Amazon.com

Is there anything scarier than clowns? Of course not. And who knows scary better than Stephen King? You see where we're going. It puts a malevolent clown (given demented life by a powdered, red-nosed Tim Curry) front and center, as King's fat novel gets the TV-movie treatment. Even at three hours plus, the action is condensed, but an engaging Stand by Me vibe prevails for much of the running time. The seven main characters, as adolescents, conquered a force of pure evil in their Maine hometown. Now, the cackling Pennywise is back, and they must come home to fight him--or, should we say, It--again. Admitting the TV-movie trappings and sometimes hysterical performances, this is a genuinely gripping thriller. As so often with King, the basic idea (the bond formed during a childhood trauma) is clean and powerful, a lifeline anchored in reality that leads us to the supernatural. --Robert Horton ... Read more

Reviews (256)

Through the Eyes of Children - Great Movie!
This movie I believe was one of the first mini series I have seen by Stephen King. I watched from start to finish I was so interested in the kids in this film. Two who are played by popular actor's today Seth Green (Young Richie Tozer), and Jonathan Brandis (Young Bill Denbrough). The children band together and call themselves "The Looser's Club" they face being different from their classmates and they also face their parents. But what they must ultmiately face is the monster who kills children called "Pennywise the Clown." Together and only together as a team can they defeat the monster.
In the first half of the film we learn of the Clown (Played by the great Tim Curry) and the history with the town of Derry, Maine. We see the kids meeting for the first time and the fun they all have. But the serious times comes when they band together to stand up for themselves against a few of the classmates namly Henry Bowers who likes to torment the other kids in the school. They then come together to form a circle and defeat the clown/monster. With a promise that if it wasn't dead they would all come back to destroy it.
In the second part of the film we see whats happened to them career wise and love life wise. Its a tad slower, but it is definately funny and has its serious moments as well. The kids all grown up are now played by a great cast: Henry Anderson (Richie Tozer), Dennis Christopher (Eddie Kaspbrak), Richard Masur (Stan Uris), Annette O' Toole (Beverly Marsh), John Ritter (Ben Hascom), Tim Reid (Mike Hanlon), and Richard Thomas as (Bill Denbrough). Again the second part starts off slow. But its fun to see them all come together again. And to try and remember the good and bad times and defeat the "clown."
I was very much interested to see Stephen King use children to believe in this monster to where the adults couldn't. It's also interesting to see this sort of similarity in some of his other where the children are the key. Which I find really grand in a way. This movie did; however, really turn me off of clowns. So it does have its creep factor in the movie. I would definately recommend it! Athough the book does give more great detail and is better, and the book is different in most parts. But for a mini series this was my first love of Stephen King.

"They All Float Down Here!"
STEPHEN KING'S IT is arguably the best of the TV films based on a Stephen King work. While devoid of countless details from the novel that would have made the plot more understandable to those viewers who don't actually READ King, the movie is nonetheless engaging and downright SCARY!

One reason STEPHEN KING'S IT rises above standard TV-movie fare is the excellent cast. John Ritter, Annette O'Toole, Richard Thomas, Tim Reid, and Harry Anderson deliver stellar performances in their roles of adult versions of the story's protagonists, and Jonathan Brandis (later the teen-heartthrob co-star of TV's SEAQUEST DSV), Seth Green, and Emily Perkins do an excellent job of evoking childhood crisis and trauma in the flashback segments. But it is Tim Curry (yes, THE Tim Curry of ROCKY HORROR fame), as antagonist Pennywise the Clown, who really chews the scenery and steals the show. If Curry's marvelously malevolent merry-andrew doesn't make you develop coulrophobia (fear of clowns), he will at least haunt your nightmares for a night or two after your first viewing.

Another reason this flick rates so highly is that it is, simply put, a ripping good horror story. King is a master at realistically recreating the wondrous ambiance of youth and childhood, and in spite of the minor shortcomings in the film's recreation of King's plot, the atmosphere of the novel is perfectly translated to the screen. Besides that, King is also keenly aware that the things that scared us when we were kids are probably still lurking deep down in our grown-up psyche, just waiting to find a little mental crack to jump out of and give us a case of goose bumps and chills. The film version of STEPHEN KING'S IT finds that same little crack...then pries it wide open!

