The Contrarian Take: How To Argue Halloween III is the Best Halloween Movie (Besides The Original)
Greg Ehrhardt, OnScreen Blog Columnist
Halloween III is a great movie.
Do I believe this? I 51% believe this, as I think Halloween III does so many things right from a horror movie perspective that this is the movie I want to revisit annually more than any other Halloween movie, other than the original.
Do I believe this is a fun take at a Halloween party, even if I don’t believe this completely? 100%
Halloween III used to be the laughing stock of the horror genre since it came out 40 years ago this month, due to its super campy premise, somewhat campy acting, and treating the premise with a seriousness that winking and nodding seemed to be forbidden on set.
Now, the tides have turned, at least a bit. It’s accepted by many as a “So bad it’s good” movie, while it has also gained a cult following that thinks (rightly so, in my opinion) that it’s a legitimately good.
Now, I’m not here to convince you it's legitimately good. If you have seen it multiple times, you either know it's good or are just convinced it’s bad. This column is for those who need help arguing with friends or strangers at Halloween parties that it is the second-best Halloween movie. Also, some people just like being contrarians (like yours truly!). Being contrarian can make any party fun.
Sure, you can make boring small talk with people you don’t really have any interest in getting to know better, or you can have the same conversation you’ve had hundreds of times, where you all agree Halloween is a classic, but the rest suck. But doesn’t this get tedious after a while? I know I’m bored just writing those last two sentences.
Seriously, though, when you’re out with friends, do you really all want to agree? Do you?
Or do you want to stand out and have fun playing devil’s advocate for one of the most disparaged horror movies ever?
The following is the contrarian’s guide to how to argue that Halloween III is the 2nd best movie in the franchise. Remember, this is a guide, much like how a debate team would prep for a topic. It’s not necessarily about proving yourself right, but how you best defend yourself against the typical takes you will get that try to dismiss your argument.
Do not attempt to take this on if you want to fit in with the crowd or are squeamish about debate or confrontation. This is for the contrarian, who loves to spar verbally just for the fun of it.
Let’s go.
Opening Argument
(side note: if you have a good southern drawl, break it out for this opening speech. The great heroes and villains of courtroom dramas always had a good southern drawl, so it will bring the house down if you even give it the old college try.
“Ladies and gentlemen, while Halloween III indeed has a goofy premise, and does not feature Michael Myers in any way, shape, or form (except for a TV commercial in the movie), it does many things right in the horror world. It is original, uses a classic horror trope, a small abandoned rural town with sinister things lurking around in one of the best ways in horror history, and has an elite horror soundtrack that will scare you all by itself. Plus, it features Tom Atkins, one of the great leading men in horror, as an unapologetic cad who is still the story's hero, defying Hollywood tropes. You can pick one of 12 Halloween sequels, which is basically a bad rerun of the classic, or you can pick Halloween III, which does things no horror movie has even tried to repeat.
I choose Halloween III”
It is important to concede that Halloween III is campy. There is no way around it, though arguments support its camp (more on that later).
You will need more than that to carry on the argument, so let’s get to the three core arguments supporting Halloween III.
Contention #1: Halloween III features an A+ HORROR soundtrack
I recommend starting with the soundtrack, because you can introduce certain tracks on your phone as evidence to prove your point. Also, the soundtrack is one of the best selling points.
Most Halloween III deniers concede it has a great soundtrack. It's creepy, scary, and retro in its use of the synthesizer. Make sure you mention that a retro soundtrack is fundamentally scary; look how some horror movies use the organ (like this track), and what’s more retro than an organ?
If you need it, mention Halloween III’s inclusion in reputable sites’ top horror soundtrack rankings as exhibits A, B, and C (Seriously, it made #2 on Rolling Stone!).
In addition, bring up these three tracks as exhibits D, E, and F
a. First Chase
c. The Rock
Counter argument: The soundtrack uses 80s synthesizers, it is so dumb!^&!&^!
Response: Are synthesizers any less dumb than current movies using an organ, an instrument almost 2,000 years old? Of course not! Using antiquated instruments is actually wonderful for horror movies. Think about how effective certain movies use pre-1950s music to create suspense. Synthesizers are the same way if you lose yourself in them.
Contention #2: Yes, if you actually watch Halloween III, it is scary
This is where you have to tread carefully, because when horror movie fans think scary, they usually think jump scares or movies like Scream with terrific set pieces where the killer is actively pursuing a victim. There are only a couple of scenes like that in this movie involving the robot goons.
Your argument will center on the atmospheric dread of this movie, the environment, and the fear you feel when you immerse yourself in the setting. Let your imagination do the rest.
