I don't know why this exists...but I don't like it.

[CelticPredator]

Yeah it is. But I loved it as a kid.

That whole thing with "Tommy" bugged the ____ out of me as a kid. It didnt make sense that deformed little freak was Pumpkinhead.

 

[mmmmBrains]

I actually found that super funny.

 

[crows]

I disagree. Halloween 3 is amazing.

When taken out of it's context, I agree 100%. And people would likely rank it among their favorite oldschool horror movies. Unfortunately, following Halloween 2 in title and series, it's largely hated.

when I hear this debate of H3 sucking or not because of the absence Myers,
then I think Even if Halloween 3 didn't have Michael in it,
I think (in my opinion) halloween 3 is better than Halloween 5, Halloween 6 and Halloween Resurrection, specially better than Resurrection, at least Halloween 3 did not have Busta Rymes beating up Michael while saying things like "Trick or Treat Mother@#$"
sure halloween 3 has its shortcomings, but I love it, the story is creepy, the movie is good, there are some things that I kinda hate about it, but, like i said, some of the Halloween Movies with Michael in them are really bad, Resurrection is actually one of the worst movies I've seen I mean, A movie about a reality tv show...

all I'm saying is, halloween 3 gets a lot of hate, a lot of it because it doesn't have Michael, but those people to me sound extremely stupid,

 

[Ex-Parrot]

Ironically enough-- that clip was more entertaining than Pumpkinhead 2. Pumpkinhead 2 is generally regarded as the Halloween 3 of the p-head "franchise". It follows an entirely separate continuity from 1,3, and 4.

It sucks (fill in the blank with whatever noun you prefer).

Nah, Halloween 3 can be taken as an okay horror film if you can forget that it was supposed to be part of the Halloween franchise. Pumpkinhead 2 is an utter and absolute abortion, the kind that is legitimately up there vying for worst sequel of all time, along with things like Species 2.

One of those films that goes beyond merely just being a crappy or cheaply made cash in sequel, and moves right into being an actual insult to the very memory of the original film, it's fans, and all who worked on the first film. Just so very, very terrible.

As you may have noticed, I didn't like it...

 

[steviebee87]

well i love pumpkinhead 2 probably because i grew up watching it along with part 1 when it seemed like horror movies were on all the time some years back.

 

[CelticPredator]

Me too....but I dont think I can watch that movie now.

Too horrible.


Why is it so hard to make another decent Pumpkinhead movie? Those Sci-Fi ones sucked ass. I was actually pretty excited when they came out. But they didn't live up in anyway.

Plus, they showed the monster too much. Pumpkinhead is cooler when he's masked in darkness.

 

[King Darkness]

Why is it so hard to make another decent Pumpkinhead movie?

Because the first one is perfect and didnt need a sequel.

 

[CelticPredator]

But the creature is pretty amazing. I expect sequels. It comes with my generation.


I need to buy Pumpkinhead by the way. Underrated as hell.

 

[thenammagazine]

Because the first one is perfect and didnt need a sequel.

The Unnameable has the same issue.

 

[Frank Einstein]

Say what? What!

 

[steviebee87]

The Unnameable has the same issue.

i know unnameable 2 was so horrible IMO.

 

[Anton Phibes]

Pumpkinhead 1 was a major achievement in Horror. Kind of a throw back to 70's monster flicks...only tweaked. To be followed by part 2 is atrocious. Part 2 has no continuity,No Haggis, No Ed Harley references, no budget...and little else to offer anyone except the folks who viewed it to see Linnea Quigley get nekkid for the millionth time. Steaming pile of rabid raccoon excrement. You know your film is bad when sci-fi channel sequels are better (parts 3 and 4),lol.

 

[Morbach]

Pumpkinhead 1 was a major achievement in Horror. Kind of a throw back to 70's monster flicks...only tweaked. To be followed by part 2 is atrocious. Part 2 has no continuity,No Haggis, No Ed Harley references, no budget...and little else to offer anyone except the folks who viewed it to see Linnea Quigley get nekkid for the millionth time. Steaming pile of rabid raccoon excrement. You know your film is bad when sci-fi channel sequels are better (parts 3 and 4),lol.

so true! Ashes to ashes was a good ass movie! The 4th kinda sucked but still better than the 2nd.

 

[thenammagazine]

Pumpkinhead 1 was a major achievement in Horror. Kind of a throw back to 70's monster flicks...only tweaked. To be followed by part 2 is atrocious. Part 2 has no continuity,No Haggis, No Ed Harley references, no budget...and little else to offer anyone except the folks who viewed it to see Linnea Quigley get nekkid for the millionth time. Steaming pile of rabid raccoon excrement. You know your film is bad when sci-fi channel sequels are better (parts 3 and 4),lol.

How dare you offend raccoon poop like that.

 

[Anton Phibes]

How dare you offend raccoon poop like that.

True. My apologies to Raccoon defecation worldwide.

 

[CelticPredator]

Ashes 2 Ashes was good? I couldn't even finish it. They showed Pumpy too much.

 

[azurepred]

The Unnameable has the same issue.

that movie gave me nightmares when I was a kid. Hell, I think that was the first sex scene I ever saw , but it was defn the monster that gave me the nightmares

 

[Anton Phibes]

Ashes 2 Ashes was good? I couldn't even finish it. They showed Pumpy too much.

Doug Bradley, Lance Henriksen and Pumpkinhead in the same flick. Plus Haggis! Whats not to like?

 

[Morbach]

Precisely

 

[CelticPredator]

The acting. The story. The way they showed Pumpkinhead too much.

I gave up halfway through. I guess I had high expectations.