MovieChat Forums > Halloween III: Season of the Witch (1982) Discussion > It's been fascinating to watch the opini...

It's been fascinating to watch the opinion of this movie change over the years.

posted 9 months ago by [deleted]
40 replies | jump to latest

Circa 2003 - Everyone thought this movie was the worst of the franchise by far. Many went so far as to say even taken on it's own merits it's objectively awful.

Circa 2013 - Some people started claiming this movie was actually pretty good. If it was simply Season of the Witch it would possibly be considered a cult classic. The title and expectations for a Myers slasher sequel are what soured people to it.

Circa 2023 - For many this is the second best Halloween movie and for some it's even better than the 1978 movie.

It's the exact same movie as it was back in 1982. It's simply the narrative around it has changed. It's largely groupthink. Enough people champion it and suddenly more people bandwagon. You're now 'allowed' to like it.

Here's a chart of it's IMDb rating history from 2005-2020.
https://i.postimg.cc/rpCPNBMg/Screenshot-2023-09-02-at-21-31-41-IMDb-Rating-History-Graph.png

[–] Lord Rake (3924) 9 months ago

Bad movies can confuse people if they carry a certain nostalgia with them.

[–] diezman (1862) 9 months ago

I actually didn't know what to think about this movie when it came out in 1982. Good Lord! Over 40 years ago!!

It has since become one of my favorite movies to watch in the fall and on Halloween 😄

[–] BKB (6702) 9 months ago

I was 16 in 1982 when this came out and at the time, it confused people as to why an awesome Halloween movie in Halloween II was followed up by a movie with a plot completely different than what we were used to in a continuation of Michael Myers..

[–] Seperatrix (1095) 7 months ago

I find it confusing as to why people think Halloween II was "an awesome Halloween movie."

On the other hand, the campy Halloween III was ok.

[–] BKB (6702) 7 months ago

HALLOWEEN II was not only a continuation of the 1st movie, but the most violent too

[–] [deleted] 7 months ago

- John Carpenter's OST has more oomph than the minimalist OST in the first movie, a nice revamp.
- Dean Cundey's cinematography is great as usual. The first three Halloween movies are the best shot thanks to him.
- The kill scenes are a vast improvement over the first movie, amongst the best in the franchise.
- The nude scene is better than the nudity in the first movie, amongst the best in the franchise.
- It has some funny moments. Quite a lot of people like to joke about poor Ben Tramer.
- For better or worse the sibling twist directed the course of the franchise up until the 2018 reboot. Important groundwork.
- The atmosphere is strong, maybe not as eerie as the 1978 movie but meaner.
- It was the last entry with JLC until H20. For some this gives it a one up on many other entries of the franchise.
- II is the only entry outside of the 1978 movie to feature both JLC and Donald Pleasence together.
- It's a direct continuation of the first movie. They take place on the same night and make a good double bill.

[–] Seperatrix (1095) 7 months ago

I can appreciate a couple of the items you mention, that it has two of the originals from the first film and that it's a continuation.

But the continuation is fun for a moment. The film that follows it is just not for me. But to each his/her own.

The first Halloween film was a good film. Period. It started a host of what was to be known as slasher films -- that had the slashing, but nothing else. It was admitted later that the only reason Halloween II came about was that they saw the cash cow they had created with the first film: from the rip-off Friday the 13th series through all the other slasher films. They thought "we created this -- why aren't we cashing in on it as well?!"

If you judge the quality of a film by "how good and numerous the kills were" and "had a better nude scene" then I guess you would think this a good film. And again, to each his/her own. Just doesn't work for me. Halloween had a character we cared about, it established itself with the doctor who didn't want his patient transferred -- let alone out in the world, and a school girl who the killer immediately latched onto as a target. We get to know her and contrast her with the friends she hangs around with. Great setup, great score, great atmosphere (as you mention). A good scare of a film.

Halloween II is a rip off of the other lame rip offs. But I'm not here to tell you what to like, and I might add that I think your list of reasons pretty much nails it on the head in explanation as to why those that regard the film so highly do so. So thanks for the reply.

[–] Redsfan001 (6035) 9 months ago

This movie breaks THE cardinal rule ~~"Don't kill the franchise"~~ or don't try anything new or out of the box that might jeopardize the moneymaker.

For that alone, it must be given respect.

After watching the lame 3rd Guardians of the Galaxy, which regurgitated same recipe of the first two.. one can take the converse view of the cardinal rule...that too much of the same pink frosting cake can become sicking.

