| Artwork |
 |
| Film vitals |
|
· Year: 1982
· Director: Tommy Lee Wallace
· Writers: John Carpenter, Debra Hill
· Cast: Tom Atkins, Stacy Nelkin
|
| Series info |
|
Part of the Halloween series.
· Halloween III does not follow the Michael Myers storyline.
|
| If you liked this, try |
|
|
| Purchase |
|
Amazon.com
· DVD: Restored Limited Edition · VHS: Collector's Edition Widescreen · VHS: Collector's Edition · VHS: Special Edition Widescreen · VHS: Anniversary Edition Widescreen · CD: Score, 20th Anniversary Edition · CD: Halloween Horror Movie Themes |
| Links |
|
|
|
| Synopsis |
|
This film--which has nothing in common with the "Shape" plotline of the other Halloween movies--involves a toymaker who intends to slaughter children countrywide with lethal, supernatural Halloween masks.
|
|
|
|
RATING
Out of 100 |
|
45
|
|
| COLD ANALYSIS |
| ATMOSPHERE |
| GORE |
| HUMOR |
| SCARES |
| TENSION |
It's not as bad as its reputation might have led to to believe, but Halloween III's primary sin is its vaguely boring and unambitious nature. I liked the plot: a celtic warlock wants to return Halloween to its true, murderous meaning. However, the attempts at a sense of oncoming doom are squashed by writing with little sense of direction, and the whole thing collapses under the weight of unnecessary special effects and silly dialogue. And where are all those bugs and snakes coming from?
|
|
|
RATING
Out of 100 |
|
To get to the obvious parts first: Where is Michael Myers? Where is the Halloween Theme? Where is Haddonfield? Where is Loomis? Where is Laurie Strode? - In fact, Michael can be seen in this film, in a brief moment when Halloween is playing on a tv in the background, sort of a reminder, a joke - the producers telling us we're still watching the right show.
Apart from that, I mean, if you can get over with the fact that this sequel ignores the two previous movies completely in almost every aspect, it still is a good horror movie, and I would've rated it even higher than Halloween II were it not for moments of cheesiness. You might now call me insane, very well. But I really somewhat liked it. It is daring, to say the least, to unleash such a sequel to the audience. But expectations aside, it starts with a great title sequence and has some buildup of suspense. This is somehow a horror film following the scheme used in the Bond movies, according to its dimensions and to some story aspects.
The scope of the movie is a bit bigger. That's also the problem - simplicity is not any more the key to it. But through its variation, through its change of the premise it actually is something new, something which can be frightening again. It is a sci-fi-horror thriller which, if standing alone, would be looking much better than as it does in the Halloween series - which ignites the question of what it is doing in this series anyway - which but seems simple: It gets its story from the concept of the day of Halloween itself, and tries to make one thing clear: Halloween is not children going out for trick-and-treating, it is an ancient tradition being much nastier and bloodier. However silly some aspects of this movie might seem, it is about unleashing the forces of evil. Perhaps this could be a key to understanding Michael Myers nevertheless.
|
|
