lukemarron This laughably terrible, pathetic piece of crap is so beyond awful that after purchasing the complete Halloween blu-ray boxset I threw this cringe-worthy nonsense straight in the trash the second it finished. Absolutely ABYSMAL. I'm sure some tasteless loser fanboy would've paid $100+ for that rare boxset version of this "film", but I genuinely preferred to lose out on the money and send it to the dump where it belongs. Even Rob Zombie's horrendous Halloween 2 is OSCAR WORTHY compared to this B-movie (Z-movie) gorefest failure. Hurry up and add a ZERO out of ten option already, imdb. I feel genuinely bad even giving this a 1/10, which it in NO WAY DESERVES!

TheLittleSongbird John Carpenter's 1978 'Halloween' is wholly deserving of its status as a horror classic. To this day it's still one of the freakiest films personally seen and introduced the world to one of horror's most iconic villainous characters Michael Myers.Which is why it is such a shame that not only are all of the sequels nowhere near as good but that the decline in quality is so drastic. Ok, the original 'Halloween' is very difficult to follow on from, but most of the sequels could at least looked like effort was made into them. 'Halloween III: Season of the Witch' had a generally negative critical reception and is still considered by many one of the worst of the series, but has garnered fans overtime. To me, 'Halloween III: Season of the Witch' is not that awful, but it is not a particularly good film either.It is often criticised for straying too far from the formula and not feeling at all like a 'Halloween' film. Actually these complaints are understandable, but a lot of people have also argued that there is much more wrong than just being unrecognisable as a 'Halloween' film. Actually, didn't mind at all that it tried to be different rather than being a retread like 'Halloween II' was, sadly it just didn't work out. Judging it as a standalone, 'Halloween III' also manages still to be problematic.'Halloween III' is not a complete mess. It is one of the better-looking and more polished sequels and has a suitably eerie look. The music has a spine-chilling atmosphere and has a real eeriness. The song is similarly very catchy.A couple of the deaths are disturbing and Dan O'Herlihy tries his best.Like the previous film, the drawbacks are numerous and significant. There is more creepiness than with 'Halloween II', even if just sporadically, but tonally it still doesn't feel right. The weirdness of the story is overkill and parts are unintentionally funny. The science fiction elements feature excessively and confuse the storytelling, as well as because it is more silly than eerie it dumbs it down.Once again there is very little scary or suspenseful. A couple of the deaths are more disturbing but most are not that creative or unsettling. The story was a decent idea that could have been creepy but was instead silly and with even more stupidity and illogic than the previous sequel. Many have said that no awards will be given for good dialogue and acting. That's putting it lightly. The script is clunky and cheesy ineptitude throughout and the acting, Dan O'Herlihy excepted, is pretty awful and fails to do anything with such dull and annoying characters. The gore is gratuitous, the ending is a big head-scratcher and the non-horror scenes are ineptly directed (in a film where direction reeked of inexperience), written and acted.In summation, mediocre and not so happy. Not quite as bad as reputed though. 4/10 Bethany Cox

Ilikehorrormovies I use to hate this film and now I like it. Not the best but it's good. This is #4 on my spot on my list of HalloweeN movies tied with H20. The score shouldn't be 4.7, they should rate it higher like 6.1 fits really well or 5.9 in my opinion. I like how they tried to make an anthology series but the fans despise it so they went back to Michael Myers. Good movie, I hope they change the score to something else because 4.7 is a bit too low.

Fabiano Lourenço Horror franchises are naturally inclined to become stale, obvious and boring after a while, say, after the third or fourth installment, when the formulaic script simply has nowhere else to go. There's no reason whatever to supposed the same wouldn't happen with Halloween. Everybody knows John Carpenter DID NOT want Halloween to become a franchise. But the first two movies made a lot of money, and then they decided they HAD to release a new Michael Myers story every couple of years, if only to satisfy fans of easy and predictable slasher flicks. The third installment in the franchise- Season of the Witch- was a huge departure from the story told in the first two parts- and was also a sign that the real intention was to create a collection of stories based on Halloween, but independent of each other. Of course, it did not succeed, and in the fourth chapter there we went to meet our "dear" Michael Myers and his endless thirst for blood again.It was really a pity things went this direction. Because, truth be told, every Halloween sequel was worse than the previous one, with an indestructible killer who simply was a "seasonal" variation of Jason Vorhees, and all the writers had to do at a certain point was creating a new excuse for bringing Michael back, because the killer invariably ended "dead" or severely injured in each chapter. The rest of the "plot" was basically the same in every movie: Halloween night, Michael comes back to Haddonfield, people are sure he's either dead or only a legend, he starts to kill everyone in sight, someone realizes he's alive, there's a relative of his that he's willing to kill, etc, etc.If this third installment in the franchise had been successful, things could have been different. And instead of having THE SAME MOVIE over and over again, we could have now a very interesting collection of good horror stories. Why didn't this work out? My theory is very simple: this didn't work out not only because people wanted Michael Myers back after his hospital bloodbath in Halloween II, but also because Halloween III: Season of the Witch is a very, VERY bad movie. People might have thought: If the other installments in this series be like this one, then we'd rather have Michael Myers coming back every damn year for more of the same.What can I say not to "spoil" (sic) the party of anyone else? Well, I will not describe the "plot", yet I must say this film does not have any sense whatsoever, bad actors, bad story line, horrible villain, pathetic death scenes, and you end up asking yourself if what you're seeing on screen is really for real. The movie does have a promising beginning, but it all goes downhill from there. I must confess, being a John Carpenter work, the soundtrack is eerie and fantastically atmospheric. Yet the story being told does not deserve a good soundtrack. I think the best way to describe this thing is: bizarre. It's really weird, but not in a positive, Kafka kind of way. It's weird because it doesn't go anywhere and has an awkward story line.I will not give any spoilers, so go and watch for yourself if you haven't yet. I can assure you that you'll understand why the chose to bring Mike back after this "thing".