The long-awaited DVD version of STEPHEN KING'S IT is sparse on frills, but it does have an excellent feature commentary with stars John Ritter, Richard Thomas, Tim Reid, Dennis Christopher, and director Tommy Lee Wallace. Of course, the picture quality is beautifully crystal clear, especially when compared to the VHS version, but purists should consider a few caveats before purchasing. First, the picture has been cropped a bit to simulate theatrical widescreen format. In comparison to the VHS version, which offers the original 1.33:1 aspect ratio, there are small slivers of image missing from both the top and bottom. (To be fair, it should also be noted that the picture on VHS appears to be scrunched a bit horizontally to fit it into the TV "square," so it really doesn't seem as if all that much has been removed to create the faux widescreen on DVD.) Also, gone are the "To be continued" message and the second set of credits, both of which originally appeared between the first half and second half of the original two-part movie (these were included on the VHS).

So the new DVD version of this excellent movie should, for the most part, please King fans and general horror fans alike. For the movie alone, STEPHEN KING'S IT would easily rate 5 stars. But taking into account the adulterated aspect ratio and the slightly altered transition from Part 1 to Part 2, this DVD gets an overall rating of 4 stars.

It traumatized a whole generation about clowns
The second best translation of a Steven King novel into a movie (the best being Carrie). It caused a whole generation of people afraid of clowns. The other option is reading the 1500 page book.

Welcome to Derry, Maine...
I have read many reviews and they all complain about the novel being TOO long, "over 1000 pages long" they say. Well excuse me but many of the great literary works are extensive. This novel in particular is extensive due to the perfect description of places, chacarters, thoughts, etc.

Taking into account the enormous amount of detail and description put into this book, I think it would be more than clear to anyone that MAKING A GOOD MOVIE OUT OF THIS NOVEL IS IMPOSSIBLE!!!!!!

-Please save yourself some money.
-Watch "The Shining", that's good acting
-Read the book when you are 11, 12 or 13
-Read it again 10 years later
-Read it at night

great book, ultra bland 'made for tv' movie
I'll put it like this: if your expectations are to see an 'ABC/CBS/NBC Movie of The Week' type thing , then you may be MILDY entertained by this. Yep, this DVD is actually a 'made for TV' movie done in 1990 or so. These things are at best, usually hokey, sappy, shlock filled semi-entertaining fare, where your constantly reminded how every shot, dialogue, scene ,script and action sequence could have been done SPECTACULARLY better as a 'big budget movie' movie. This DVD is no exception! Horror movies just don't have the horror , imo, in a made for TV format. And to make matters much worse, I don't think even a big blockbuster could even touch the magical depth and character the book has. It truly is one of Stephen King's best, imo. ... Read more

Reviews (52)

Not nearly as good as the first but that'd be hard to beat!
FRIGHT NIGHT II picks up a few years after the first film and finds Brewster (William Ragsdale) in college and in therapy where his therapist has convinced him that vampires don't exist. Brewster ends up believing again soon enough though when Jerry Dandridge's sister (Julie Carmen) comes after him seeking blood. So, Brewster enlists the help of fearless vampire killer Peter Vincent (the late-great Roddy McDowal) land they're off to do battle once gain.

While not nearly as good as the original, FRIGHT NIGHT II is a lot of fun. As a matter of fact this maybe the only horror sequel not totally trashed by director Tommy Lee Wallace who trashed HALLOWEEN III years earlier and VAMPIRES: LOS MUERTOS years later. This sequel is full of effective humor and horror none of which however live up to anything in the first movie. That's understandable though. The first FRIGHT NIGHT is a classic as far as vampire genre pictures go and it's always hard to follow in the footsteps of that. So if you're a fan of the first movie or just a fan of the good old fashioned horror comedy then give FRIGHT NIGHT II a try. I don't think you'll be disappointed.

C

This is DVD quality?
I have bought a few cheapie $3.99 DVD movies. Though the picture was far from great, thery were no worse than VHS picture quality. I recently bought Fight Night Part II on DVD for $10.99 and the picture quality is atually worse than the VHS that I have! What the hell happened! Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that Artisan Entertainment is digging and releasing some old classics from their vaults, but if your going to release them like this then don't bother! This is by for the worst from Artisan. Bride of Re-Animator, Waxwork, and Lair of the White Worm were disappointents because of the poor picture quality, no widescreen formats, and lack of supplemental material, but Fright Night Part II takes the cake as their worst release! MGM may be getting lazy too and only releasing their titles only in Full Screen format, but at least their movies have good picture quality! Artisan needs to shape up or get out! Artisan should sell the rights of their older movies to Anchor Bay Entertainment so they could be properly released!

