Sign up to add this to your collection
|
Sign up to add this to your favorites
|
|
50%
Overall Rating
|
|
Ranked #2,117
...out of 16,892 movies
|
Sign up to check in!
|
Dr. Daniel Challis and Ellie Grimbridge stumble onto a gruesome murder scheme when Ellie's novelty-salesman father, Harry, is killed while in possession of a strange mask made by the Silver Shamrock mask company. The company's owner, Conal Cochran, wants to return Halloween to its darker roots using his masks -- and his unspeakable scheme would unleash death and destruction across the country.
--TMDb
|
|
1 -- this is not the worst horror film ever made.
2 -- this is not the worst sequel ever made.
3 -- this was not a smart move for the "Halloween" franchise.
John Carpenter & Debra Hill thought they had bled Michael Myers to death after two films and they wanted a change of pace, so they brought Tommy Lee Wallace on to write and direct a departure from the original context of "Halloween". The result was "Halloween III: Season of the Witch". The only reason the film was tagged with the "Halloween" banter was to attract revenue. However, I think everyone involved realized they should have not strayed away from the original formula, very shortly after this film was released. It's a shame, because there is a good film wrapped up here that has just become a joke because it doesn't have a William Shatner mask.
The plot seems like something out of a Terry Gilliam film -- a large Halloween mask-making company has taken it upon themselves to implant chips into their masks, each chip taken straight from Stonehenge. On Halloween night, when the chips are activated, all those wearing them will die. Thus, they're wanting to wipe out a large chunk of our nation's children. The only relation this plot has to the original "Halloween" is the 'mask' format. Michael Myers wore a mask and this is the company that manufactured that particular mask. But, other than that very loose and very arguable connection, we get nothing. We get a sequel that is not really a sequel at all.
As mentioned previously, this is a shame. "Season of the Witch" is a pretty intriguing and creepy little horror film. I remember watching it as a kid and not knowing it was supposed to be a sequel to "Halloween". I loved it. I had the VHS of it and used to watch it and "Children of the Corn" over and over again. "Season of the Witch", as a stand alone film, is a fine 1980's horror film with some clever story lines, competent performances, and a damned good opening sequence. The ending is a little wonky, but it's not nearly as rotten as everyone says. Everyone is just upset because it doesn't have Michael Myers and Jamie Lee. They wanted more Jamie Lee. That got a total departure from the original "Halloween" concept, which is what John Carpenter and Debra Hill wanted.
Hindsight is always 20/20, I suppose. Had they released this film as "Season of the Witch" -- brought to you by the people who brought you "Halloween" and "The Fog" -- that would have been a better selling point. I will never consider this an installment in the 'official' franchise, not out of disrespect, but out of common sense. 7/10.
|
|
#1:
BuryMeAlive
- added 04/12/2007, 06:27 AM
This movie is so hated for one simple thing, it
does not feature Michael Myers. But if you would
'remove' the "Halloween" title you got a solid
horror movie.
|
|
#2:
Edd
- added 04/12/2007, 02:26 PM
I'm sorry, but the plain and simple fact is that
this movie blows. Mediocre(?) acting and sub-par
editing made it hard to watch and stay interested.
The fact that it didn't have our favorite
trick-or-treat killer in it doesn't bother me, but
it was just so stupid. Love the song for the masks
though. To tell the truth, after watching this
film, I had it stuck in my head for a couple days.
4/10, but with that catchy little number, 6/10
|
|
#3:
Tristan
- added 04/12/2007, 08:06 PM
Like most of you, I think that had this been
called Season of the Witch, rather than Halloween
III: Season of the Witch, this movie would have
been better received. It's a nice little horror
movie, and I'm glad it gained popularity by being
considered a Halloween film. I never knew it was a
Halloween movie when I used to watch it, and
later, when I became more "movie aware" if you
will, I figured out what it was, but it didn't
change my views on it at all. Great horror film,
but not much for the Halloween series. 7/10
|
|
#4:
Crispy
- added 04/13/2007, 12:19 PM
If you're going to enjoy this, you really need
some sort of forewarning that Michael isn't in it.
First time I saw it I was clueless. Left a sour
taste in my mouth ever since. Guess I'm missing
out some, but eh.
|
|
|
#5:
Tristan
- added 09/25/2007, 07:53 PM
After rewatching this, I'm going to have to say it
wasn't good as even a stand alone horror movie.
5/10
|
|
#6:
DillonBerserk
- added 10/04/2010, 12:39 AM
I have to leave this at a 4/10 because I couldn't
stand the first hour of the movie but then again
It's unfair to rate it not watching the entire
thing. Picked the movie up for 4 dollars at
Cheapos.
|
|
Rate Movie? 
