NekoHomey Purely Joyful Movie!

Intcatinfo A Masterpiece!

Hayden Kane There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

Freeman This film is so real. It treats its characters with so much care and sensitivity.

atinder Wow, and I thought the second one was bad,This the stepfather as yet again escaped from the insane asylum and had his face surgically, that one to add a re-cast into the story.This was no wear near as good as first movie, it was even worse then second movie, which I didn't not like that much,However I do think this movie was far more bloody then the other two movies put together, there were few gory deaths in this movie, even the way they show the death scenes look a bit strange in bad way.The acting in this movie was really bad from most of the cast, I didn't think Robert Wightman was the right person for this role, I just could find him believable as the killer.I did like how the movie ended, also some parts of the movie are very predicable as we seen twice, with little sub plot about boy in wheelchair.I was not aware that this was TV movie until now, I thought it was decent and really bloody for TV movie, the acting was really bad in this movie from most of the cast.4 out of 10

PeterBradford I recall starting to watch this on cable when it made its debut back in 1992. My first impression was that it looked cheap, and I didn't finish watching it. Now, in 2005, I finally got to see it from beginning to end. It is surprisingly good for a made-for-cable movie, and it stands up to Stepfather II, at the very least. Terry O'Quinn does not return to his role in this one, he is replaced by Robert Wightman. The change in appearance is explained (and shown) by plastic surgery. In fact, the whole plot seems to revolve around it. The plastic surgery sequence is particularly unsettling, as the stepfather undergoes the procedure without any anesthesia, and by a 'back-alley' plastic surgeon. Unfortunately, Robert Wightman is the weakest part of the production. His acting, when he is suppose to be normal, is just awful. He only shines in his moments when he loses his cool (that is probably how he got the part, auditioning as the 'crazy' stepfather). Priscilla Barnes carries the whole movie. She is very good, and it's a serious, dramatic role for her. Season Hubley is also very good in a strong supporting role. Worth checking out, it makes a good 'guilty pleasure.'

gambler1978 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

silenttrigger15 Everyone says that Stepfather 1 was a very good film , stepfather 2 was a good film and Stepfather 3 is very big trash ! I don´t think so ! OK , Stepfather 3 is sometimes very boring but the Gore-Effects in this movie are very bloody and were made very good ! So you can watch this movie 1 or 2 times and you will have fun with it !