Featured Audience Ratings

• Chris W

  
  Ah, Halloween III: the black sheep of the series. This one gets ignored and dumped on since it strays from the others and has nothing to do with the rest of the series. For the longest time I vowed to never see this, simply for that reason. However, as time went on, I gave it some… More
  Ah, Halloween III: the black sheep of the series. This one gets ignored and dumped on since it strays from the others and has nothing to do with the rest of the series. For the longest time I vowed to never see this, simply for that reason. However, as time went on, I gave it some thought, and decided to reconsider upon learning that, from the start, John Carpenter had envisioned an anthology where, each subsequent film in the series (save for part 2) was unrelated, save for taking place on/around and involving Halloween. Think of the possibilities. They're basically limitless. Unfortunately most people didn't seem to get that, weren't happy about it, confused as to why this one deviated, and eventually forced the rest of the films to bring back Michael and stick to formula. That kind of thinking is rather unfortunate, and I feel bad for being so narrow minded, especially when I learned about Carpenter's intentions. Okay, enough with the backstory. Our plot concerns a doctor who, along with the daughter of a recently deceased patient, get caught up in a malevolent conspiracy involving the founder of a Halloween mask manufacturer who wants to return the holiday to its ancient, sacrificial origins. It sounds nuts, I know, and the specifics are even weirder, but this actually shows a bit of thought and uniqueness, despite not making a lot of sense. Tom Atkins is okay as the doc, and Stacey Nelkin is passable as the daughter, but the one who steals the show is Dan O'Herlihy as the head of the mask company. He's creepy, unnerving, and absolutely nuts. It made me even happier when I soon realized that he's also the same guy who played the CEO of OCP in Robocop. Sweet. The film's got a dark, moody tone that's really comparable to the previous two films, and a lot of that is thanks in part to Alan Howarth and John Carpenter's score, which is really eerie, atmospheric, and unsettling, establishing the perfect mood and tone. The cinematography by Dean Cundey is also quite good. The plot is off the wall, but there's some decent effects, and the fact that the filmmakers wanted to be risky and make the primary intended victims is commendable. I don't condone violence towards kids, but I do applaud balsiness. The film does have a lot of issues with story and some of the acting, and it does start to fall apart towards the end, but I do give it credit for having some neat ideas and doing something different. This really isn't THAT terrible of a film, and it's unfortunate that it's so underrated. If you have an open mind, you might want to give it a chance.

• Cory T

  
  Androids, the mystical powers of Stonehenge, rattlesnakes and magical Shamrock coins are all enveloped into one conspiracy theory. What might sound like a bizarrely exhilarating rollercoaster is actually a laughable, groan-inducing shadow of Carpenter's talents. It possesses the… More
  Androids, the mystical powers of Stonehenge, rattlesnakes and magical Shamrock coins are all enveloped into one conspiracy theory. What might sound like a bizarrely exhilarating rollercoaster is actually a laughable, groan-inducing shadow of Carpenter's talents. It possesses the incontrovertible trademarks of Carpenter: the priceless keyboard score, the sparse style and Dean Cundey's legendary cinematography. However, none of the characters are remotely sympathetic (Atkins is essentially a lecherous gigolo who flirts with every ample-bodied female), the gore is wildly overcooked (a beheading and nostril dislocation) and the bombarding, annoying theme song is repeated ad nauseum. When the protagonists are hiding behind a mask rack, it's like a scene directly from a 'Scooby-Doo' episode. I was never an overwhelming fan of the franchise, but this disconnected sequel is among the most taxing to watch, let alone enjoy.

• Jeff "

  
  Season of the Witch is a drastic departure for the Halloween series. The film is significant for the fact that the film has the absence of Michael Myers, which was this films death rattle. The film would've been better as totally new horror film that wasn't part of the… More
  Season of the Witch is a drastic departure for the Halloween series. The film is significant for the fact that the film has the absence of Michael Myers, which was this films death rattle. The film would've been better as totally new horror film that wasn't part of the Halloween saga. This film was a disappointment and is certainly one of the worst and weakest of the series, along with Halloween: Resurrection. The film would have been something good if it wasn't part of the Halloween franchise. However it's part of the franchise, and the result is a poor third entry with not so great performance, a poorly developed plot and the absence of Michael Myers. Every film maker feels compelled to do something different with a franchise no matter what the genre is. In Horror, something different can be a BIG risk taker, the film can either work or not. Let's take Halloween III Season of the Witch for instance. The film makers decided to omit Michael Myers al together from this film, and start a new. The film is a big mistake, and is one of the worst ever made in the series. I can at least respect the idea, but the absence of Michael Myers is inexcusable. He is the one that makes the series what it is, it be like removing Leatherface from the TCM series. The film is an utter failure and the worst in the series.

