Supelice Dreadfully Boring

Stoutor It's not great by any means, but it's a pretty good movie that didn't leave me filled with regret for investing time in it.

Staci Frederick Blistering performances.

Brooklynn There's a more than satisfactory amount of boom-boom in the movie's trim running time.

IssaGuy This is misunderstood and I use to hate it until I re watch it. It's smart, and fun too. Good story, good acting, good script, and good pacing. To everyone who hates it: give it another chance, just cause their's no Michael Myers doesn't mean it's gonna be bad, I'm a die-hard fan and all but still. This sequel is worth watching too!

spencergrande6 The most under-appreciated of horror films, the ugly step-child of the Halloween franchise that doesn't deserve its ill reputation. When I think of Halloween (the holiday) I think of children wearing the masks from this film and that incredible, indelible, iconic shot of trick r' treaters silhouetted against the sunken sun, the sky orange going on black, looking out over the low lights of Phoenix from the hills above. Damn that's nice. Oh and that insanely catchy Silver Shamrock song. So much memorable from such a strange, casually plot irrelevant movie. It doesn't really do one thing exceptionally well - besides presentation. The plot is fine, silly verging on nonsensical. The blood and gore are mostly pedestrian but with glimmers of imagination (if only the family murder scene didn't devolve into snake bites). The main characters are likable ciphers - there are a few insights into them but it's mostly matter of fact without much more than a passing interest. Without a better way to put it and hating this turn of phrase - they don't make them like this anymore, whatever the hell that means.

Java_Joe The main problem with this movie is that there's no Michael Myers. When John Carpenter and Debra Hill decided to take the Halloween movies into a more anthology direction people were angry. They wanted Michael Myers so they scrapped the anthology and gave us more Michael. This wasn't necessarily a good thing. The original Halloween is an undisputed classic of the horror genre. Lots has been written about it but there's only so much you can tell about an indestructible killer in a William Shatner mask. This is why after Halloween II they decided to go a different route.Enter Halloween III: Season of the Witch. The only Halloween movie not to feature Michael Myers as the killer. The one considered by purists to be the worst of the entire series. And the one that in recent years has had a resurgence of popularity because if you look at it as a stand alone horror movie, it's better than what people say. But even with that, it's pretty silly.The plot deals with masks that will kill the children wearing them on Halloween when a specific signal is broadcast over TV. That's pretty much it. It's never really explained why other than this will somehow bring about the resurrection of the ancient world of witchcraft. Each mask contains a large microchip with a fragment from Stonehenge and this is somehow going to cause insects and snakes to pour from the person wearing the mask. It's kinda silly but what do you expect? But if you look at it from outside of the Halloween series it's s decent movie. Better than how it was originally received but not as good as a lot of people are making it out to be.6/10 is the most generous I can be with this.

Mr_Ectoplasma In northern California, a doctor teams up with a young woman to investigate a series of deaths occurring that seem to be linked to a mysterious corporation selling Halloween masks to young children. Their revelations, however, are far more sinister than imagined.This notorious botched departure from the Michael Myers plot of "Halloween" and "Halloween II" has been panned by many and defended by a few. I saw the film years ago and could not commit myself to it because of its "black sheep" role in the series, but in the context of what the filmmakers were attempting to do with the series, it's easier for me now to understand the aim. In the context of how the series went on, however (bringing back Myers for "Part 4"), the film suffers greatly. The plot of the film is admittedly wonky and perhaps its utter strangeness made it even more alienating to audiences. There is a strange sci-fi bent to it all somewhere in the crosshairs of technology and the supernatural. As unusual as it is, there are some fun special effects and flashy splatter sequences that are as inventive as they are bizarre. The involvement of the children in the narrative makes it an unexpectedly dark film at its core, which is at times at odds with its slick sheen.Atmospherically, the film looks and feels quite similar to "Halloween II"—perhaps not surprising given the director is Tommy Lee Wallace, Carpenter's protégé, and there is a lot of the same crew involved, but it does give the film something of a through-line in terms of mood and aesthetic choices. The performances here are decent and the script is relatively well-handled, save an obligatory (and kind of absurd, albeit subdued) romance subplot, and the finale is playful, closing on a grim note.In the end, I've found that I have warmed up to "Halloween III: Season of the Witch" over the years. As a psychotronic seasonal-themed horror romp, it's quite fun and reasonably well-made. It's also admittedly ridiculous in many regards, but not necessarily to its own detriment. As a followup to the previous two films, it does pale in comparison, and perhaps alienates a great deal of its audience for being too far out on the fringe (to say it "does something different" may be a bit of an understatement). Though certainly not perfect, it is a film that I think is ultimately doomed by its context more than its content. For me, it works as a zany mystery flick as much as it does a reminder of why Michael Myers made such a great screen villain in the first place. Best moment: The montage of children in cities across America donning their Shamrock masks. 7/10.