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? Personally, 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 ridiculously fun take to have 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 definitely accepted by many as a “So bad its good” movie, while it has also gained a cult following that thinks (rightly so, in my opinion) that it’s a legitimately good movie.
Now, I’m not here to convince you its legitimately good. If you have seen it multiple times, you either know its good, or are just convinced it’s bad. This column is for those that need help arguing with friends or strangers at Halloween parties that it is indeed the 2nd best Halloween movie. Also, some people just like being a contrarian (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 make 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 awhile? 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 be in agreement? Do you?
Or do you want to stand out and have fun playing devil’s advocate for one of the most disparaged horror movies of all time?
The following is the contrarian’s guide to how to argue that Halloween III is the 2nd best movie in the franchise. Keep in mind, this is a guide very 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 and dismiss your argument.
Do not attempt to take this on if you want to just fit in with the crowd or if you’re squeamish about debate or confrontation. This is for the contrarian, the person who loves to verbally spar, 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 just 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, it 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 hero of the story, defying Hollywood tropes. You can pick one of 11 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 there are arguments to make in support of 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. Its creepy, its scary, and its 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, bring up 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 3 tracks as exhibit 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 say 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 how effective certain movies are at using pre 1950s music at creating suspense? Synthesizers are the same way if you lose yourself in it.
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 which have terrific set pieces where the killer is actively pursuing a victim. There are only a couple scenes like that in this movie involving the robot goons.
Your argument is going to center on the atmospheric dread of this movie, the environment, the fear you feel when you immerse yourself into the setting, and 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 plays this card very effectively. 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 of they see in this town are killed in short order. The town itself is silent and scared, with the only noise you hear at times 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 is *chef’s kiss*, especially when Dr. Challis is looking around in the dark when it is completely empty, leading up to him finding the robot knitting by itself. Bring up the fact that many horror movies has used the trope of creepy toys seen in the dark, whether they go off or remain silent. Ask your friends where do you 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 when it comes to horror movies. Campiness expands the imagination, and imagination is somethings the crucial ingredient for nightmares.
Counter argument: 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?
Counter argument: 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, just pish posh it right along and move into the next argument
Contention #3: The Halloween sequels are unoriginal and mostly bad.
Remember, your argument is that Halloween III is the 2nd best Halloween movie of the franchise. So you need to argue for 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 still be the 2nd best.
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 actually a fairly easy argument to make, because, well, 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% (this is too low btw)
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%
Just present this to your friends, in fact ask them to guess the rotten tomatoes of each Halloween movie. This might make your case right here!
(Tip: it won’t, and you’ll likely get into some arguments about why rotten tomato score is flawed and worthless. If you REALLY want to go off on a tangent, bring up the points I make here defending Rotten Tomatoes, but otherwise, just move on)
Some point during 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 that 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 personal favorite of the sequels, mainly because it tried to do something different initially with the younger heroine; I also love the final showdown in the boarded-up house. But, it is still a pretty sloppy movie with a really dumb Michael Myers mask. The mask is what you will focus on of course in claiming it is worse than any of the “killer” masks you see in III.
The Legacyquel will be your toughest challenge. It is universally liked by horror fans and Halloween fans. 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, for example. Also make sure to point out it is pretty much a mashing of different elements of I,II, and IV, outside of the opening scene. There’s not much unique in this movie, besides being a bit more feminist.
(At this point, you’re winning the argument, and make sure you 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 wasn’t good?
It has an iconic, and I mean iconic, commercial jingle (challenge your friends to not have this stuck in their head after hearing it 5 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 actually 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 you are defending a client that looks guilty based on the evidence, your best case will be to try and 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 had its flaws, along with pretty much every other Halloween sequel. But also bring your friends back to the world of the early 80s. John Carpenter was never interested in continuing the story of Michael Myers. He wanted to tell stories about Halloween. Halloween III was a completely 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 brought up earlier, Halloween III was about making the actual holiday of Halloween terrifying. The Halloween franchise also revolved around Halloween, but it was really about making a singular character terrifying. 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 11 sequels, telling the same story about Michael Myers over and over again. You likely won’t get many good answers, if any. That’s ok, you can add in a “That’s a rhetorical question” for effect if needed (always a winner).
You can use the following speech verbatim if you want, or customize 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 movie 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 Last Jedi. Last Jedi was a great movie as a stand-alone product, but 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 the fact that almost all its resulting programming as been featured around nostalgia bait.
Ask yourself, are we better off as a culture with 11 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 be rested. Since you brought up the Last Jedi, you will likely start fresh new debates about whether that was a good movie or not. And that’s ok. You’ve accomplished your job. You made your friends see Halloween III in a new light, and some may actually revisit the movie. Most will probably never waver from their lifelong love of Michael Myers, and that’s ok. In life, its better to present opposing views and stretch the minds than stay in your bubble and be comforted in group think.
If they don’t agree, just grab the nearest mask, and sing “Happy happy Halloween, Halloween, Halloween, Happy Happy Halloween, Silver Shamrock”.