Review of Halloween III: Season of the Witch (1982) by Movieznp — 07 Mar 2019

Congratulations, Halloween franchise. You tried. Yes, you failed. But you tried. .

Good : I know a lot of people hate this movie to death, and I do understand why. I hate this movie too. Just not as much as the others do. There are some good things I need to address about this film. The first one would obviously be the fact that it dared to take a totally different direction and give a totally different story idea. That didn't (or doesn't) work. But that's a different thing. At least it dared to completely neglect the first two films, for its own good. Had it been successful, we might have got a totally different Halloween franchise. Who knows? Also, I think the ideas used in this film are not bad, either. I dig the ideas behind it. I always loved fantasy and witchcraft with adventures that have something to do with the ones following some sort of a cult kind of a thing, or some fictional ancient history, if they're not cheesy as hell. That's the reason I love a number of Disney fantasy films and a lot of these type of horror films. Tom Atkins does a fine job in his part. His doctor character doesn't compare to Dr. Loomis from the first two, but is kind of entertaining at what he does - though, his character is one of the biggest flaws of the movie. Dan O'Herlihy does a fine job as Cochran. I haven't seen his other films, but I am positive that the other performances by him are better - as much as I have heard about him. He has a feeling of presence in the movie and gives many creeps. The way they open up the story as the movie progresses is appreciable. Also, the intense scenes do deliver. The entire film may not be well directed, but certain parts are. The music that plays for the Halloween commercial felt really disturbing to me. It was a mere rehash and pacman-ed version of "Mary had a little lamb" but hits the nerves where it should. It spooked the hell out of me, honestly. .

Bad : There are a lot of many bad things in this movie. The first one would be the tonal inconsistency. And, that's mainly due to the characterization of Dr. Challis. He is well acted, no doubt. But, he is out there to investigate something, and ends up having sex with someone at the most awkward time. He is kind of a womanizer and also kind of a generic hero at the same time. That doesn't mesh very well. So, from a mystery-fantasy movie, we divert to sex comedy very often. He tries to get in the pants of many ladies in this film. And all of it is just because we need some sex scenes. Completely unfit for a movie like this. This is one of the main reasons I hate this movie. Then, there are some sci-fi elements to it, which feels like a cheap and rejected idea for Blade Runner. Except for saying that it is "advanced ancient technology", it does nothing to explain the **** We just need to accept something that doesn't even feel remotely possible as a fact. And those type of things are the things I hate the most in a **** sci-fi movie. I don't even think that Blade Runner is a movie that will ever resemble reality. But, it is well put over and superbly directed. The ideas definitely win the viewers over. But this piece of **** uses the sci-fi **** merely as a plot device. You can use any fantasy element in the way you like, if you can give us a good product. But sci-fi means a little more of convincing stuff than just blant fanstasy. Every good sci-fi film has some degree of acceptability of the ideas put in it, even though it may never be realized at all. This movie completely misses that point. .

Conclusion : On the whole this movie is a frustrating movie. Some good ideas and the totally different direction it takes is appreciable. But, in the end, it is just a mystery-fantasy wannabe which is simply a tonally inconsistent and whacky sci-fi movie. .

Rating. .

Score : 5.