Review of Halloween III: Season of the Witch (1982) by Tea R — 30 Oct 2010

(There are SPOILERS in this review, not that it really matters seeing that absolutely no one should watch this horrible movie).

I can't say that I absolutely hated the film, but what really gets me bezoomy is the fact that they keep the whole Halloween title. it'd be one thing if they simply called it "Halloween- Season of the Witch" (which is still pushing it) but they had to go ahead and make it an unrelated official sequel. the acting and story behind this are mediocre on their own, so even if they were to title this "Season of the Witch" it still wouldn't change the fact that it is a mediocre movie. it attempts to be as suspenseful and frightening as possible, but there isn't a moment where I felt frightened or was on the edge of my seat, and even if something bad were to befall all the characters I just wouldn't care because there is no real connection for me - and the fact that it attempts seriousness behind a ridiculous subject (being masks that turn kid's heads into insects and snakes whilst they watch an annoying commercial) is an insult to any viewer's intelligence. I suppose this film could be considered 'so bad that it's good', but I more or less thought of it as 'so bad that it's good enough to sit through and yet wonder why, after finishing it, you would make such a stupid choice as to sit through it'. though it is a ridiculous premise, very few things happen that are really all that over the top and/or gory-good fun, and since it tries (and fails) to be intelligent, its not really a fun movie to watch with friends (not even a good one to make fun of, at that).

Now, concerning the villain behind this film, one asks, "Where the hell does he get the funding for all this?" one may answer "He gets all the money from selling the masks, you dummy" or "He inherited that money!" (or both), but even if he were a billionaire, he wouldn't be able to steal freaking stonehenge in order to fulfill his plan. now putting the ridiculousness aside (seeing that this is a ridiculous movie), even ignoring the fact that there are no benefits from turning kids heads into creepy-crawlers (unless its for a good laugh), we still see that this villain is cliche; a seemingly nice person who is rich and powerful who ends up being a bad guy with some sort of evil maniacal plan - except in this case his evilness is no secret to the audience, even if it is to the characters. now, some people argue that this villain is much more sinister than Michael Myers because he succeeds in murdering hundreds of thousands of children (possibly millions) for seemingly no reason other than the fact that this 'ancient technology' (magic really) exists (maybe he wants to test it or something), but even so, Michael Myers is still the epitome of pure evil and Conal Cochran will never compare no matter how many people he is able to kill.