O Padrasto: Ele Voltou Para Ficar

You know, i sort of liked this one even though Terry O'Quinn wasn't in it. The things i liked about this is the brilliant idea of plastic surgery on a killer's face, and the way Robert Wightman portrayed the stepfather as a Terry O'Quinn Wannabe. When I first saw this one i kind of laughed at who played the stepfather because the last time i saw Wightman was when he replaced Richard Thomas as John Boy Walton, so in the long run John Boy Walton is playing the stepfather who seemed to be of a goofy version of O'Quinn, but on the other hand, perhaps if he was crazy enough to take the role of John Boy Walton i guess he would be crazy enough to play a psychotic perfect family man. Just keep all that in mind when you ask why they would choose Wightman as the stepfather. As for the rest of the cast, Priscilla Barnes did not seem to be the vulnerable victim, it looked like Season Hubley had that part. David Tom was cast perfectly as the son, but did they really have to put him in a wheelchair. John Ingle as the priest was no surprise because he played a priest a lot. I give this one 6 out of 10

While I think it's a very unnecessary sequel, giving that the antagonist miraculously survived fatal injuries that would've killed a normal/any other person (Knife stabs and the claw-hammer to the chest/heart he received at the end of part 2) I still found it to be entertaining. One performance, particularly, stood out from the entire cast and made this unnecessary, straight to video sequel a lot more fun to watch- and that was the youngest, David Tom playing the wheel-chaired young son. It's not very often that we see young actors with such talent. He was very convincing and believable in his role as the young suspicious son. They did a great job casting him, and got lucky with that too. He played a very big factor in my rating of this film. Now the whole plastic surgery concept thing is just ridiculous and over the top. They obviously did it because the actor Terry O'Quinn just didn't wanna do it anymore (He was probably like what?! The character never died?! I have to do the same thing over and over again?!) So they should've just literally started all over with a different villain, a different character who's just like Terry from the original with the same fascination over single mothers and divorcees. Maybe like inspired by him or something? As opposed to him getting plastic surgeries in the face to alter the way he looks. Like what about his voice and accent? Sounds very amateurish like a cheap lifetime movie or some soap opera show or something. All in all, it's not a bad end of franchise sequel, knowing that he won't be coming back after the way he dies in this. I've seen way worse movie sequels, but it's not amazing either.

Welcome to Deer View, CA, where police forces don't exist (or people don't ever call them), where locals can go missing without anyone ever looking for them, and where it's still perfectly normal for a young boy to be best friends with an elderly priest! All in all, the ideal spot for the serial killer with the weirdest modus operandi in the history of horror cinema to start over again. Terry O'Quinn didn't want to depict the crazed stepfather for the third time, but the script ingeniously resolves this little complication. During the sinister opening credits - shot through an odd blue filter - we witness how our escaped psycho undergoes clandestine plastic surgery by a clandestine surgeon. You can recognize clandestine surgeons because they smoke whilst operating.

Enter the utterly anti-charismatic Robert Wightman, who assumes the fake identity Keith Grant and rapidly finds fitting victims for his favorite game: courting a single mother and posing as the perfect stepfather for her children; - in this case a psychosomatic crippled boy. And if someone grows suspicious? Well, then stepdaddy murders them with a shovel.

There are two possible ways to look at "Stepfather III". As a lousy and redundant 90s sequel, in which the suspense and creativity of the 1987 semi-classic are replaced by extremely sick and gratuitous gore. Undeniably, the plot is full of holes, the script full of clichés and predictable twists (from the moment we learn the boy's illness is psychosomatic, you just know he will walk at the end. I don't even consider that a spoiler). On the other hand, you could also state it's an unscrupulous and incredibly amusing slasher with all the right ingredients. The latter is how I remember "Stepfather III", for sure! My advice would be to ignore all the dumb things the characters do and say, and just massively enjoy the vile and unhinged murder sequences. The climax, involving an industrial threshing machine, is so tremendously over-the-top I couldn't stop grinning. Try to plastic surgery yourself out of that, ha!

Stepfather 3 Father's Day? What were they thinking making this movie. It is probaly one of the worst movies i have ever seen. The acting is bad the plot is in looney land. The charaters suck especially the kid in the wheel chair who cares if the stpefather kills him i'll do it myself. The part in the movie that just made it so stupid is when there in the gardens and the little kid in the wheelchair is trying to save his mom from the stepfather and he just gets up from his wheelchair and starts walking as if he was never paralyzed and he also starts RUNNING from the stepfather who is trying to kill him. As awful this movie is i still sat threw the whole thing. This movie isnt even worth seeing the credits. Stepfather 3 Father's Day ranks as the worst horror film ever even Troll 2 was better than this trash. AVOID AVOID. I give it no stars just plain awful

Ok! 1 was great, 2 was ok, but this one is pushing it a bit far. Obviously Terry O'quinn didn't want to do this so they made up the storyline that the stepfather had his face changed so that he could go on with his murderous ways. With an annoying wheelchair-bound son to boot, we recommended surfing right past this film.