• Tim S

  
  So you thought Halloween III: Season of the Witch was terrible because it was a film that didn't involve a story featuring Michael Myers, right? Well, that's where you're wrong. Halloween III is actually much better than you would perceive it to be, and the fact that it… More
  So you thought Halloween III: Season of the Witch was terrible because it was a film that didn't involve a story featuring Michael Myers, right? Well, that's where you're wrong. Halloween III is actually much better than you would perceive it to be, and the fact that it doesn't involve the series' main antagonist or storyline actually strengthens it. I've always thought of it as a poor man's Cronenberg, but in a good way. It definitely has that Cronenberg feel to it, with an unorthodox storyline, moody atmosphere, dark score (by Carpenter himself) and a nice little cast. It's not a perfect horror film, but it's got enough atmosphere for ten more like it. It may not have been the best idea to call it a Halloween sequel (simply Season of the Witch would have sufficed), but it's not a terrible film by any means.

• Melvin W

  
  Conal Cochran: You don't really know much about Halloween. You thought no further than the strange custom of having your children wear masks and go out begging for candy.  "The night no one comes home." I wouldn't hate Halloween 3: Season of the Witch nearly as… More
  Conal Cochran: You don't really know much about Halloween. You thought no further than the strange custom of having your children wear masks and go out begging for candy.  "The night no one comes home." I wouldn't hate Halloween 3: Season of the Witch nearly as much if it hadn't been mooching off the success of the first two. If the studio had just came out and made a movie called Season of the Witch and not tied it in to the Halloween franchise, it wouldn't piss me off as much. But then again, it wouldn't have made as much money. The fact that there's a Halloween without Michael Myers and Doctor Loomis is just completely moronic in my opinion. The idea of the movie is pretty interesting. A mask company is the villain and it's a race to see if one man can save the children from the company. The idea is better than the execution though and the ending left me more than a little displeased.  When you're thinking about watching this movie ask yourself a couple of questions first. Would I watch Nightmare on Elm Street without Freddy? Would I watch Jaws without the shark? Of course not and that's basically what this is. It's a Halloween sequel without the Halloween villain. The movies wrong on so many levels. It's disgrace to the rest of the franchise and the fact that it was made is rather scary. 

• Eric A

  
  Why Why Why Why??? No Michael Myers in a Halloween movie? Get out of here.

• Coxxie M

  
  wheres Michael dickholes?? WHERES MICHAEL?!?!

• jd c

  
  Halloween III is my second favorite entry in the series. What people don't understand is that the Halloween series was suppose to have a completely different story for each part, but fans went going crazy over Myers. John Carpenter explained this himself, that's why he… More
  Halloween III is my second favorite entry in the series. What people don't understand is that the Halloween series was suppose to have a completely different story for each part, but fans went going crazy over Myers. John Carpenter explained this himself, that's why he produced part III. Halloween III: Season of the Witch stands on it's own and it's a great, fun, spooky little Halloween film. It should have just been called "Season of the Witch". The "Halloween III" in the title threw people off, and because of no Myers people hated it. It's completely underrated. Tom Atkins is the man in this. It's because of this movie and "Night of the Creeps" why I love him so much. He was an idol to me growing up (for real). Halloween III isn't that gory, but it's fu*king gross. Lots of bugs and icky slime (with some blood here and there). The theme song is great too (the commercial song)..."Two more days to Halloween - Halloween - Halloween. Two more days to Halloween...Silver Shamrock!" It's classic! That song will live with me forever. Everything about this movie is classic, and it's one of my favorite Halloween (season) themed horror films ever made. A must see for horror fans. Don't let the execution of Myers turn you off, watch it for a film on it's own and discard "Halloween" from it's title. Watch it as "Season of the Witch". It'll be a truly fun horror film. <a href="http://s294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/JDHallowEEn/HorrorQf/?action=view&current=HalloweenIII.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/JDHallowEEn/HorrorQf/HalloweenIII.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

• Martin S

  
  I don't know why Michael wasn't here when his fucking face was on the cover. Still a good movie with one of the greatest endings ever. But you can't help but feeling ripped off. His fucking face is on the cover

• Lady D

  
  Quite different from the first two instalments of this series in films, no Michael Myers and of course the only connection being the title of the film. So far this was the only one that I had previously watched of the Halloween franchise and so was a little fun to rewatch, however, a… More
  Quite different from the first two instalments of this series in films, no Michael Myers and of course the only connection being the title of the film. So far this was the only one that I had previously watched of the Halloween franchise and so was a little fun to rewatch, however, a disappointing sequel none-the-less.

