Halloween III: Season Of The Witch (Tommy Lee Wallace, 1982)

[AndyBlade]

In a thread a while ago, someone wrote that they were tired of Halloween 3 being referred to as being over-rated. I don’t remember who it was, and I’m not trawling through threads to find the quote, but anyway, to my mind – this isn’t an over-rated film by any means. Most people don’t like it – it currently has a 3.6/10 on IMDB, which is even lower than the woeful Halloween: Resurrection. It has its fans, of course, of which I’m one even though I’m going to critisise the film in large chunks here, but I suspect that even the biggest fan of this film is under no illusion that its ridiculous and lacking all logic. Those who like it have a good time with it and take it for what it is, those who don’t, don’t.

Anyway, in 1981’s Halloween 2, producers/writers John Carpenter and Debra Hill put an end to the whole Michael Myers/Laurie Strode saga by seemingly killing off both Myers and his doctor at the end of the film. While the film turned a decent profit, Universal passed on funding a third in the series, and either because of this or in spite of this, Carpenter and Hill decided to use the Halloween brand name to create a horror anthology series of movies, based around the Halloween holiday. Eventually assigning Halloween production designer and art director Tommy Lee Wallace to direct the new Halloween film, the three decided to get away from the more familiar stalk and slash film to more of a horror story based on witchcraft, Paganism and kind-of science fiction. The end result, most likely because people wanted to see more of Michael Myers, rather than anything else, saw the film do badly, both critically and commercially. Ultimately, Halloween 3 became a film with an interesting premise which is executed quite badly. In spite of this, its still an entertaining film, and while I think the phrase ‘its so bad, its good’ is awful, it applies perfectly in this case.

So, a synopsis firstly – An old man runs around while being chased by suited, emotionless pursuers – it’s later revealed that they’re not human at all, but we don’t know that yet. Holding a Halloween mask, he manages to get away in time to find a gas station owner who takes the old man to the hospital. Here, we meet alcoholic, sexaholic, typically early 80s absent father Dr Dan Challis (Tom Atkins), who grows quite concerned when the old man warns everyone that they’re going to die…especially when one of the suits visits the hospital to kill the old man and then incinerate himself in a car outside the hospital.

From there, we meet the old man’s young daughter, Ellie (Stacey Nelkin), who seemingly wants to find answers to the mystery behind her dad’s death. Ellie finds Dan in a bar (he’s a big drinker, remember) and convinces him to help her figure out the truth about her father, the mask he was carrying, and the doom laden prophecy he was intent on spreading to the world when he died.

As their investigation trundles along, they go to Santa Mira, which is the home of the Silver Shamrock Novelty Company, which makes kids Halloween masks (albeit a limited range of them - a witch, a reaper, and a jack-o-lantern) every year that seems popular with the kids for reasons never explained – even back in the early-mid 80s I’m sure kids would rather play Atari than get all starry-eyed over Halloween masks, but for the purposes of the story, backed up by a catchy/deeply annoying TV campaign, the Silver Shamrock masks are the must-have toys of the era. Ellie’s father was a novelty shop owner who purchased products from Silver Shamrock soon before his death, which somehow leads amateur sleuths Dan and Ellie to believe the two are connected for no other reason than thinking a shop owner buying Halloween masks at Halloween is suspicious. The two of them stay at a hotel and meet the owner of Silver Shamrock, Irishman Conal Cochran (Dan O’Herilhy). Cochrane initially charms Dan and Ellie, as well as the couple of other guests in the town, which, as well as the worship bestowed on him by the few residents of the town, obviously indicates that he’s nothing but pure evil. Dan and Ellie share one of the most unappealing sex scenes in cinema history before heading to the factory to continue their investigation. As the story goes on, taking one ludicrous turn after another, we discover that Cochran wants to use his masks to kill the children and their parents on Halloween Night. Why? Who the hell knows? All he says by way of explanation is that his people used to sacrifice animals and children on Halloween in the old days (something I still believe they do in Ireland to this day) For added benefit, he’s also somehow smuggled a massive stone tablet from Stonehenge (which, of course, isn’t in Ireland anyway) into the factory to play a crucial part in his mass slaughter plans. Oh, and he’s going to do this by having the children watch TV at a specified time on Halloween whilst wearing their masks, thus facilitating some kind of signal (or something) to cause the chip in their masks to turn their heads to mush and then cause snakes, bugs and spiders to appear from out of the masks and kill anyone else in the room too.

