Agree to disagree. I think the movie's superficial and just an attempt to let the loser from the 1960s be a big-time 80s WINNER! Not sure what "Top Gun" and "Days" have to do with it other than being Cruise movies. They don't pretend to be anything more than cartoons, whereas "CoM" ostensibly is a "serious drama". Like I said, I've gone the other direction with "CoM". Liked it a lot 35 years ago but now think it's just another rah-rah 80s movie.
I think, for me, it was unexpected. They tried something different, and it at least succeeded on that level. Granted, I saw it almost 40 years ago! Dan
Season of the Witch is a great movie! I've been lucky to see it in a theater twice (both Alamo Drafthouse revival screenings). That's along with many, many, viewings at home.
I saw it back then as well and then not again until a couple years ago. I thought it had the bones of a good movie but the execution wasn't there: Halloween III: Season of the Witch - Collector's Edition [Blu-Ray] (1982)
Don't get me wrong, I didn't think it was On The Waterfront, but even back then, I was tired of brain-dead sequels. I thought it took brass balls for them to attempt something different, which they did, and if not unassailable, it was refreshing. Dan
I think the biggest issue people had with it was that it wasn't an actual sequel. It was more a spinoff, an unrelated movie with the "Halloween" name slapped onto it. Which wasn't a terrible idea - at least not if the series had been set up that way. For instance, "American Horror Story" has different characters/etc. every time - at least I think it does, as I never watched it. But "Halloween" existed as its own movie in 1978 and then came with a direct sequel 3 years later, so fans expected "Season of the Witch" to be a continuation. It almost certainly would've been better received if not sold as a "Halloween" movie.
I think the consensus on "GB2" follows those lines: it's still watchable/entertaining but not nearly as strong as the first movie. I think it's correctly rated in that regard!
Yep. I saw Halloween 3 at the drive in with a car full of teenage guys expecting Michael Myers mayhem and instead we got . . . that. The advertising used the same music and candlelit pumpkin from the first two movies. There was no indication whatsoever that this movie had nothing to do with the first two. I can't recall the ending which leads me to believe that we said screw it and left early. It was borderline fraud, imo. Classic bait and switch. I might have enjoyed it if I knew going in that it wasn't a Michael Myers movie.
I can't find any "H3" trailers that went the path you describe. "Halloween II" did, but the "H3" trailers I found didn't use the Carpenter music or a candlelit pumpkin.
It was forty years ago and I was almost certainly drunk and/or high at the time. It's possible that my memory is wrong.
To be honest, I don't think any sequel mentioned so far is underrated as they are not as good as the originals and thus are held right where they are esteemed to be. Any sequel that is considered to be better, typically isn't going to be considered 'underrated'. An extreme example, Star Trek The Motion Picture and Star Trek II The Wrath of Khan. I'll toss one out that I am not sure it is "underrated" but I don't think it gets talked about much and probably gets a little ignored over the huge original. I for one enjoy it as much or more than the first: Beverly Hills Cop II. Another one maybe since the first one is SO iconic the rest might get swept under the rug a bit is Superman II. That's another I enjoy a great deal.
I agree, and I'll add that for me Will Ferrell was funnier in the second one. (Steve Carell, however, was not. I don't think he's ever been funnier than in the first Anchorman.)
No need to hide. It's a solid 1980s horror/sci-fi film. It's a shame people dislike it because it doesn't star Michael Myers. Looking back, the makers shouldn't have called it Halloween III, just Season of the Witch.
Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed (a Hammer film) is one of the best movies ever made in England, easily the best film of 1969 (I never liked Midnight Cowboy or Easy Rider) and Peter Cushing delivers not only the deepest richest most complex performance of his career but he was easily the best actor of the year and should have been nominated and won the BAFTA. Intellectually and dramatically this film surpasses the average sequel / follow up at light speed. So, there.
I agree it should not have been titled Halloween III, but Season of the Witch although a very good title for a film about witchcraft isn't appropriate for this film, either. They don't have an accurate title for this admittedly excellent film. I like Carptenter's idea of making a non-series Halloween-themed movie once a year under the banner title, but it just didn't work.