• Josh L

  
  I thought this was a little better than Halloween II. Sure, it has nothing to do with Michael Myers, but I think that works to its advantage. The worst thing about the second installment was the huge disappointment of it not living up to its predecessor. Halloween III has nothing to… More
  I thought this was a little better than Halloween II. Sure, it has nothing to do with Michael Myers, but I think that works to its advantage. The worst thing about the second installment was the huge disappointment of it not living up to its predecessor. Halloween III has nothing to fear in that regard. This movie is a conspiracy thriller with Halloween flavorings. The plot is convoluted and never makes complete sense (Stonehenge is mentioned a few times, but I never understood what it was doing and how it had magical powers), but the movie is never boring and I was always intrigued with what was going to happen next. It has a decent soundtrack too, helping to build the atmosphere. The movie has sort of a techno vibe ala The Terminator (at least it felt like it to me). It isn't particularly scary, but there are a few creepy scenes (the demonstration of what happens to the kids when the plan is triggered comes to mind). I can't quite recommend it, but I will say that it doesn't deserve the hating that some people put on it.

• Conner R

  
  What's odd is that this is not the worst Halloween movie (Resurrection). It is actually a really interesting movie when given the chance. It has some decent acting and John Carpenter score. The plot was interesting, I liked the idea of tainted Halloween masks.

• Anthony L

  
  It really isn't as bad as everyone says, it?s actually quite good! Has nothing to do with the other Halloween films and has nothing to do with Witches either but it?s incredibly creepy and Carpenteresque! Carpenter also did the soundtrack again, which I love.

• Nani V

  
  This has nothng to do with the other movies!

• Chris G

  
  Halloween III: Season of the Witch is probably the only sequel that has nothing to do with any of the installments before or since (though die hards will see a connection between this film and 4-5). It's not set in Haddonfield and the only shot of Michael Myers you get is a… More
  Halloween III: Season of the Witch is probably the only sequel that has nothing to do with any of the installments before or since (though die hards will see a connection between this film and 4-5). It's not set in Haddonfield and the only shot of Michael Myers you get is a commercial for a TV showing of the first Halloween. The film deals with an alcoholic, divorced doctor (played by legendary B-movie star Tom Atkins) that falls into a conspiracy dealing with Halloween masks. Yes, I said Halloween masks. Along the way he hooks up with Woody Allen's old flame Stacey Nelkin and has a warm heart to heart with Dan O'Herlihy (the "Old Man" from Robocop). The film has an interesting story that the screenplay drags down like an anchor. Once again you have characters doing stupid things for no reason and the only thing you can come up with is that the main baddie sees this as the mother of all practical jokes. The acting is mediocre, but this is an '80's slasher flick. But at the end of it all Halloween III isn't as bad as it's made out to be. Most of the criticism comes from the fact that it isn't a Michael Myers film, which is a shame. An OK sequel that isn't really a sequel.

• Dean !

  
  One of the weakest in the series of Halloween films.

• Greg S

  
  A doctor and his new girlfriend investigate a Satanic plot to place devices in kid's Halloween masks that either blow their heads up or turn them into a mass of snakes and cockroaches. This mix of the imaginative, the inept and the downright silly becomes good dumb fun by the… More
  A doctor and his new girlfriend investigate a Satanic plot to place devices in kid's Halloween masks that either blow their heads up or turn them into a mass of snakes and cockroaches. This mix of the imaginative, the inept and the downright silly becomes good dumb fun by the third act, if you can make it that far. Unrelated to the 'Michael Meyers' plotline, which provoked cries of "rip-off" when first released.