[–] xergan (916) 8 months ago

Considering we are talking about a franchise which had at one point the actor Busta Rhymes and was mostly carried by a disgraced star actor, I would never call it the worst. But it is for sure quite low on my list, as I never liked the story itself. But I agree, the movies biggest weakness was that they put the Halloween title to it. But I am pretty convinced that it would be mostly forgotten nowadays, if it would never got the title Halloween 3.

[–] SandyR (7564) 8 months ago

The groupthink part was when it was considered terrible. That was mostly because the 'group' was drowned out by the moronic voices of those who felt you couldn't have a Halloween movie under any circumstance without Man in Mask Chasing Teenagers. Once they shut up, reasonable voices broke through and pointed out how much more enjoyable this movie is than ANY of the other sequels.

[–] RickGee (264) 8 months ago

Well, especially at the time, people naturally assumed that something called "Halloween III" would have a connection to Halloween and Halloween II. When it didn't, people dismissed it as either bad or a rip-off, or both. I thought it was a cheap stunt myself. As a stand-alone movie, it's not that bad but it really isn't all that good either. A 5/10 is probably about right.

[–] Enigmaticocean77 (2144) 8 months ago

I never hated this movie. I was only 7 when it came out. So, by the time it made it to cable, and I finally saw it I was probably around 8 or 9. I did find it odd that Michael wasn't in it, but it never soured me on the movie. I actually thought (and still think) that it's probably the most gruesome of all of the Halloween movies. I even thought that as a kid.

Michael, Jason, Freddie- they never scared me or grossed me out even when I was very little. I liked the movies that they were in (Due to having older siblings I saw them all at a very young age) but they didn't scare me. This movie didn't scare me either, but it did gross me out. The whole mask turning people's faces into a mush of bugs is pretty nasty.

Overall, the movie has an eerie atmosphere and a typical John Carpenter score. So, in that regard (to me) it fit right in with Halloween I and II, The Fog, Escape from New York, They Live, and The Thing. They all have the same pacing and vibe about them. I always believed that (much like Steven Kings work) they all took place in the same universe.

So, I never jumped on the bandwagon as you say, and I don't think that a lot of other people did either. What I do think is that sometimes when a lot of people expect one thing, and then they get another, it takes time to appreciate and accept the differences. Just look at how Blade Runner (another film that I always liked but didn't really appreciate until I got older) was viewed when it first came out and how it's viewed now.

[–] [deleted] 8 months ago

It definitely feels Carpenter-esque. Largely thanks to Cundey's cinematography and Carpenter's OST.

Dean Cundey was missed in the later Halloween movies. The first three have such a well composed anamorphic photography, a shared language, that makes them feel like a collective even in spite of Halloween III's ill fitting within the franchise.

[–] Enigmaticocean77 (2144) 8 months ago

What did you think of it when you first saw it and what do you think of it now?

[–] [deleted] 8 months ago

I honestly can't remember. It's been a long time. I never bothered checking it out because of it's reputation and the fact it wasn't truly part of the franchise in the sense it's a stand-alone tale unrelated to the other movies. I caught the opening 15 minutes on TV one year around halloween but didn't bother watching it all.

The first time I sat down and watched it was probably my early 20s. I think I liked it a decent bit but wasn't crazy about it, I'd have said it was underrated though given how poor it's reputation was (and still is to some degree). I've grew to like the movie more over the years with each subsequent rewatch, I know that much. I'm a bigger fan today than I was back then.

[–] Enigmaticocean77 (2144) 7 months ago

I actually have a friend that bought a DVD set of the first three movies, but he's never watched the third one because Michael wasn't in it. It always amazed me that he wasn't even the slightest bit interested in seeing it despite the fact that he owned the DVD set. So, you aren't the first person who has told me that they weren't interested in seeing it at all at one point in their life.

When I was little and saw it, it had robots in it. So, that may have been why I enjoyed it. There was a Sci-Fi element to it. I grew up as a part of the original Star Wars Generation (I was 2 years old when the original came out) So, to my young mind (almost) anything with robots was cool. Also, as I mentioned above it does have similar pacing to John Carpenter's other movies that came out around the same time.

Carpenter had a pretty long run with producing a high-quality line of work. It's really quite amazing to be honest. His work from 1978 to 1988 all feels similar, but it's all so different. Sadly, his run ended in 1989 when he directed Memoirs of an Invisible man. I still enjoy some of his later work. Vampires and Ghost of Mars were enjoyable, but they are nowhere near the quality of his earlier output.

