Halloween III: Season of the Witch

Conglomerate Carnage. A different animal to the Halloween films that preceded and followed it, Season of the Witch is slowly but surely gaining an appreciation as a standalone horror film. Gone is Michael Myers’ indestructible killing machine, in his place is the nefarious Conal Cochran (Dan O’Herlihy), the owner of the Silver Shamrock corporation that specialises in Halloween masks. Cochran has a sinister plan this year - and it’s deadly - Dr. Daniel Challis (Tom Atkins) and Ellie Grimbridge (Stacey Nelkin) are caught in the middle of the vile plot and may just be the only salvation to Americana. With Nigel Kneale involved in the writing process Season of the Witch is delightfully fiendish. There’s definite barbs being stung here about the commercialisation of holiday occasions, Cochran is intent on restoring Halloween to the true meaning of its origins, creating a Silver Shamrock world order in the process. Kneale would take his name off the credits when the studio tampered with his vision, a shame because his core essence remains - even if Cochran as a Warlock Wicker Man type could well have been genius. With John Carpenter and Debrah Hill over seeing things from their production chairs, the picture had supervision of some standing. Tommy Lee Wallace maybe directing but it feels like a Carpenter movie, from Dean Cundey’s photography - Carpenter’s foreboding synth musical score – and the sharpness of the horror scenes (which are excellent), it’s not hard to see the “non Michael Myers” Halloween series that Carpenter had envisaged after part 2 had been and gone. Boosted by an irritatingly potent advertisement jingle (a Silver Shamrock variation on London Bridge is Falling Down) that counts down the days to Halloween and the day of carnage, Season of the Witch is consistently gnawing away at the senses. Having Atkins and O’Herlihy propping up the acting helps, both are reliable performers for this material, while the race against time finale has edge of the seat credentials. It doesn’t all work of course, there’s some drag and the narrative feels schizophrenic at times, while if it wasn’t for Cundey’s camera work then Wallace’s inept direction of scenes would be over exposed. Yet as it asks Halloween franchise fans some forgiveness for not actually being part of the franchise, it delivers a smart sci-fi horror hybrid that’s not without shock and awe. 7/10

I distinctly remember being in Grade 8 when the film came out, and for four major reasons: 1) The excellent TV commercial, with John Carpenter's spooky music and the spider crawling out of the mouth of the mask; 2) The decent book adaptation written for young adults, that I read at the time, and thoroughly enjoyed; 3) Karen Carpenter died of a heart attack from anorexia nervosa; and 4) Major songs on the radio around that time were 'Centerfold' by The J. Geils Band and 'Bette Davis Eyes' by Kim Carnes. Though I had not yet seen the previous two films and wasn't old enough (the R-rating, and my parents were somewhat strict about that kind of thing), I really wanted to see it, but over the years, I never really got around to it, until recently I found used the entire 'Halloween' franchise on a 10-blu ray pack, and no longer have any sort of excuse, really. I loved Wallace's work in 'Stephen King's It' (except for the last half-hour, but that's probably the book's fault and not the director's) and I thought his 'Vampires: Los Muertos' was rather underrated, so an added attraction for me was to watch his directorial debut here. He impressed me. I enjoyed the film and all of the extras on its blu ray very much. If you like horror films at all, you should watch this. Protagonists Tom Atkins and Stacey Nelkin are very good here, and I liked Dan O'Herlihy even better than when I had previously seen him in 'The Virgin Queen', 'Imitation of Life', 'The Cabinet of Caligari', 'Good Against Evil' and the first two 'RoboCop' films, and, as always, Dean Cundey provides excellent cinematographical work and the soundtrack by Carpenter and Alan Hogarth is dependably solid. Don't bother with the negative reviews that came out at the time the film was released: Most people were upset that the film didn't have Michael Myers in it, and didn't give it a chance. Find out for yourself--in my humble opinion, it's worth both purchasing and at least a rewatch.

A Halloween movie with no Michael Meyers? Given most of the sequels were dreck, the third outing is an entertaining watch as a Halloween-themed thriller.

Wait, what? Halloween? I guess Carpenter had the grandiose idea of expanding the franchise to one movie released around Halloween that was kind of about Halloween...the holiday not the movies. Mike did die in Halloween II. It was a good idea, one year, one horror movie, all under the same anthology franchise. Except the audience, after two stellar slasher films wanted Mike, so best laid plans of mice and men and all that. What we got instead of Mike was a movie that would have been a halfway decent stand alone end of the 70s horror film, one that was atmospheric, moody, and though it was too flawed to be big, it would have been a fair enough start to the franchise...it would have made a bit of money for the seasonal scare fair. Except....it was called "Halloween III" and all the publicity in the world wouldn't have stopped the public from expecting Mike. So, "robbed" would be the best phrase to describe how one feels whilst watching this film. Even now after knowing what it was intended to be...still feel a little robbed. And I am a fan of anthology series, I feel it lets writers and directors tell unique little stories that wouldn't otherwise be made. Still, Mike was a slasher and after Fred and Jason, you want to see him keep coming back until you vomit.

**The biggest problem with this film, full of problems, is the title.** After seeing this film, I felt the need to read things about it to understand why it is so strange and different from the previous two. The conclusion I reached is the simplest: if there had been another title and no relation to the “Halloween” franchise, I would have had better luck. If we forget the title and put aside our initial expectations, if we try to evaluate it for what it is, it doesn't seem so bad, although it is far from being a film that I would like to see twice. If you tell me that it is absolutely horrible because it has no relation to its two predecessors, I would have to agree. After two successful films, it was predictable that the public would create expectations, this also happened to me. However, there had to be a logical reason for the film to differ from the others, and the reason is simple: John Carpenter, who at the time owned the rights to the franchise, did not want to make a franchise around the same villain, but a series of totally different movies around Halloween. When being coerced into reusing the villain and continuing the story in “Halloween 2”, he killed him at the end so that he could not be reused, this film being a return to the filmmaker's original plan. What Carpenter failed to understand was what the public wanted, and the dismal failure of this film was solely a result of that lack of understanding. Directed by Tommy Lee Wallace, who wrote the script together with Carpenter, it has the master's inspiration throughout. The story he tells us is quite creative, it is something original, but it is not a good story. The predictability of the plot is a problem right from the start, so that we already know the film long before we reach the end. The quality of the dialogues seems to vary a little, it is not constant, and the added sci-fi elements seem to be there too much, perhaps more due to the enormous popularity that this genre of fiction acquired at the time than for any real benefit to the plot and the final work. Another problem is the poor conception of the characters, without any ability to empathize with the public, without any relationship with each other and with several stupid situations: for example, the bizarre and cold way in which a character behaves after the strange death of her father, going to the point of getting involved with a woman he doesn't know that well. And this becomes even stranger if we consider the terrible performances of an amateur cast, in which only Dan O’Herlihy manages to stand out in the slightest. Technically, the film has some points in its favor, starting with high quality cinematography and sets, good filming and good props. The sound effects can be a little too intrusive in some scenes, but in compensation we have a good set of special and visual effects, especially the androids and the entire final part, where they are used more abundantly. The soundtrack is also very good and creates a tense atmosphere that the film manages to manage reasonably.