You know what; you have to wonder how on earth this was pitched to the studio. Did John Carpenter actually roll up to a production meeting and say something like “So, what we’re going to do is get rid of Michael Myers, the boogey man – but don’t worry, because we’re going to replace him with THE IRISH, and then somehow cobble together some kind of story featuring ancient druids, robotic drones, masks that turn into snakes and bugs, and our hero in all this is going to be Tom Atkins.” Really, it’s a wonder that it ever got green-lit.

You have to say it was a brave move on the part of the producers to move so far away from a tried and tested, successful format. For all intents and purposes, they killed off Michael Myers and ended his story. I suppose that the idea of someone masterminding a plot to kill kids with masks is pretty different, if nothing else, I think. This film could have been great and actually memorable for what it did right, but unfortunately the negatives outweigh the positives to such an extent that we’re left with a disjointed and garbled nonsensical story instead. It does have its positives, however, and I’ll start with those:

The opening 15 minutes or so are actually pretty good - It’s probably the best part of the film because it grabs your attention enough to make you want to keep watching (for a while at least). It’s fast-paced and the initial chase isn’t without its tension. Admittedly, the first of the drones is dispatched by the world’s slowest moving car, but the old man’s death is entertaining. The death of Little Buddy and his family towards the end of the film is also very good – even today its one which is pretty intense and grim. While I don’t understand WHY a mask powered by Stonehenge controlled by an old Irishman causes a Halloween mask to turn your head into snakes and bugs, it’s a nasty death which still holds up today, as does, to a lesser extent, the death of the woman in the hotel room who tampers with the Silver Shamrock mask.

The Silver Shamrock commercials, no matter how annoying they are, are still very catchy. I’ve always liked how such a bouncy, upbeat song also brings impending doom with it. You might want to kill yourself when you hear it for the 20th time, but I bet it still makes you smile and you all know the words.

With that out the way, there’s everything else:
Tom Atkins – now, in everything he’s in, I like him. This film is no exception to the rule, but he’s just not a very good fit as a leading man. He doesn’t have the look or the charisma, and he’s so ordinary that you just don’t really care about him. He’s also playing a cardboard cut-out early 80s man who has turned to drink to cope with his divorce and the estranged relationship he has with his kids, there’s just no spark to him at all.

Dan O’Herilhy as Conal Cochran is a capable actor who is obviously having fun with the role, but horror film villains have to be memorable to be effective, and Cochran is just an old man. He’s a businessman, presumably making a shed load of cash, yet he wants to murder all his customers on Halloween. You have to wonder what he planned on doing with himself on November 1st if his plan came off. And why are his staff still making masks the day before Halloween? And why are they using hand made moulds when they’re surrounded by computer equipment, even if it is computer equipment which is really just boxes with flashing lights stuck to them? While I’m all for mystery in my villains, this mystery wasn’t worthy of being solved. He even explained his entire plan to our hero like those old James Bond villains who talk about their evil goals but never get around to actually accomplishing them because they’re too busy revealing how its all going to work to people who are obviously going to end up escaping and putting a halt to the plan. Why tell your intended victim about what you’re planning on doing instead of just putting a bullet in him and GETTING ON WITH IT? And when he does explain some loose kind of back story to the sacrifice idea, he leaves it at that. And it’s never spoken about again – at one point, he looks over at the piece of Stonehenge (which, again, is massive) and smiles whimsically before saying “Ah….getting that into the country was quite a story, let me tell you” Either explain, or don’t, but don’t half-explain, because that’s really annoying.

His plan is nonsense on another level too – anyone who has been to the USA knows that there are different time zones across the country – so if he plans on doing it at 9pm in every time zone, wouldn’t the Pacific, Mountain, and Central Time Zones get word of what’s going on when almost everyone dies suddenly on the East Coast?