Here are the talking points you focus on:
1) You can start right at the opening scene, where they show Ellie’s father running away from the robots, first from a wide angle, building up the suspense (wtf is going on??), to the confrontation in the junkyard. Excellent use of music, and great patience to not get too close to the action too soon. Bring up that many horror movies get too close to the action, thus losing the creepy sensation of feeling like you’re there, witnessing horror about to happen.
2) Any horror movie that focuses on a creepy, semi-abandoned rural factory town is fundamentally scary, and this movie effectively plays this card. The townspeople are quiet; there’s a fundamental mystery surrounding this town, and why it has a curfew when there’s no danger immediately lurking. Best yet, our heroes, Dr. Challis and Ellie, are painstakingly alone in their quest to solve the mystery box of this movie. The only friendlies they see in this town are killed in short order. The town itself is silent and scared; the only noise you hear is the loudspeakers announcing the curfew. As is revealed later in the movie, there’s no way out in this movie either, so the walls are slowly closing in on Dr. Challis and Ellie.
a. As you explain this in your own way, close with something like “Look, if this isn’t scary to you, then you aren’t REAL horror fans” with a condescension and arrogance attached that will draw out either outrage or laughs. Either way, you win.
3) The scenes involving the museum of automated old-fashioned toys are *chef’s kiss*, especially when Dr. Challis is looking around in the dark when it is empty, leading up to him finding the robot knitting by itself. Bring up the fact that many horror movies have used the trope of creepy toys seen in the dark, whether they go off or remain silent. Ask your friends where they think they drew this inspiration from?? (Again, you don’t have to believe your arguments 100% to make them sound like you believe them 100%. That’s the defining characteristic of a contrarian!)
a. Side note: Dr. Challis investigating the factory at night is one of my favorite horror movie scenes of all time.
Counter argument: Dude, the premise of Halloween III is so campy, it is dumb.
Response: Aaaaaaaand, a boogeyman coming back to kill his family every Halloween while being able to survive every possible killing blow isn’t camp? It’s just camp you happen to like!!
Besides, camp is good in horror movies. Campiness expands the imagination, which is a crucial ingredient in nightmares.
Counterargument: So, the bad guy can make robots look, move, and act exactly like humans? We’re supposed to believe this enough to be scared by it?
Response: Is it any less believable than Michael Myers being able to survive dozens of gunshots and attacks across several movies?
Counterargument: What about them turning Ellie into a robot in a matter of minutes? WTF is that? That’s the stupidest concept in any horror movie ever!
If this is brought up, pish posh it right along and move into the following argument.
Contention #3: The Halloween sequels are unoriginal and mostly bad.
Remember, you argue that Halloween III is the second-best Halloween movie of the franchise. So you need to argue in favor of Halloween III, but you can also make the case that the Halloween sequels are so bad that Halloween III doesn’t need to be particularly good to be the second-best movie.
This is contention #3, but feel free to bring this up as needed to rebut any of the handwaving you will get arguing for Halloween III. It’s a fairly easy argument to make, because most of the Halloween sequels are terrible, objectively so!
Here are the rotten tomato scores of all of the Halloween movies after the first one:
Halloween II: 30%
Halloween III: 47%
Halloween IV: 33%
Halloween V: 12%
Halloween VI: 9%
Halloween H20: 52%
Resurrection: 12%
Rob Zombie Halloween: 28%
Rob Zombie Halloween II: 23%
Halloween (Reboot/Legacyquel): 79%
Halloween Kills: 39% (this is 10 points too high)
Halloween Ends: 40% (this is 30 points too high)
You can present this to your friends, and in fact, ask them to guess the rotten tomatoes in each Halloween movie. This might make your case right here!
(Tip: it won’t, and you’ll likely get into arguments about why the rotten tomato score is flawed and worthless. If you want to go off on a tangent, bring up the points I make here defending Rotten Tomatoes, but otherwise, just move on.
While presenting this contention, see if you can get some consensus that Halloween 3 is at least better or more interesting than Halloween V, VI, Resurrection, the Zombie movies, and Halloween Kills. This should be easy. Those sequels are borderline unwatchable and uninteresting; it is basically the same chase movie you have seen before, without anything interestingly atmospheric as the original.
Where this gets challenging is arguing Halloween III vs Halloween II, Halloween IV, and the legacy-quel.
Halloween II is effective, but unoriginal, and (let’s be honest) very hokey in spots. (Bring up the Michael Myers hot tub scene, and ask them to find the seriousness involved in Michael Myers letting his hand stay on the woman’s shoulder like that to pretend he was the boyfriend. I blame that scene for some of the absurdity that followed in previous sequels. Make sure you bring this up).
Halloween IV is my favorite of the sequels, mainly because it tried to do something different initially with the younger heroine; I also love the showdown in the boarded-up house. But it is still a pretty sloppy movie with a dumb Michael Myers mask. Of course, you will focus on the mask, claiming it is worse than any of the “killer” masks you see in III.
