Witch" and avoided connecting itself to the Halloween franchise this movie would have probably been considered one of the better horror movies of the 80'

Puddledive

posts: 20

Nov 12, 2009 11:47    Quote
Points: 0   Vote

Would a better question be whether they should have just made the one Michael movie? What if they didn't turn him into the completely unstoppable immortal tool? Would Michael have been more appealing if the last you ever saw of him was when he went out that window and then vanished from the ground?

I realize some people hate leaving things open, but I would find him far more appealing as a man that vanished than unstoppable unkillable masked killer #2187342. And having things always changing under the Halloween title would give it a much stronger long-term appeal. It could evolve, instead of being stranded like it is now. Hard to move forward, and remakes are fairly mediocre.

I happen to think that Season was a great movie. If I were to be completely honest, I actually prefer it to even the first one (I fibbed in the previous post because the first is almost sacred to some and I just hate to start wars over such a mediocre thing). It was pretty creative and I really enjoyed it. When I think of the series, that is the first one that comes to my mind. Preying almost exclusively on the youngest and most innocent for its victims is probably what I most enjoyed about it. The victims weren't really deserving of their fate. They were just kids (for the overall plan, not necessarily those shown on film). I find that to be really awesome, instead of just having the goal be to kill people that you want to die anyhow because they are basically shitty people anyhow.

ShadowFreak

posts: 177

Nov 12, 2009 13:41    Quote
Points: 0   Vote

 

Would a better question be whether they should have just made the one Michael movie? What if they didn't turn him into the completely unstoppable immortal tool? Would Michael have been more appealing if the last you ever saw of him was when he went out that window and then vanished from the ground?

 

I realize some people hate leaving things open, but I would find him far more appealing as a man that vanished than unstoppable unkillable masked killer #2187342. And having things always changing under the Halloween title would give it a much stronger long-term appeal. It could evolve, instead of being stranded like it is now. Hard to move forward, and remakes are fairly mediocre.

 

I happen to think that Season was a great movie. If I were to be completely honest, I actually prefer it to even the first one (I fibbed in the previous post because the first is almost sacred to some and I just hate to start wars over such a mediocre thing). It was pretty creative and I really enjoyed it. When I think of the series, that is the first one that comes to my mind. Preying almost exclusively on the youngest and most innocent for its victims is probably what I most enjoyed about it. The victims weren't really deserving of their fate. They were just kids (for the overall plan, not necessarily those shown on film). I find that to be really awesome, instead of just having the goal be to kill people that you want to die anyhow because they are basically shitty people anyhow.

 To be honest, Micheal is the scariest person to me.

Not because he is upstoppable or unkillable.

It's becasue he gets you in the safe and comfort of your own home.

(And he reminds me of someone I hate and am still afraid of.)

But, if they stopped at the first movie H20 would have never been made! I love that one.

I think it should have been made better, if possible. And I don't feel it could have. It just was a mistake.

But at least you like it, I mean the whole I stand alone thing is pretty Cool!

So, I respect your ability to stand up for this movie.

Maybe I should give it another peak after all.

 

 

RonnieAngel

posts: 177

Nov 17, 2009 15:03    Quote
Points: 0   Vote

In my opinion Halloween 3 stands on its own. Its not a bad movie. Now, honestly, when the whole cult thing happened in the Halloween series, that was a stupid idea and I will always have that opinion!

New Topic
New Reply
Flag/Unflag

Copyright © 2010 Horror Freaks Media LLC.