Admittedly, perhaps I’m over analyzing, but on a more rational level, the rest of the characters. Who cared about any of them? Ellie, the daughter –In between her battles with the art of acting, she mourned the loss of her beloved daddy by having sex with a man she just met a day after her father was buried. And she was probably one of the stupidest characters I’ve ever seen on film. And the rest of the supporting characters. From the woman who complained about her mask orders, to the annoying Kupfer family, to Dan’s miserable as hell ex-wife (played by the deadpan Nancy Kyes/Nancy Loomis from the original Halloween), I wanted all these people dead. I didn’t care how. I just wanted it to be so. And while it did happen, it didn’t happen quickly enough.

The drones, why was Cochran turning all these people into robots? Why kill some people and keep others as robots? It didn’t really make sense. Plus, even for the early 80s, they weren’t really technologically advanced and seemed to be constructed from the same components a child’s clockwork toy would be made from. And why did they bleed orange juice?

Anyone who watched Buffy The Vampire Slayer will probably remember a Halloween episode where kids hired costumes from a Halloween store, only for the evil owner to incant a spell on Halloween when they were all out and about wearing their costumes which turned them into whatever they were pretending to be – so if you were dressed as a ghost, you’d actually become a ghost, if you were dressed as a vampire, that’s what you’d turn into, and so on. That’s a MUCH better idea than the one we end up with on screen here, surely. The biggest problem with this film is that they didn’t focus on the real victims here: the children who were about to be slaughtered en-mass by Cochran. They were the targets, and yet they were only ever an afterthought. While it’s a horrible thing to do, by the end, I didn’t really care whether Cochran succeeded or not. If the story had focused somewhat on the children who would be directly affected by the plan to some extent, perhaps by having Dr Dan’s own kids involved in the story a little more, maybe the film would have been a little better.

The acting on the whole is generally ok without being spectacular. Tom Atkins and his devastating moustache of awesomeness as Dan Challis does what he can and makes the most of it, but as I wrote above, really is much better suited to being a background character. You have to credit him – he’s not attractive at all, yet he always manages to get the girls. Also, for a doctor, he’s ridiculously unhygienic and unfit – in one scene he runs after someone who is only a few feet away, yet doesn’t catch up to them even though they’re walking away at a sedate pace. Stacey Nelkin as Ellie couldn’t act out of a cat flap. The character wasn’t made to look stupid, I don’t think, but she acted like it was. The only time she was good was when she was playing an android, and that’s because it suited her acting range perfectly. Dan O’Herlihy as Conal Conchran was a good fit for the role as the villain. He got the charm aspect spot on, but wasn’t ever really menacing enough. No matter what, there’s never any real reason for a healthy, younger man to be scared or intimidated by a guy in his 70s. The supporting cast are all unremarkable and/or annoying in equal measures.

For all its (many) faults, Halloween III: Season of the Witch is not as horrible as its reputation would make you believe. After each watch, it does tend to grow on you despite its rampant stupidity. But saying that, I still don’t think it’s a good horror film. I like the idea behind the film, but the script managed to take away most of the good behind the idea by fusing it with nonsense...

The original writer for the story, Nigel Kneale, apparently wanted nothing to do with this film upon its release, supposedly because he objected to the violence in the film. It’s unlikely that’s the reason, as the violence is limited, its more likely because he knew the film wouldn’t live up to expectations. Undoubtedly the black sheep of the Halloween franchise, Season of the Witch is not a must-see for Michael Myers fans for the simple reason that he’s not in it (apart from on a TV screen in a bar which is showing a trailer for Halloween) Seeing as Myers would return five years later for Part 4 (and the rest after that) perhaps Halloween 3 can be considered a failure on every level by many people, but it was a brave try all the same. While I don’t own Halloween 3 on DVD, its a film I always watch on TV if its on (which is often, although it doesn’t seem like its showing this year) because as bad as it is, there’s no doubt that it’s kind of entertaining, even if the entertaining parts are unintentionally entertaining.

On DVD, your only real option is to buy the region one Universal DVD. Its anamorphic and uncut, unlike either of the UK releases which are missing over two minutes of footage – footage which really doesn’t have any real need to be missing, particularly in this day and age, so I suspect that its just a case of laziness on the part of the distributors. I’ve seen the cut scenes, yet never owned the DVD, so I’m sure that the cut footage has been shown more than once in the version of the film shown on the BBC over the years. None of the DVDs released in any part of the world have special features – there are no making ofs, retrospectives or documentaries out there, it seems. Maybe its just as well, or maybe they just couldn’t find anyone who wanted to answer the question “So….what WERE you thinking?”