For cryin' out loud...
Stop posting more than once for a movie, it's very annoying and unfairly tips the balance of the review ratings.

Bad, Boring, Stupid Sequel
If the idea of an evil killer transvestite vampire on rollerskates really does it for you, this is your movie. Otherwise, watching this film will use up 101 minutes of your life that you'll never get back.

Total DVD Disappointment
This is by far the worst DVD I have ever bought. The quality is worse than a VHS and this is a pan and scan version of a movie that was clearly shot in widescreen!

After the original movie, and its comical wit my expectations were high for this one. I was sorely let down. 80's gore replaced the fun that was a huge part of the first 'boy who cried wolf' concept. Too bad - the only good that came out of this purchase was a cool DVD cover case.

No more Artisan (the name is an oxymoron) titles - period. ... Read more

Reviews (260)

Halloween III is....different
"Halloween III: Season of the Witch" is a different side of the "Halloween" series. Sure, it doesn't have Jamie Lee Curtis, Donald Pleasence or killer Michael Myers in it, but it stands alone as a creepy film. The plot introduces us to druid warlock Conal Cochran (Dan O'Herlihy), who plans to kill millions of children with his rigged Halloween masks. Dr. Dan Challis (Tom Atkins) and Ellie Grimbridge (Stacy Nelkin) stumble on the plan and travel to the small town of Santa Mira to try to stop the killer scheme. This one has robots wearing suits, bugs and snakes spewing out a kid's head, a nice scene where a man's head is literally ripped off his body and Stonehenge! Although it seemed like a good idea to John Carpenter and Debra Hill, "Halloween III" bombed big time at the box office in 1982 cause people were expecting Michael Myers to be seen. The only time he is seem is briefly during a commercial for the original Halloween. The acting is decent, the music is creepy, but some sequences are gross. (Ala the kid's head spewing bugs and snakes) "Halloween III" is actually a good film, if it isn't compared so much to the other ones.

It's not THAT bad.
My first exposure to the Halloween movies was when I was a pre-teen. I loved the first one and really liked the rest of the sequels, which I watched non-sequentially. Halloween 3 was the last entry on the roster (mainly because it was so hard to find back then). My cousin finally got a hold of it, we both watched it and never spoke of it again. A Halloween movie without Michael Myers? Humbug! Blasphemy! How dare they! What a garbage movie!

Well, I'm 22 now and decided to buy Universal's re-issue on DVD. Not because I had any fond memories of the film; I'm simply a completist and it drove me BONKERS whenever I saw that one inch gap between my Halloween 2 and 4 DVD's. So, I reluctantly opened up the packaging, put the disc in the DVD player and just laid back with remote in hand. When it was all over, I realized the film is still no masterpiece.

However, it's been years since I've gotten over the fact that Michael isn't in it, so at least I was (ironically) able to watch it for the second time with a fresher perspective. And I have to say, it really isn't that bad. I actually like it better than Resurrection, but I guess that's not really saying much. The story drags sometimes, but the overall concept is interesting. Cochran, the villain, makes for a cool thorn in Tom Atkins' side. I also give the filmmakers kudos for allowing that annoying kid to just shut up and die a really horrible death.

Much has been said about the theme song. You know... "X more days till Halloween, Halloween, Halloween..." And it really does kind of grate on your nerves after you hear it for what seems like fifty times in ten minutes. But, I guess horror buffs can credit Halloween 3 for contributing at least ONE classic attribute to the genre, annoying or not.

If you're not a completist like me, I'd definitely suggest renting before buying. Just watch it with an open mind.

WILDLY UNDERRATED!
This film is so underrated because there is no Michael Myers! Well, that doesn't mean this is a BAD film! It had a very good plotline! The acting wasn't to great but other than that, this is a good non-sequel! I give it a 6 out of 10!

