Exorcista III

I first noticed this film on YouTube in a series of videos that list "scariest movie moments." One of the scenes selected was from this movie and since it sent a chill down my spine so I decided to give the rest of the film a chance. That's when my blood damn near froze.

Seeing that "Exorcist III" is a third entry in a franchise in which the second film has a very low reputation and the fourth didn't exactly draw much noise probably gets many people to overlook this film. The fact is that it is the Exorcist label that works against it. This is not really an exorcist movie as the original source novel was similar in theme, but not a sequel to Blatty's "The Exorcist." The exorcism scene was added in the middle of production and it feels slightly out of place with the rest of the film.

However, it also provides an eerie element as the re-shot scenes has Jason Miller and the originally shot scenes had Brad Dourif and the final product cuts back between the two. It works in a creepy way, just watch and you'll understand. Though the film's best part is the incredible atmosphere. It is really something. Haunting music, dream sequences, and good mixture of the classic "jump scare" along with some brilliant "quiet scares" for lack of better word. The scene that drew me to this film is an almost update of the infamous "spider-walk" from the first "Exorcist." It is a terrifically designed scene, among many I might add, so you begin to wonder why Blatty didn't direct more films? I am almost itching to see what else he could come up with on screen.

This is a thoroughly enjoyable and smart horror film with above average acting, writing, directing, and design as well as everything else. And it is best thought of as separate from the Exorcist series, just like the book was, even if it does include an exorcism. --- 8/10

Rated R for violent content/terror. Ages 13+

William Peter Blatty can really write. Prose and dialogue. No argument. But can he direct a movie? On the strength of 'Exorcist III,' yes he can. This isn't to say that the film doesn't have its problems. On the contrary, its biggest problem, the out-of-character 'crowd-pleasing' SFX climax stops it from being one of the greats. So why do I have a soft spot for this film? If, like me, you appreciate horror films that are both scary and made for grown-ups, 'Exorcist III' is refreshing and memorable for its intelligent, non-ironic journey into darkness and for its refusal (bar that ending) to dumb down for the kids. If 'Scream' is your idea of a great horror movie, this isn't one for you! The cast is not nearly young and attractive enough, there are nowhere near enough gags (though Blatty's dry, sardonic wit is happily in evidence) and the film has no pretensions at being an autopsy of the genre, therefore somehow lifting it above the films it purports to comment on. 'Exorcist III' is literary beyond 'Scream's' self-referential trivia-chasing (I would love to hear Detective Kinderman critiquing that movie!) Read 'Legion' and you'll have an idea of how good the film should have been. Flaws acknowledged and accepted, don't miss out on Brad Dourif's best performance since 'Cuckoo's Nest,' scene-stealing turns by Ed Flanders and Nancy Fish, or the superlative production design, photography and sound. More than anything else, it's the atmosphere of the film that stays with me. I can recall very few films that have a better sense of the power of stillness and silence. So much of the violence is communicated only in dialogue; your mind reluctantly does the rest.

William Peter Blatty The Exorcist III's has excellent dialogue, well paced, superb acting, solid character arcs and plot development mark this fine demonic horror/detective story. I feel George C. Scott's performance is as good as he has ever played in any of his previous films. Further back up by Brad Dourif magnetic monologue's . The atmosphere surrounding the film is one of foreboding , anticipation and ultimately the despair of satanism. May not have the visceral impact of the first film, but it gives viewers far more than they had any reason to expect. It would probably be much more highly-regarded were it not for the pedigree it has to live up to. Exorcist III stands alone, one of those rarest of birds: a horror sequel with ideas of its own.

A police lieutenant uncovers more than he bargained for as his investigation of a series of murders, which have all the hallmarks of the deceased 'Gemini' serial killer, lead him to question the patients of a psychiatric ward.

Although I actually enjoyed the second "Exorcist" film, most people consider it a stinker and like to pretend it never happened. For those people, this is the right film to watch. A great tale of possession, that follows rather directly (though belatedly) from the original.

George C. Scott adds a certain weight to any film. Just as he did for "The Changeling", he makes what could be a forgettable horror film into something really worthwhile. He is a vastly underrated actor.

Exorcist III (1990) was the follow up to the classic Exorcist. Despite the number three next to the title, this was the true sequel to the first film. Writer/ Director William Peter Blatty wanted to simply call the movie "Legion" like the name of his novel. But the producers wanted to cash in on the Exorcist name so he caved into pressure. In Europe it's called Legion: Exorcist III. This wasn't going to be the first or the last conflict Blatty would have with the producers. The novel was a straight forward mystery/ thriller. The producer wanted some gore and "exorcism" thrown into the mix. Blatty wanted to make an atmospheric horror film, the producers wanted a prototypical 80's horror film. The producers wanted Jason Miller and an exorcism! Who won out?

The film follows the friendship between Father Dyer and Detective Kinderman. Meanwhile a serial killer is running around Georgetown gruesomely murdering the city's residents. Kinderman is called into duty and is puzzled by the brutal slayings. That is until he follows the clues and they lead him to a very unlikely place. Kinderman's faith in man is tested as he continues on through out this bizarre and seemingly never ending case.

George C. Scott is excellent as Kinderman. he plays the role of the detective as if he was tailored made for the part. Ed Flanders co-stars as Father Dyer. Nicol Williamson has a guest star spot as a Father Merrin type priest (his scenes seemed to have been added during post production because they don't fit in with the rest of the movie). The ending felt rushed and it has "post production" stamped on it. Word has it that the film was indeed tampered with during the post production. I think so to because the book's ending was far different than what was put out on the silver screen.

Is the movie worth watching? Yes it is because it's a worthy follow up to the Exorcist. Even though it was fiddled around with during the final phase of production, scenes seem to have been added and the ever presence of the producers looking over the director's shoulder, it's still a great film. I'm probably one of the few people who are actually satisfied with the movie. I wished Blatty could have the original version of this film restored. I enjoyed the book and the movie as well.

Highly recommended!

A majority of people hate intellectual horror films. What's wrong with having to think once in a while?