Take it for what it is, dont over-analyse it, and you'll probably have a good time.

[orgasmo]

RIFFTRAX have now done a comedy commentary for Halloween 3 for anyone interested.

http://www.rifftrax.com/iriffs/hor-r...-halloween-iii

I'm tempted to get it to listen to Saturday night.

[dubster75]

i love this movie, for me it's one of them movies you have to watch on the old thorn vhs with the grainy picture (but will now have to get the uncut R1 dvd). a classic night in

[bigandya]

This is quite timely as I've just finished watching Halloween III with my 12 year old daughter who was terrified - which as a sadistic father was very pleasing to see

Now this has long been a favourite of mine, and a perennial around Halloween, so as you can probably expect, there is so much in your review I disagree with I don't quite know where to begin. First off, Halloween III has always been a popular horror film amongst my friends and contacts, and never once referred to in a "so bad its good" way, and certainly never even considered to be one of the poorest of the entries in the Halloween series. That dubious honour must surely lie with either Halloween 5 or the theatrical cut of Halloween 6.

You talk about logic in Halloween III - or rather the lack of logic, as though in this film it is a unique factor. I don't buy that. In the first Halloween, Michael Myers is able to escape from a mental asylum by driving a car - (how he learned to drive is a question asked but never answered, a technique you criticise in Halloween III), and then survive multiple shots to the body and head at the end of the film. In Halloween II he survives more gunshots, a gas explosion, 100% burns... to return in later films in the series, only to survive and return over and over again. These lapses in logic are excellent plot devices and are common throughout horror cinema (as well as many other genres) in order to increase tension, build suspense, and, above all, entertain an audience. If you want real life, go to the drama film showing next door.

You rightly comment that the film starts at a cracking pace, which it maintains for the first 15 mnutes... but then as the storyline continues to develop, so too does an undercurrent of unease which gradually builds to a crescendo of terror culminating in the final act and, in particular, the immensely memorable denouement which is both terrifying and harrowing to behold. The power of Atkins' voice echoing as the screen goes blank stays with you during the closing credits, and the horror of "The Night No One Comes One" finally assumes its true meaning.

Whilst I agree the acting isn't Hollywood A star standard, neither was the acting in very many horror films of the period. I quite like Atkins, and enjoyed his similar performance in Carpenter's The Fog. Stacey Nelkin was perfunctory in her role, nothing special, but not as bad as you suggest either. The rest of the cast also performed their roles perfectly adequately in my opinion.

To conclude, Halloween III is a long time favourite of mine, and I've owned it on every format from VHS through to DVD. Its a film that's definitely stood the test of time, and is one fully deserving of all the acclaim it receives.

[dubster75]

Originally Posted by bigandya

This is quite timely as I've just finished watching Halloween III with my 12 year old daughter who was terrified - which as a sadistic father was very pleasing to see

that is evil, pure evil

[AndyBlade]

Originally Posted by bigandya

You talk about logic in Halloween III - or rather the lack of logic, as though in this film it is a unique factor.

No, I dont - I wrote about the lack of logic in Halloween 3 because I was writing about Halloween 3. I'm under no illusions that elements of all the Halloween films, and horror films in general, require suspension of disbelief at times, but I'm writing about one individual film, to cross reference it with other examples of poor logic would be akin to writing a 1000 page novel because theres probably no film out there which makes perfect sense. There comes a point sometimes in certain films where you stop and think "Hang on....." and thats the case with this film. As I wrote, I dont dislike it, I just think its nonsense. I dont think its the poorest in the Halloween series, there are at least three other titles which beat it hands down in that respect.

Halloween 3 is certainly the most illogical in the Halloween series though, and one of the most wildly ridiculous films I'll ever see.

[Myersfan73]

Always been a favourite of mine, really hope a HD version comes out soon. And some extra's would be nice. Infact a Anniversary Edition could be done, either 25th late or 30th early!

[Someone Weird]

The best of the sequels. A classic. Also, chalk me up as another Atkins fan - its refreshing to have an older moustachioed, normal looking bloke in the lead role and not some poncy fresh faced youngster with no facial hair.