The Legacyquel will be your most formidable challenge: horror fans and Halloween fans universally like it. Your counter will be that it is indeed liked, but not loved, by these same fans. Contrast how many Facebook groups and Reddit threads are devoted to Halloween 3 compared to the legacyquel. Also, make sure to point out that it is pretty much a mashing of different elements of I,II, and IV, outside of the opening scene. There’s not much that's unique in this movie, besides being a bit more feminist.
(At this point, you’re winning the argument; announce this to your friends. But if you need a few more arguments to run up the score, bring up these points.
Dr. Challis is a unique protagonist in that he has very few redeeming qualities and is seemingly proud of them. He drinks, he womanizes, he freely sexually harasses his coworkers (you, of course, don’t condone it, but this was the 80s when times were different), and the movie is damn proud of it! (Note, only bring this up if you’re hanging around dudes.)
Conal Cochran is a unique villain with actual lines to deliver, unlike Michael Myers, a villain who has zero redeeming qualities, is slaughtering millions of children for the heck of it, and gives one of the great horror movie villain speeches of all time. (Bonus points if you can recite this speech from memory)
Its merchandise is selling like hotcakes currently. Would this happen if the movie weren’t good?
It has an iconic, and I mean iconic, commercial jingle (challenge your friends not to have this stuck in their head after hearing it five straight times). Ask your friends to name one thing iconic from any of the Halloween sequels. Be prepared for lots of silence and hand waving.
Closing Argument
Unlike our previous contrarian case, this is a bigger hill to climb to convince your friends that you are making a real argument that Halloween III is good. These contentions should persuade, but you are going against 30+ years of uninformed propaganda against this movie. So your closing argument needs to be special.
Defense lawyers will often speak about how, when defending a client who looks guilty based on the evidence, your best case will be to try to put someone, or something, else on trial, to distract the jury. In the case of Halloween III, you will put Hollywood and movie audiences on trial.
You will concede that Halloween III, like almost every other Halloween sequel, had flaws. But also, bring your friends back to the world of the early 1980s. John Carpenter was never interested in continuing the story of Michael Myers. He wanted to tell stories about Halloween. Halloween III was a fresh take on the holiday, with an original script, characters, and a brand new soundtrack (which, as discussed before, is almost as good as the original).
Most importantly, as you mentioned earlier, Halloween III was about making the actual holiday of Halloween terrifying. The Halloween franchise also revolved around Halloween, but it was about terrifying a singular character. The brilliance of Halloween III, you will argue, is the build-up to Halloween night, where a singular act of terror will happen, and the heroes are merely powerless to stop it, thanks to commercialism!
Isn’t this what we want in our Halloween sequels?? (Make sure you ask this question loudly, gesturing with both arms around the room. Turn up the theatrics. You want to entertain your friends, too.
Ask your friends where we ended up doing what “the people” wanted in making 12 sequels, telling the same story about Michael Myers repeatedly. You likely won’t get many good answers, if any. That’s ok. You can add “That’s a rhetorical question” for effect if needed (always a winner).
You can use the following speech verbatim if you want, or customize it to your talking patterns.
“Halloween III was the original Last Jedi. Everyone came into this movie expecting Michael Myers because the marketing of this movie didn’t trust John Carpenter. The film was panned in large part because audiences were greedy. Two movies of Michael Myers weren’t enough; they were close-minded to any new concepts surrounding the holiday. Audiences wanted the familiar, nostalgia-bait, just like how they were entering The Last Jedi. The Last Jedi was a great movie as a stand-alone product, but it had problems with the audience because the audience was expecting a heroic Luke Skywalker. The Star Wars franchise will never be the same since, as evidenced by almost all its resulting programming being featured around nostalgia bait.
Ask yourself, are we better off as a culture with 12 crappy Michael Myers movies because Hollywood is terrified to do something different with fan favorite characters? Or should we instead right historical wrongs, and embrace a truly original, popcorn scary and creepy movie like Halloween III, so we can encourage Hollywood to take more chances and embrace the holiday of Halloween for future Halloween movies instead of embracing a 40+ year old character?
And then,
“I rest my case.”
In reality, the case will never rest. Since you brought up The Last Jedi, you will likely start fresh debates about whether that was a good movie. And that’s ok. You’ve accomplished your job. You made your friends see Halloween III in a new light, and some may revisit the movie. Most will probably never waver from their lifelong love of Michael Myers, and that’s ok. It's better to present opposing views and stretch the mind in life than stay in your bubble and be comforted in groupthink.
If they don’t agree, grab the nearest mask and sing “Happy Happy Halloween, Halloween, Halloween, Happy Happy Halloween, Silver Shamrock.”