Am I the olny one who likes this movie?
Halloween 3 is one the best of the halloween saga, but everyone bashes it because it doesn't have Myers, well I found it fun and somewhat creepy, if you're an open minded person see this movie otherwise I think you'll just think it's a bad film like everone else because there is no Myers, of corse it's not as good as the first 2 but hey it's better than the rest.

Can we say "random"?
Yes, as we've all figured out, there's no Michael Myers. That's not what bothers most normal people so much.

What should bother normal people is not only is there no Mike Myers, there is absolutely NOTHING in this movie that remotely has ANYTHING to do with the rest of the series.

The plot is ridiculously eccentric, and yet the director treats the audience like a collection of complete idiots. Personally, after the first time that horribly annoying commercial was played ("X more days til Halloween, Halloween, Halloween" to the tune of "London Bridge"), I got the idea that this commercial was somehow the source of all evil in the movie. This is because the toy store owner who dies in the beginning reacts dramatically to the commercial, and we know he's got it all figured out already.

But we are still put through torture when this incredibly annoying commercial is played about 10 more times in the first 15 minutes of the movie. We get it. We're not dumb.

If you want a comedy, this is the movie for you. I was hysterical laughing at all of the horrible special effects.

Or if you're like me and make almost a sport out of watching every horror film (the good, the bad, and the ugly) known to man, then go for it.

But if you actually want to watch an entertaining or scary movie, save your money. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Jon Bon Jovi stars in this trashy but pretty entertaining horror flick.Vampires: Los Muertos centers on vampire hunter-for-hire DerekBliss (Bon Jovi), who gets bounties from the likes of the "Van HelsingGroup" for every bloodsucker he destroys. When a new client hires him tohunt down a particularly powerful vampire queen in Mexico, he reluctantlystarts to form a team--only to discover that all his potential possemembers have just been killed. But soon he gathers a haphazard crew(including Diego Luna from Y Tu Mama Tambien and Natasha Wagnerfrom Lost Highway) and sets off across the hot Mexican landscape.Vampires: Los Muertos has some gaps in logic, but it's pretty leanand spry--in the first 10 minutes, the vampire queen has already bittenoff someone's tongue--and it has enough cheap eye candy to be a satisfyinglow-budget flick. --Bret Fetzer ... Read more

Reviews (31)

Sexy Slayer
Jon Bon Jovi plays incredibly sexy vampire bounty hunter Derek Bliss of the Van Helsing Group. Derek gets hired by an anonymous client to go on an expedition to Mexico and eradicate a colony of vampires, the only catch is the client wants a hunter team and Bliss is a loner. The only problem is the hunters on Bliss's list have been exposed and the vampires are one step ahead of him eliminating his teammates.

Along the way, he meets Sancho (Diego Luna), a teen whose willing to join the team because his mother needs the money, Zoe (Natasha Gregson Wagner), a woman who was bitten during sex but is under control due to an experimental drug she obtained in Mexico City, Rodrigo (Christian De Le Fuente), a priest from the Mt. Grace Monastery from the original film, and Raf Collins, a hunter from Memphis sent by his agent. They become his team.

Their opposition is a master vampire (Arly Joyer), who is after the Black Cross, which through a ritual has the power to give vampires the ability to walk in the daylight unharmed.

I agree with many of the other reviews that this movie didn't go beyond the original as far as storyline; but Jon Bon Jovi's performance makes it worth seeing anyway. I'd say it's one of the better B-Movies. I hope they make a sequel!

Better Then Vampires
This is one of the only times I can actually say the sequel is better then the original. Although James Woods is a cool bad [...] on film it seemed that Jon Bon Jovi just played this part better. Bon Jovi had a more lack-a-daysical and loner type attitude toward the whole business of vampire hunting. In this movie there is also a little bit more to the plot then the orignal, although it does have drawing power from the original. All the actors did a good job and I'm not even sure I would call this a B-Movie, you just don't get that cheesy feeling when you watch it. If you're a fan of "Vampires" or the genre I would definately buy this movie.

WHY??!WHY?!?!WHY?!?!
Why did they do this? why did they make a direct to video sequel to a movie that made money?It screams for a big screen sequel that starts off where the original ended.not a flick that takes a simple premise and dumbs it down,and cant pull off the decent vampire body burns achieved in the original.The thing that was cool about the original was that the vampire slayers were meaner than the monsters they hunted.In this one they are weak and it becomes your average cheap vamp flick.not to mention carpenters good name wasted on the box.And whats with that awful wooden steak gun bon jovi uses,its sad.this vampire flick sucks.