[jacksmith1983]

That's a nicely written review Andy and you put your case across quite well. However, I'm afraid to say that I have to join in with the growing chorus of disapproval by saying that on the whole I disagree with the sentments of your review completely, even if I did find it an entertaining read.

When I approach a film like Halloween III: Season Of The Witch I don't really go looking for logic, and at any rate I really don't think that the notion of an evil Irish toymaker seeking to return Halloween to its evil, blood-drenched Samhain origins is really all that ridiculous by the general standards of the genre. I grant you that some of the points you raise about the gaps in logic within the film are valid, however some of them with all due respect seem to be picking flies. For instance I saw no problem with the fact that Cochran's henchmen happened to be orange juice bleeding clockwork robots. At the end of the day Cochran is an evil, deranged toymaker is he not? So surely it makes sense that the form his henchmen take would bear the influence of his diabolical craft, instead of just being standard rent-a-thug heavies? At least that's the way I see it.

To answer other points I agree completely with bigandya's remarks about Tom Atkins. While he isn't a big name star Atkins is an extremely talented actor with an authorative screen presence who had successfully starred in The Fog a few years before. So as a lead in a horror picture it wasn't as if he was an unproven commodity. I think he does a terrific job in Halloween III and in particular his frantic pleading at the end of the picture as that one solitary channel fails to get the commercial off-air in time is really powerful stuff and stays with you as the end credits role. I think its one of the strongest final denouements the horror genre of the early eighties has to offer.

I also completely disagree that Dan O'Herlihy's Conal Cochran comes across as "just an old man" and think that comment does both the actor and the character a big disservice. I will agree that Cochran's motivations are not elabourated upon in sufficient detail and that would probably be my biggest criticism of the film on the whole. However, O'Herlihy really is excellent in the role and once Cochran's malefic intentions become clear his performance positively seethes with evil menace, although as I say he is let down a little by shaky material at that stage. It may just be a personal thing but I actually find Cochran a much more evil and creepy figure than some lumbering guy in a Captain Kirk mask shuffling around like a zombie, knifing people ad nauseum, but maybe that's just me? For the record I don't remember Stacey Nelkin being all that bad either. She was certainly serviceable enough in her role in my view, plus she was pretty cute too. Certainly too cute for Tom Atkins and his dodgy moustache!

For the record it was Cloud who a few weeks back voiced the opinion that Halloween III: Season Of The Witch had become overrated due to the praise it receives in the online horror community. As I said at the time I don't really agree with that at all and think if anything it probably remains an underrated film. Sure it is quite popular amongst some more ardent horror fans, but speaking from personal experience I've found that every time without fail I mention Halloween III in conversation in the company of a more casual crowd of friends, acquaintainces, etc I've almost instantly been cut down by some inarticulate dullard who says something along the lines of "it was shit and didn't even have Michael Myers in it". Frankly before I got online in the early years of this decade I wondered if I was the only person on the planet who actually liked the film.

While I have tried to counter your points objectively Andy, to be honest I do have to admit I'm a bit biased as I really do adore Halloween III: Season Of The Witch. While it has nothing to do really with the other films other than the fact that it is set at Halloween, I feel it is by far the best of the sequels and certainly the only one I return to with any real regularity. Yes it might be rather far-fetched but if you take it for what it is Halloween III: Season Of The Witch is a unique and highly entertaining horror film with some wonderfully lurid, sinister touches (those unforgettably catchy/annoying commercials, Buddy's head-melting, creepy crawly demise) and is capped off by fine contrasting performances from Atkins and O'Herlihy. I'd certainly consider it a flawed classic, although others are obviously entitled to disagree.

As for the other Halloween sequels? Well they've been discussed a few times already in recent weeks on these forums so I don;t really wish to dwell on them at length. Personally I felt Halloween II was good for what it was and Halloween 4: The Return Of Michael Myers was decent(ish) too, but the others ranged from tolerable yet forgettable (Halloween: The Curse Of Michael Myers and Halloween H20), to poor (Halloween 5: The Revenge Of Michael Myers) and finally to completely dire (Halloween: Resurrection). Frankly I think Halloween III: Season Of The Witch is in a class far above all of those movies. John Carpenter's classic original Halloween aside I could quite happily live with never setting eyes on Michael Myers ever again. Same goes for Jason Voorhees and Freddy Krueger while we're on the subject.

