allanwaters-86617
The preamble to this review, has to be, that this movie, is my favourite psychological horror of the last 30 years. If you are going into to watch this movie with expectations of gore dripping grotesquely from the screen, then don't expect a lurid bloodbath. This celluloid masterpiece, hits you deep with the cerebral grey matter. The acoustic's are scything and scathing, the acting is visceral and precise, the atmosphere and tension is palpably tangible. I could go and on and on into infinitum with superaltives... ... But I don't want to spoil this orgy of the senses for potential first timers taking in this psychologically, horrifying spectacle. The director clearly had a vision to deliver onto the screen, and this was executed with gusto and aplomb. The scenes are set with immaculate precision, guiding us gently through each frame, shepparding us until the director sends us spiralling headlong out of control, bathing our brains in tension and revulsion. The screenplay is simply superb. Along with the acoustics and direction, the narrative fiercely fuels our inner fears. Some of the psychiatric ward scenes are delivered in odious and undulating spades of nightmarish debauchery. I wanted to give a magisterial mention to the nurse station scene. All of the above, is constellated into a cocktail of suspenseful, petrifying horror. If you aren't flung out of your skin into the stratosphere by the climax of this scene, give yourself a hearty pat on the back! The only exiguous quibbles with this movie and the reason it hasn't scored a resounding 10/10, is the films duration(a tad short) , and a certain actor being struck from the proceedings all to abruptly. In surmation, watch this malevolent scare fest of gut wrenching terror . It's woven together into a beguiling, mesmerising tapestry of masterful movie making.
Sarah Carlton
Nowadays, sequels are terribly frowned upon. They're infamous for being cheaply made only with the intent to grab money from people with the promise that it'll be just as good as the original. I had purposely skipped The Exorcist II because I had heard that it was laughably bad and not worth watching whatsoever. And initially, I wasn't even going to see this one. But I'm sure glad I did.George C. Scott plays the protagonist: a detective who's investigating a string of murders that are uncannily similar to the Gemini Killer case; a serial murderer who's victims are killed in grotesque and sinister ways. But there's only one problem: The Gemini killer was supposedly sentenced to death 15 years earlier, so he's left to figure out how he's able to kill again. Without giving anything away about the plot, I will tell you that the Gemini Killer is played by a phenomenal actor who I'm personally a fan of. Brad Dourif appears in only two scenes in this entire film, but damn do they stand out. He is absolutely enthralling. Dourif is able to invoke such rage, ferocity and insanity without coming off as completely over-the-top. He subtly creates a tragic yet terrifying complex of personality traits embodied into a mesmerizing performance. It was an absolute delight to watch him in the film.Thankfully there are other things to like about this film aside from Dourif's amazing performance. There are several well shot scenes that are just as disturbing as they are compelling. The last act in particular had me on the edge of my seat: it's the most tense I've ever been while watching a film in a long time. With that said, I wouldn't exactly classify it as a "horror" film so much as a suspense/crime drama. But it still has some fairly creepy moments.However, one thing that disappointed me was George C. Scott's acting in the lead role. Being such a seasoned and well experienced actor at this point in his career, you'd think that he could never give a bad performance. But unfortunately, he does in The Exorcist III. If you looked up "chewing the scenery" in the urban dictionary, I'm almost positive you would find his name there. Scott poorly delivered so many lines that I would actually find myself laughing during some scenes, but for all of the wrong reasons. Now to be fair, this may be the fault of William Peter Blatty who at best, was an amateur behind the camera. And clearly he was better at writing than he was at directing. He may have given Scott unclear or vague instructions which caused Scott to become confused and just wing it as best he could. Also, I should mention that not all of Scott's scenes are bad, but had a more experienced director been on set, things might have worked out differently. Scott's less than par acting in this film is the reason why I won't give it a higher rating than a 7.But overall, it's a great film that really exceeded my expectations, especially in the last two acts. It's as good as sequels come and I would recommend it to fans of the original film. One thing that people might find surprising is that it actually ties into the first Exorcist film rather well. I believe it's worth watching for Brad Dourif alone, but there's some additional scenes in the film that are also worth checking out. It's not everyone's cup of tea, but if you keep an open mind this film will definitely shock you.