Lost in Mexico
What to say about this movie. As a story line, I really liked what the intention of the movie was about. As the actual movie, I felt there was just a bit too much time spent getting Bon Jovi's crew together and not on really developing the story like it was done in the first movie. In the first movie, we got the chance to know the history behind the vampire and what he was after. This one seemed touched lightly on the topic, and from that point on it was like you were expected to guess what was going on, rather than developing it fully. There were some pretty silly mistakes made too that just seemed unrealistic for their part in the movie.
Still, if you can follow along and see through all of Bon Jovi's head shots and the skipping around to find the real story as it develops, its not a bad flick.

Badly miscast, lame sequel, with one wasted good idea
"Vampires: Los Muertos" is a sequel of sorts to "John Carpenter's Vampires," which means that it inhabits the same world. James Woods and his over the relentless and entertaining chewing of each and every scene has now been replaced by Jon Bon Jovi's lethargic turn as vampire hunter Derek Bliss. I guess he is supposed to be a bad ass just like Woods' character, but he only gets the role half right (the first half people, be nice). This was just a mondo bad casting decision and writer-director Tommy Lee Wallace dug his 2002 film into a hole on that basis alone. The second strike is Arly Jover as the master vampire Una, not just because the name strikes me as silly but also because she is no where near as scary or as sexy as she is supposed to be. If the hero and the villain are essentially boring, what hope can a vampire spaghetti-western have?

Whereas Woods headed an organized group of vampire hunters that was decimated early in the film forcing the hero to go almost solo, Bon Jovi does the reverse. Bliss is a free-lance vampire hunter for hire who has to put together a crew, so there are all sorts of trust and competency issues. If Bliss cannot count on Father Rodrigo (Cristián de la Fuente) then his merry little group and the audience are in for a long hole. We are still in the world where vampires explode into flames when exposed to sunlight, even when you use one of their heads as a hood ornament, but that is also something old and something new along with everything borrowed from the first film. The idea of being able to communicate through the shared blood of the vampire from Stoker's "Dracula" comes back and works in with the more contemporary idea that vampirism is essentially a blood disease.

"Vampires: Los Muertos" is a bad film, but it picked up its third star because of one intriguing idea off of the blood disease idea. Having established that a drug cocktail has stopped Zoey (Natasha Gregson Wagner) the requisite damsel in distress from turning into a vamp despite having been bitten, Wallace does come up with an interesting twist by having Una use the magic medicine to help her take a walk in the sunlight like she was wearing the Gem of Amarra. The execution is not as exciting as the idea and you really wish it had been used in the service of a much better film. Here it is just too little, too late in terms of saving this film from driving off the cliff, but it does stand out as the one bright spot in this dreary little film which continues the idea that vampires are flourishing south of the border. ... Read more

Description

Merle Hammond, (Michael McKean) a sleazy attorney uses corrupt tactics and convinces a jury to acquit his client who is a killer. Gwen, the murdered victim's sister, (Annette O' Toole) knows the real truth and plots revenge against the attorney. Out of desperation, she kidnaps the attorney in an attempt to make him confess to his unscrupulous him confess to his unscrupulous tactics. The cards twist when he escapes and puts her on trial for his kidnapping. COURTROOM DRAMA. 96 Minutes. ... Read more

Reviews (2)

Annette O'Toole SHINES in this movie!
If you love Annette, you'll love this movie. She is awesome in it. If you don't love her, it is still a great movie. If you've ever secretely dreamed of getting revenge, then dream on. I love it when she makes him.... ah "wet himself". I laughed till I cried. Oh by the way, she later married the creep in real life.
This is one of Annette's better movies.