A decent special edition DVD/Blu-Ray release of Halloween III: Season Of The Witch with some retrospective feature's is long overdue in my estimation.

One more day till Halloween, Halloween. One more day till Halloween... Silver Shamrock!!

[bigandya]

Marc - we need a Silver Shamrock smley on this site.

For just a second there I thought jack had found one, so I'm gonna use it too

[AndyBlade]

I'm pleased you all like the film. I hoped it might generate some debate. However, I'll say again (for at least the third time) THAT I DONT DISLIKE THIS FILM. Its just hopelessly illogical, and more often than not, poorly realised.

Originally Posted by jacksmith1983

When I approach a film like Halloween III: Season Of The Witch I don't really go looking for logic,

No, but if you put it up there on the screen, its there to be analysed, debunked and ridiculed if need be.

While he isn't a big name star Atkins is an extremely talented actor with an authorative screen presence who had successfully starred in The Fog a few years before. So as a lead in a horror picture it wasn't as if he was an unproven commodity.

I'd dispute the fact that he 'starred' in The Fog. He was one of a cast of many - at least seven of which you might legitimately say were the main characters. And again, I didnt critisise his acting, I even went as far as to say I liked him in everything he's in - I was delighted to see him in the My Bloody Valentine remake earlier this year. I said he's not a very good fit for a leading character, and he's not. Without looking at his IMBD resume, did he ever have the lead role in anything apart from this? Or has his career been made up of co-starring roles and one off guest slots in various TV shows?

It may just be a personal thing but I actually find Cochran a much more evil and creepy figure than some lumbering guy in a Captain Kirk mask shuffling around like a zombie, knifing people ad nauseum, but maybe that's just me? For the record I don't remember Stacey Nelkin being all that bad either. She was certainly serviceable enough in her role in my view

If a big guy wearing an expressionless mask and carrying a knife is coming at you, thats scary. If an old Irishman in a suit is making his way towards you, thats not. Unless he's trying to sell you potatoes or mooch some money off you for a pint of Guinness. The woman was rotten though, I'll never alter my opinion on that issue.

None of you lept to defend The Wraith when I wrote about that. I'm starting to doubt your taste in films

[bigandya]

Originally Posted by AndyBlade

Without looking at his IMBD resume, did he ever have the lead role in anything apart from this? Or has his career been made up of co-starring roles and one off guest slots in various TV shows?

Night of the Creeps - he plays the foul-mouthed detective, often regarded as the best character in this amazing film!

.

[Peter Neal]

Hmmm..."The Season of the Witch". I guess I haven't changed my mind since the last time I reviewed it, so here it comes:

"Halloween III: Season of the Witch"

Okay, when discussing "Halloween III" it's always best to get one thing out of the way from the start:
"Yes, I'm a 'Myers kind of guy' and I was pleased when the series returned to its origins with 'Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers'."
Having said that, I never felt "Season of the Witch" as such was a bad movie, rather an experiment gone wrong, though I doubt the outcome would have been any different if the makers of the franchise had tried the "An individual Halloween tale for each upcoming chapter" approach after the 4th or 6th. sequel.
Personally, I would have been up for the idea AFTER "H20", which had wrapped up the original Myers story rather nicely.
At least that would have spared us from the attrocity that is (to me) "Halloween: Resurrection"!
I think somebody at the long gone ABUK forums put it best when he commented on "Halloween III's" current fan status that "It has gone from underrated to overrated." I totally subscribe to that.
To me, opening the "individual Halloween tales" with such a confusing plot- throwing druids and androids into the same stew and cooking it up with uneven pacing and too many people having a say in the final script- wasn't probably the smartest move to win over the mainstream horror crowds.
No doubt, "Halloween III*s" biggest assets are the lead performances by Tom Atkins (as a likeable doctor caught up in the evil events) and Dan O'Herlihy (as the sinister Halloween-mask factory owner Cochran). They get you to swallow some fairly bizarre plot developements you wouldn't forgive another movie.
Not to forget: "Halloween III" is the very last flick in the series having the benefit of the "Carpenter touch".
The stylish photography by Carpenter's then-regular DP Dean Cundey and the atmospheric score composed by Carpenter (in collaboration with Allan Howarth, who would take on the duty to score the following three sequels on his own) certainly add more flavour to the movie, while the most memorable imput of director Tommy Lee Wallace can be heard in the voice-over for the as-legendary-as-annoying trailer playing throughout the film somewhere in the background.
Like I said, not bad as such....but this one ALWAYS puts a serious stop to my anual "Halloween Series Watchathon", because I can't get myself to jump over it directly from "Halloween II" to "Halloween 4".....So I have to get myself in the right mood for "Season of the Witch" first....and that can take months!
Still, I grant "Halloween III" an extra 1/2 star, because the last time I was watching this, my wife was starting to complain in the background that the music was too scary for her to get any sleep!