Bonehead-XL
After the disastrous reception that greeted "Exorcist II: The Heretic," you would expect no further attempts to franchise "The Exorcist" brand name. Why not let a classic film stand on its' own? That was the general belief until original series creator William Peter Blatty had an idea. In the mid-eighties, Blatty thought a concept for an "Exorcist" sequel, revolving around Kinderman, the detective from the original story. Published as the novel "Legion," the box was a best seller. Naturally, Hollywood demanded a film adaptation, expanding the "Exorcist" series into a trilogy. After William Friedkin and John Carpenter passed on directing the film, Blatty himself took up the job. "The Exorcist III" had a troubled production and mediocre box office but has developed a cult following over the year."The Exorcist III" does not go for the bold shock value of the original film. Instead, it is more interested in creating a creeping sense of unease. The film begins with an extraordinary dream sequence, a point-of-view shot walking down a street, passing the first murder victim. The door of a church blows open, accompanied by diabolic cackling on the soundtrack, forcing the eyes of a crucifix open. The camera then crash-cuts to Karras rolling down the stairs. There are many moments of slow-building dread. A confession at a church begins calmly enough before escalating to screaming, murdered priest. Sometimes, the film punctuates these sequences with a strong jump scare. Kinderman wanders a dark, suddenly foreboding church. The face on a statue of a saint is suddenly replaced with a sadistic grin. Suddenly, a girl bumps into the detective, deflating the tension. The most famous moment, probably, in "Exorcist III" involves a long shot of a nurse doing her nightly duties which ends suddenly with a killer, clad in white and carrying a giant pair of sheers, entering to decapitate her. Moreover, the movie is just creepy, with a fabulously sinister sound design, frequently powered by unearthly growls. The image of an old woman scurrying across the ceiling or a sudden, near decapitation are startling, unnerving sights.Centering "The Exorcist III" is a powerful performance from George C. Scott. Lee J. Cobb, who played Kinderman in the original movie, had passed away, forcing recasting. It's just as well because Scott's Kinderman is practically a different character. The whimsical Kinderman who digs information out of people with double-talk isn't seen much here. Instead, Kinderman has suffered many losses and will suffer more before this is over. Blatty retcons his own work a little. In "The Exorcist," Karras and Kinderman only knew each other a short while. In this film, the two are characterized as best friends. This change, however, allows the character to be far more invested in the story. George C. Scott gives a fantastic performance. His face is world-weary and his words are usually blustery. He's a man who has experienced a lot so, when he breaks down in tears at one point, you know it's serious. Scott gets two fabulous monologues to himself. The first describes his wife keeping a carp in their bathtub, a bizarre bit of quasi-comic dialogue only Blatty could have written. The second one is a powerful speech near the end of the film where Kinderman establishes his belief in evil. That is the true climax of the film and a great moment.Much of "The Exorcist III" is devoted to Kinderman's discussion with the mysterious man in Cell 31. He is credited only as Patient X. A really interesting choice has two actors playing the part. Sometimes, Jason Miller plays the part, confirming the character as the revived corpse of Damian Karras. Other times, more frequently, Brad Dourif plays the madman. Dourif brings the strangled, coldly sadistic, slightly refined, and deeply unhinged style to the part that we expect from him. Even then, Dourif's voice constantly changes, rising and falling in pitch. The demon truly is legion, a multitude of wicked personalities always shifting around inside. The film's supporting cast is generally great. Ed Flanders has fine chemistry with Scott as the recast Father Dyer and Zohra Lampert and Nicol Williamson feel out the supporting case.The original "Exorcist" was a story about faith and guilt. The third film continues in a similar pattern but with a slightly different approach. Kinderman's guilt comes from loosing dear friends, from the thought that he failed them. His faith has wavered because of how much evil he has seen. The gruesome details of the murders weigh heavily on him. The story revolves these issues through two ways. By acknowledging the existence of the demon, of supernatural evil, it justifies the existence of a higher power, of supernatural goodness. Secondly, Kinderman is able to literally resolve his friend's untimely passing. He has to confront Karras' death and viscerally move pass it at one time. The final image of "The Exorcist III" is the cop standing above his dear friend's grave, finally at rest. Though not as powerful as the themes addressed in the first film, the movie handles its own ideas with a similar complexity and skill."The Exorcist III" was originally an even more low-key production before Morgan Creek demanded reshoots. Specifically, they were convinced an "Exorcist" movie couldn't happen with an exorcism. So a new subplot, about a priest going to exorcise Patient X, was hastily added. The sequence also contains most of the gore and special effects seen in the film. They are mildly effective but obviously last minute additions. William Peter Blaty has expressed a desire to create a director's cut but Morgan Creek hasn't been interested in cooperating. Perhaps his vision of the film would be a smoother affair. Even in its theatrical cut, "The Exorcist III" is still a pretty good movie. It doesn't attempt to recreate the shocks of the original, instead doing something very different, providing some worthy chills of its own.