• David L

  
  After Halloween 2 that ended with Myers being shot, blown up and burning in flames the Michael Myers saga seemed to have ended (or at least ended until someone decided there was more money to be made) the producers were in a position of trying to decide where to go next. They made one… More
  After Halloween 2 that ended with Myers being shot, blown up and burning in flames the Michael Myers saga seemed to have ended (or at least ended until someone decided there was more money to be made) the producers were in a position of trying to decide where to go next. They made one of the most bold, and reviled decisions. They decided to give the audience something new. Halloween 3: Season of the Witch tells the story of a doctor who tries to understand what led to a murder in the hospital he worked at. He meets up with the victims daughter and they realize that the last appointment he had before he was killed was at the Silver Shamrock company led by company president (and legendary prankster) Conal Cochran. Who has set the wheels in motion to take Halloween back to it roots. This movie drew a lot of criticism for several reason most of which were undeserved. Some seemed to find it confusing and they did not understand the motives of the villains but if they paid attention it is all explained quite clearly. The goal is two fold like I said above, return Halloween to its dark roots and to sacrifice millions. Another complaint was the commercial jingle that plays dozens of times over the course of the film that seemed to annoy many but in all fairness, name a jingle that doesn't get under your skin. They are designed to seer into the brain and the Silver Shamrock commercial does just that. Perhaps the most frustrating complaint are by people who are upset about the lack of Michael Myers. I think at least at the time I seen this film when it first came out ( I was 10) that book had been closed quite well on Myers in the second film, while it threw me that he wasn't in the film I didn't already have a hatred for the movie that most people did at the time and Carpenter's idea of continuing the series as unique stories that are related to the holiday Halloween instead of simply doing retreads of the first picture was great idea and I wish some of these had seen the light of day Despite the negative view many people have of this film. Halloween 3 is a good horror film in its own right. Tom Atkins and Stacy Nelkin make a very enjoyable (though unlikely) screen couple, and Dan O'Herlihy makes a terrific villain. His explanation for how the Stonehenge rock arrived is a real laugh out loud moment. Sure the film isn't perfect. Some things are left kinda vague( This is almost one of the last 70s style films even though it came out in the early 80s that left some things up in the air for you to decide which there is no way you can pull off now with things now being almost over explained) which while fine to me but I can understand where that would annoy people. I do recommend Halloween 3. Its not for everyone and if all your Halloween movies need to have Michael Myers in it then stay away. Otherwise, while not a perfect horror film its worth checking out due to some very creative kills, great atmosphere and one of the best and under-rated horror movie scores ever.

• A.D. V

  
  Yes it has nothing to with Micheal (The story in a nutshell: Akkad, Carpenter and Hill wanted to continue making Halloween-themed films and after Micheal's demise in part II naturally they would move on to a different Halloween tale. Audiences did not agree however.) but I still… More
  Yes it has nothing to with Micheal (The story in a nutshell: Akkad, Carpenter and Hill wanted to continue making Halloween-themed films and after Micheal's demise in part II naturally they would move on to a different Halloween tale. Audiences did not agree however.) but I still really enjoy this apocalyptic, genuinely creepy tale of Halloween terrorism.

• Cassandra M

  
  I like "Halloween III". Some people consider it to be one of those "so bad it's good" kind of films, but they're wrong. It's competently made and much better than the "Halloween" films that appeared after it. As sequels go it's pretty… More
  I like "Halloween III". Some people consider it to be one of those "so bad it's good" kind of films, but they're wrong. It's competently made and much better than the "Halloween" films that appeared after it. As sequels go it's pretty strange, though. For starters, Michael Myers is nowhere in sight. This second sequel has nothing to do with the two previous films in the series (personally I couldn't care less about that) and the plot is downright weird. What's strange about it is that there's very little symbolism at stake - something which is rare in occult horror films. Normally, filmmakers seem to feel that they need some sort of psychological excuse to show us unrealistic horror. Not so in "Halloween III". We never get to know the main characters and get only the most superficial impression of their personalities. The sinister goings-on in the film have nothing to do with the personal traumas of the protagonist - he's just there because he has to be, in order for the plot to move on. In this sense, the film is refreshingly "naive". The atmosphere or tone of the film is why I like it. It has that "midnight movie" feel, mainly - I think - because of the soundtrack. Music is rarely used, but always effectively like in John Carpenters "The Thing" (1982). And there are some almost surreal images thrown in along the way, like the one where snakes surprisingly appear from within the pumpkinhead.

Read all 20 featured audience ratings