***(*)

[jayzus]

The missing minutes of gore and sex, actually have nothing to do with the BBFC. They were all there when the film was on cinema release in 1983. The cuts were made by the distributor Thorn EMI for release on home video. They didnt want the film to get caught up in the video nasty scandals. If memory serves me right they also edited Children Of The Corn, Suspiria and The Burning on the same grounds.

Unlike now, where major corporartions like Virgin, BT, Warner brothers and Hilton trade on supplying pornography, a public listed conglomorate like Thorn had shareholders to consider.

The reason why its still not available uncut is down to lazy distributors, who use full screen old masters.

[mark meakin]

It's on BBC 2 tomorrow night.The BBC 1 screenings were usually intact bar an 'F' word,so it should be totally uncut now.I hated the film when I first saw it on video,but I grew to appreciate it over the years and the producers at least tried to do something different.

[orgasmo]

As usual we get a Halloween film the day after Halloween.
Also, whose going to watch a film at 12.00 midnight-apart from me that is.

[jacksmith1983]

Originally Posted by jayzus

The missing minutes of gore and sex, actually have nothing to do with the BBFC. They were all there when the film was on cinema release in 1983. The cuts were made by the distributor Thorn EMI for release on home video. They didnt want the film to get caught up in the video nasty scandals. If memory serves me right they also edited Children Of The Corn, Suspiria and The Burning on the same grounds.

I used to rent the old Thorn EMI pre-cert of Children Of The Corn religiously from my local video shop when I was still in my teens. However, I was always puzzled as to what exactly was cut out of the film (the bvack of the box carried a disclaimer that the film had been cut) as when I watched the "uncut" version years later on DVD I couldn't notice any discernable differences. I'd assume it was snippets from the opening coffee shop massacre?

[mark meakin]

Originally Posted by mark meakin

It's on BBC 2 tomorrow night.The BBC 1 screenings were usually intact bar an 'F' word,so it should be totally uncut now.I hated the film when I first saw it on video,but I grew to appreciate it over the years and the producers at least tried to do something different.

Unbelievable,the W/S showing was butchered.The opening hospital murder was cut to nothing as was the 'Misfire' sequence.The 'F' word usually cut was here & the decapitation was also present.Obviously a different print as the fullscreen showings on BBC were virtually intact.I gave up after the cuts to the misfire scene.

[mark meakin]

Originally Posted by jacksmith1983

I used to rent the old Thorn EMI pre-cert of Children Of The Corn religiously from my local video shop when I was still in my teens. However, I was always puzzled as to what exactly was cut out of the film (the bvack of the box carried a disclaimer that the film had been cut) as when I watched the "uncut" version years later on DVD I couldn't notice any discernable differences. I'd assume it was snippets from the opening coffee shop massacre?

I'm still baffled to this day,what was removed from the Thorn EMI version of Children Of The Corn.The Dead Zone,lost the forcible breast exposure footage & the sight of the scissors decending & of course the grisly suicide with the same implement.The Thorn EMI video of Halloween 3 cut the decapitation of the down & out & the 'misfire sequence faded to black as soon as the woman's mutilated features were first glimpsed,losing the twitching legs & the sight of a spider crawling from her mouth into her scalp.The drill killing though not explicit lost all the part where the woman's legs are kicking about & her actual murder.I think the rotting pumpkinhead scene was also shortened.My copy of the Thorn EMI version had another sticker under the first with a small '18' in a circle.I guess the company were originally going to go with an uncut version with a higher classification,but changed their minds.Thorn EMI also cut Stryker (1983),yet they released cut theatrical versions & uncut tapes of The Beastmaster,as I owned both at one point.