[Stingy Jack]

I read this rather unique review of Halloween III: Season of the Witch, in the anthology October Dreams. The review was written by Gary A. Braunbeck, a horror author whose work is refreshingly intelligent in a genre that is so often criticized for its mediocrity. I respect this guy very much, and this review actually made me go out and buy a copy of Halloween III. Read it, and tell me what you think.

"We all know that with the exception of Halloween 3: The Season of the Witch all of the sequels fell into the same tired formula: horny slacker teens are stalked by Micheal Myers, Donald Pleasence screams that Myers is "pure evil" and so must be destroyed, horny slacker teens are cornered by Myers, many die, but a few emerge alive, thinking Myers is dead but he isn't, and the lazy groundwork for the next sequel is laid as the credits roll and Carpenter's now-classic theme reminds us of the beauty of the original.

Yawn.

. . . No, if you're going to watch any of the sequels, then I would recommend - with more than a few reservations - Halloween 3: The Season of the Witch, not because it's a particularly good movie (it isn't), but because this in-name only sequel strove to stand out from the crowd, and that it does with a vengeance.

Originally slated to be scripted by Nigel Neale (creator of the Quartermass series), whose script was, for reasons that are still unclear, rejected, this entry in the series was written and directed by Tommy Lee Wallace and is based on the gloriously and unapologetically depraved conceit that a billionaire madman (Dan O'Herlihy), leader of a group of modern-day Druids, plans to kill 50 million children on Halloween with special, deadly masks. Made at the height of the gore-hungry 80's, this film leaves nothing to the imagination; there are crushed skulls and splattered brains galore. No one is safe in this movie, especially children -- and that's where my strongest reservation comes in; it's one thing to base all suspense on the threat of harm to children, it's another thing altogether when the gruesome death of a child is played for sensationalistic effect, as it is here in what is surely one of the lowest points in the history of horror films.

Still, I had to give it credit for sticking to its dehumanizing guns; it moves quickly, it has a genuinely horrifying idea at its center, it's a much better made film than you'd expect, and there's the plus of O'Herlihy's wonderfully dark-humored performance; if there's anything to recommend seeing this movie, it's O'Herlihy; suave, menacing, and seemingly classy, his rich baritone voice, when he explains his plans, nearly sings with bloody glee; he is so enchanted by the idea, and O'Herlihy is so good, that you almost want to see him get away with it.

Almost."

I am about to watch this movie again. I haven't seen it since I was a kid, and this review made me want to see it! Let me know what you think.