FANTASTIC Courtroom Drama
This was the film that real life husband & wife Annette O'Toole (Smallville) & Michael McKean (Laverne & Shirley) met on! This movie is about a school teacher who finds out that her gay brother was murdered, and then the killer is wrongfully set free...b/c one of the best lawyers in the country (played by McKean) shows that his client is innocent. Annette O'Toole is so furious, that she decides to make the lawyer (McKean) suffer..by kidnapping him..taking him up to a secluded cabin...and torturing him!!! Is this final justice? NO! More happens! I'm not going to ruin the movie, but I wish I could! This is a movie with lots of twists and turns, and is truly enjoyable. ... Read more

Amazon.com

The one Halloween sequel in which He doesn't come home, Halloween III: Season of the Witch was producer John Carpenter's attempt to get the series away from the original's psycho-on-the-loose story line and turn it into a vehicle for more far-fetched Halloween-themed horror tales. Incredibly, the fans voted for more of the same and Carpenter walked away for others to rehash the Michael Myers plot line in a succession of look-alike movies that are still turning up every few years.

After the mysterious death of a toyshop owner, a doctor (Tom Atkins) and the man's daughter (Stacy Nelkin) investigate the Irish-dominated Northern California community of Santa Mira, a company town owned by the Silver Shamrock Novelty corporation. Atkins and Nelkin are typical low-rent horror movie protagonists, dim bulbs who discover an Invasion of the Body Snatchers-style conspiracy involving sharp-suited corporate robots. But guest star Dan O'Herlihy steals the film as a Celtic joke tycoon who hates the way American kids are despoiling the religious spirit of Samhain and decides to teach them a nasty lesson. His scheme, which involves a stolen Stonehenge megalith and a techno-magic spell that turns the heads of TV watchers into writhing masses of snakes and insects, is value for money, and O'Herlihy mixes enough serious malice into the charm to come across as a great screen bad guy. --Kim Newman ... Read more

Reviews (260)

Halloween III is....different
"Halloween III: Season of the Witch" is a different side of the "Halloween" series. Sure, it doesn't have Jamie Lee Curtis, Donald Pleasence or killer Michael Myers in it, but it stands alone as a creepy film. The plot introduces us to druid warlock Conal Cochran (Dan O'Herlihy), who plans to kill millions of children with his rigged Halloween masks. Dr. Dan Challis (Tom Atkins) and Ellie Grimbridge (Stacy Nelkin) stumble on the plan and travel to the small town of Santa Mira to try to stop the killer scheme. This one has robots wearing suits, bugs and snakes spewing out a kid's head, a nice scene where a man's head is literally ripped off his body and Stonehenge! Although it seemed like a good idea to John Carpenter and Debra Hill, "Halloween III" bombed big time at the box office in 1982 cause people were expecting Michael Myers to be seen. The only time he is seem is briefly during a commercial for the original Halloween. The acting is decent, the music is creepy, but some sequences are gross. (Ala the kid's head spewing bugs and snakes) "Halloween III" is actually a good film, if it isn't compared so much to the other ones.

It's not THAT bad.
My first exposure to the Halloween movies was when I was a pre-teen. I loved the first one and really liked the rest of the sequels, which I watched non-sequentially. Halloween 3 was the last entry on the roster (mainly because it was so hard to find back then). My cousin finally got a hold of it, we both watched it and never spoke of it again. A Halloween movie without Michael Myers? Humbug! Blasphemy! How dare they! What a garbage movie!

Well, I'm 22 now and decided to buy Universal's re-issue on DVD. Not because I had any fond memories of the film; I'm simply a completist and it drove me BONKERS whenever I saw that one inch gap between my Halloween 2 and 4 DVD's. So, I reluctantly opened up the packaging, put the disc in the DVD player and just laid back with remote in hand. When it was all over, I realized the film is still no masterpiece.

However, it's been years since I've gotten over the fact that Michael isn't in it, so at least I was (ironically) able to watch it for the second time with a fresher perspective. And I have to say, it really isn't that bad. I actually like it better than Resurrection, but I guess that's not really saying much. The story drags sometimes, but the overall concept is interesting. Cochran, the villain, makes for a cool thorn in Tom Atkins' side. I also give the filmmakers kudos for allowing that annoying kid to just shut up and die a really horrible death.

Much has been said about the theme song. You know... "X more days till Halloween, Halloween, Halloween..." And it really does kind of grate on your nerves after you hear it for what seems like fifty times in ten minutes. But, I guess horror buffs can credit Halloween 3 for contributing at least ONE classic attribute to the genre, annoying or not.

If you're not a completist like me, I'd definitely suggest renting before buying. Just watch it with an open mind.