Thanks for cuing me in to who Dean Cundey is. He did an excellent job of capturing a Carpenter-esque vibe in Halloween III. I'll have to look up if he ever did anything of note ever again.

Have you really run into people who think this is the second-best Halloween movie and the best of the franchise?! If that is true, then there really is some definite bandwagon jumping going on...

[–] pjl69 (2478) 7 months ago

"Thanks for cuing me in to who Dean Cundey is. He did an excellent job of capturing a Carpenter-esque vibe in Halloween III. I'll have to look up if he ever did anything of note ever again. "

Heh, I'd say so. He moved on to big budget productions and worked once again with Carpenter in Big Trouble in Little China. Other notable productions include Psycho II, Romancing the Stone, Back to the Future trilogy, Hook, Jurassic Park and Apollo 13...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_Cundey#Filmography

[–] Enigmaticocean77 (2144) 7 months ago

Yeah, I looked him up after I posted, and I was really impressed with his resume. He truly had a great deal of talent.

[–] [deleted] 7 months ago

Have you really run into people who think this is the second-best Halloween movie and the best of the franchise?! If that is true, then there really is some definite bandwagon jumping going on...

I have indeed. It's quite a common opinion on another movie site I browse. A lot of people consider it the best Halloween sequel, with a small group going as far to say it's the outright best entry.

There were also claims that when the first four Halloween movies were released on 4K home media back in 2021 that Halloween III was the second best selling entry (after the original 1978 movie of course). The figures aren't public to verify this but an insider stated this during the pre-order phase.

[–] EleazarHisSon (631) 7 months ago

For what it's worth, and not that I endorse it, Halloween II seems to be the most seeded on torrent sites out of the first three sequels. Halloween III: Season of the Witch is more seeded than Halloween IV: The Return of Michael Myers.

[–] Enigmaticocean77 (2144) 7 months ago

I prefer the TV edit of Halloween 2 better than the theatrical release. I liked the fact that Michael turned out to be Laurie's brother, and then that led him to wanting to kill her and then wanted to kill her daughter Jamie. I also prefer the fact that Lance Guest's character Jimmy survived and may have been Jamie's father.

I liked the first 4 Halloween movies quite a bit. The 5th one was rushed to market too soon. It should have been released a year or so later, that way more attention could have been given to the script. Still, (even with annoying Tina) I still find part 5 enjoyable. The Fonz was great in it, wasn't he? ;-)

Part 6 had its moments. I enjoyed many aspects of it, but it wasn't a very good film overall. However, for me at least, that's where the franchise ends.

I find it amazing that the Halloween movies are still able to be taken seriously and actually make a profit. It really is a testament to John Carpenter's greatness as a writer, director and film scorer.

[–] EleazarHisSon (631) 7 months ago

The TV version of Halloween II has been released on Blu-ray and DVD by Scream Factory apparently.

I saw something called Halloween II: The Ultimate Edition surfacing on the internet. It's supposedly a bootleg/fanedit that combines the violence in the theatrical release that was cut out from the TV version with the added TV scenes.

[–] pjl69 (2478) 8 months ago

My view of this movie hasn't changed in the last 40 years. Without the stupid robots it could have been somewhat decent spooky Halloween story, but not in a league of the original Halloween. It took the title of Michael Myers sequel films and runaway with it and threw in larger scale murder and mayhem, which is in general an obligatory thing to do in sequels. That's why it wasn't as intense and intimate as the original Halloween. We were talking about murdering kids nationwide.

[–] JFZ (1459) 8 months ago

What was the reason behind that? Was there any motivation? Or was it just kill kids because, le evil plot is evil?

[–] [deleted] 8 months ago

Ritualistic sacrifice on Samhain by evil pagans.

[–] JFZ (1459) 8 months ago

Ridiculous. It wouldn't be necessary to kill THAT MANY kids. One would suffice until next time. Plus what the hell does the sacrifice help? Usher in something?

[–] thingmakersback (1250) 8 months ago

Yeah... I think it was suggested that it would usher in something... It makes perfect sense as related in the film. Cochran is resurrecting the "Old Religion" and sacrifices have not been made in a long time. So killing that many kids could be necessary. What he intends is sacrifice on a near apocalyptic scale and, presumably, what he gets is leadership of a re-born cult with the "Old Gods" support. Could be almost Lovecraftian.