WILDLY UNDERRATED!
This film is so underrated because there is no Michael Myers! Well, that doesn't mean this is a BAD film! It had a very good plotline! The acting wasn't to great but other than that, this is a good non-sequel! I give it a 6 out of 10!

Am I the olny one who likes this movie?
Halloween 3 is one the best of the halloween saga, but everyone bashes it because it doesn't have Myers, well I found it fun and somewhat creepy, if you're an open minded person see this movie otherwise I think you'll just think it's a bad film like everone else because there is no Myers, of corse it's not as good as the first 2 but hey it's better than the rest.

Can we say "random"?
Yes, as we've all figured out, there's no Michael Myers. That's not what bothers most normal people so much.

What should bother normal people is not only is there no Mike Myers, there is absolutely NOTHING in this movie that remotely has ANYTHING to do with the rest of the series.

The plot is ridiculously eccentric, and yet the director treats the audience like a collection of complete idiots. Personally, after the first time that horribly annoying commercial was played ("X more days til Halloween, Halloween, Halloween" to the tune of "London Bridge"), I got the idea that this commercial was somehow the source of all evil in the movie. This is because the toy store owner who dies in the beginning reacts dramatically to the commercial, and we know he's got it all figured out already.

But we are still put through torture when this incredibly annoying commercial is played about 10 more times in the first 15 minutes of the movie. We get it. We're not dumb.

If you want a comedy, this is the movie for you. I was hysterical laughing at all of the horrible special effects.

Or if you're like me and make almost a sport out of watching every horror film (the good, the bad, and the ugly) known to man, then go for it.

But if you actually want to watch an entertaining or scary movie, save your money. ... Read more

Reviews (1)

will you pay to watch the guilty pay for their crimes?
This TVM about the evil lords of pay-for-view TV hooks into the bread and circuses level of entertainment, but taking us where Jerry Springer is yet to go - live coverage of the execution of death row criminals. That the company who forms an agreement with politicians is called Tycom may be a reference to Viacom, with Sean Young as the head of programming, Len Cariou as her boss, and Timothy Daly as the convicted killer chosen for his appeal to women, who we are told control the remote in American households. Although Daly's Sean Penn Dead Man Walking bouffant gives him a sociopathic suggestion, to Young he is a pussycat, which leads her to believe that he is innocent, so director Tommy Lee Wallace gives us a race against the "countdown to justice". The teleplay by Thomas Baum hasn't decided what we ultimately should believe about Daly. It has Young leaning towards his innocence which would make her want to pull the program, but the case it offers in his defense is hardly believable and represented by Dee Wallace Stone in a I'm making the most of my few scenes performance. This therefore works against Young's character, who has been previously established as cynical and savvy, and Wallace skimps on any romance between Young and Daly. Looking very beautiful, Young gives some surprising line readings, and provides a memorable howl. Wallace cuts between the film and video stock so that the TV coverage is striking, there is an amusing scene of an on-the-scene reporter being jostled by the crowd who she reports have been denied access to the event, and the climactic execution set reminded me of something from Triumph of the Will via Network, with the Big Brother/Big Business implications chillingly realised. ... Read more

Reviews (3)

3 for part 2/ZILCH for the godawfull part 3
is it any wonder the studios are giving part 3 the piggyback treatment?those responsible for the mistake that is part 3 had to have known this was doomed.many other reviewers were right by saying this garbage should have been a completely separate piece of junk unto itself.immediately after part 3 the franchise as a whole went head first into toilet bowl.i can only shake my head in utter disbelief that john carpenter would destroy such an almost unmuckupable franchise.has he done anything were a darn since?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

WHAT WERE THEY THINKING
A big mistake a halloween movie without michael Myers. Michael Myers is the halloween movie without him there is no halloween movie. I thought I was gonna break the tv it made me so mad It was a terrible movie to.

Halloween 2 and Halloween 3, TOGETHER!?!
Well all I have to say is that Halloween 2 is a very decent sequal to Halloween considering that is takes place right after the it. The movie is cool how Michael Myers will stop at nothing to get to Laurie Strode, all the death are pretty cool and the ending rocks!! with that explosion. The only thing that bothers me is how did Dr. Loomis survive the explosion to be in part 4, and how is it that Michael Myers is able to drive if his eyes were shot out. O.K. enough about that now a review on Halloween 3, it's not the worst movie out there but it does how a flaw not having Michael Myers in it, the movie was basically about this Irish dude whose the leader of this company called "Silver Shamrock", is making these killer masks. So when kids where them when they're seeing the "Silver Shamrock" commercial, their heads all melt and bugs and snakes crawl out of them. The movie saving point was the most horrid ending you'd probably ever see. The acting is very decent as well. All in all they probably should've named this movie something else so it would'nt have messed up with the Halloween movie's chronological order because "Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers" was more like the third installment. While I'm on the subject all of the Halloween movies are Halloween 1,2,3,4(The Return of Michael Myers),5(The Revenge of Michael Myers),6(The Curse of Michael Myers),7(H20),and 8(Resurrection)are very good and suspensful. ... Read more

Reviews (1)

Ahead of Its Time
"Max Headroom" was originally a character used by Channel 4 in Britain, in 1984.Matt Frewer portayed Headroom, as he did in the ABC television programme in America.
Predicting a 500-channel smorgasboard of channels, reality television and webcams, MH was clearly ahead of its time.Let's hope we get a DVD soon, complete with clips from the original broadcasts, and even the entire made-for-tv movie by Channel 4.
Incidentally, going by Steve Roberts's novelisation, MH takes place in the year 2004. ... Read more

Reviews (4)

TV PILOT ALERT
THE PRESENCE is a 1992 tv-pilot for NBC that never sold; watching it you can see why. A typically stereotypical group of survivors end up on a deserted (not really, though) island which once housed a facility where genetic breeding was conducted. In the mishmash of the plot, one never knows what really happened, and by its "open ending", you can see how it would have been a series. The cast is wasted, with only flashes of talent from Gary Graham and Joe Lara. Otherwise, its effects are mundane and its suspense level virtually non-existent.

Presence: Lord of the Flies Meets Gilligan's Island
All too frequently, big budget Hollywood films sport an impressive cast of well-known actors whose talents go to waste is a mess that leaves the audience shaking its head at its ineptitude. Such a waste of big stars can happen on a low budget film too. In PRESENCE, director Tommy Lee Wallace takes the acting ability of popular film and television star June Lockhart (LASSIE, SERGEANT YORK), Joe Lara, and future bimbo star Nikki Cox and totally misuses their talent in a movie that was supposed to fighten but wound up as merely amusing. The plot involves the time honored cliche of a group of scientists, military men, and bikini wearing CPAs stranded on a lost island when their plane crashes only to find that the island had been inhabited by CIA spooks running forbidden bioharazrd experiments. Naturally, the experiments had gotten out of hand, creating scaly-like creatures right out of THE CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON. As if this was not incredible enough, the survivors meet a tribe of natives who seem to have wandered off from the set of GILLIGAN'S ISLAND. You would think that with so many model types in bikinis, such a movie ought to have at least one or two love interests. Model Kathy Ireland bounces her locks around without entangling any man. PRESENCE is so full of cheesy scripting and unbelievable plotting that the eggs that Hollywood lays in its big budget disasters are not limited to them alone. The best part: Kathy Ireland in a bikini. The worst part: everything else.

PRESENCE OF DANGER ISLAND
RELEASED AS A PILOT FOR A SERIES "DANGER ISLAND" AS THE ORIGINAL TITLE. REASON FOR MY 5 STARS IS BECAUSE MY OLDEST BROTHER PLAYED FRANK. AND JUNE LOCKHART WAS MARRIED TO ONE OF MY MOTHERS BEST FRIENDS FROM HER CHILDHOOD DAYS. ANYWAY, THE MOVIE IS WORTH WATCHING BUT PLEASE ONLY EAT FRESH FRUIT WHILE WATCHING IT, DAY OLD FRUIT SPOILS FAST. THE FILM, WELL THINK OF IT AS ED WOODS VERSION OF GILLIGANS ISLAND

Incredibly ridiculous
Whoever wrote this script must've watched too many Gilligan's Island eps. Joe Lara's incredible talent was wasted in this film.The other actors/actresses deserve hazard pay for attempting to act in a film suitable only for the limited intelligence of a pubescent l2-year-old. ... Read more