L'Exorciste, la suite

The first 'true' and so far best sequel to the amazing 1974 original sees George C. Scott stepping into the role of Detective Kinderman (played by the late Lee J. Cobb in the original) who is investigating a series of homicides in Georgetown. The homicides, grisly in nature, follow the M.O. of the Gemini killer, a man convicted and sent to death in the electric chair 15 years ago. Several characters return this time around from the original film including Kinderman, Father Dyer (Ed Flanders) and Damian Karras again played by Jason Miller.

First up I'll talk about the acting. The cast did a bloody good job in their roles. Scott gives a tour de force performance where he mixes grandfatherly likability with someone who is clearly struggling with demons of his own. It is clear why this man is one of the best character actors of the silver screen. The few scenes that he shared with Father Dyer were played so well you really thought they had been lifelong friends. The other acting coup was getting Brad Dourif to play the Gemini killer. He proves here that he will always be more than the voice of our favorite pint-sized plastic doll from hell. His character spends the film being shackled in a cell but yet is able to convey a sense of menace few can provide with the help of other actors, props and settings. Jason Miller returns also as the 'body' of Father Karras and swaps back and forth the role with Dourif. The Kinderman / Karras / Gemini scenes are the highlight of the film. The actors go full bore at each other and turn what could have become boring exposition scenes into film highlights.

William Peter Blatty stepped up to the plate and directs this time around. He took a book he wrote, Legion and tweaked it into the screenplay for part 3. I believe, but am not positive, that the exorcism at the end of the film in not in the book. Unfortunately I haven't read it since just before the movie came out and can't remember. The direction here is done very well for his second film. He sets up a chilly atmosphere when needed the most and steps aside to let the actors do their thing. Fairly straight-forward he lets the story role without flashy visuals getting in the way, signs of a true writer. The story is character driven with a few creepy moments but I had wished the atmosphere had been a little denser with scares at the end though. This effort comes closest to the original.

The music score is a bit light with many of the better scenes given over strictly to audio effects. A little bit disappointing but doesn't affect things too badly.

In the end you have a good sequel with a character driven script and a bunch of top notch actors ripping it up. Unfortunately I thought the ending was a bit rushed with the inclusion of the exorcism is just a little out of place. What for most of the film seems like a classic example of the walk-in of an 'old soul' suddenly becomes a possession story. But you got to give the distributors what they want I guess.

After the catastrophically inept, EXORCIST 2: THE HERETIC, it seemed that any further sequels would only make matters worse. Then, the original author, William Peter Blatty, took the Director's chair and made THE EXORCIST 3.

Picking up 15 years after the events of THE EXORCIST, Lt. Kinderman (now played by George C. Scott) is on the trail of a serial murderer with a penchant for religious symbolism. When his old friend, Father Dyer (Ed Flanders) seems to have become the latest victim, Kinderman becomes obsessed with the case. As he digs deeper, facts come to light that can't possibly be. In addition, events occur that defy logic and point to the supernatural.

When Kinderman encounters a certain mental patient (Brad Dourif), he begins to realize that he's up against something beyond his own understanding.

Blatty proves his ability to recapture some of the malevolence of the first film, using omens and weird happenings in subtle ways, while building the story methodically. Set mostly in a hospital, he makes the best of the limited, claustrophobic surroundings. Dourif gives the performance of his career, embodying his character and imbuing it with true madness and malice. A tremendous horror film in its own right, this is the worthy sequel to the original.

P.S.- Watch for great performances by Nicol Williamson (VENOM) as Father Morning, and Viveca Lindfors (CREEPSHOW) as Nurse X...

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?

With a title like 'Excorcist 3', one doesn't hope for much. But in fact, this film is really only so titled to exploit the value attached with the name, and although it was written (and also directed) by the writer of the original film, it's actually a stand-alone movie in it's own right. And while William Blatty may be hard pushed to rival the efforts of the original's director, William Friedkin, he doesn't do too bad a job: he's a little over-reliant on abrupt cutting to achieve his shocks, and the budget for the special effects was obviously inadequate, but this is a suspenseful and chilling thriller. All supernatural movies suffer from a degree of innate silliness, and satanic movies perhaps especially so, but this film is constructed as if it was a conventional serial killer thriller, albeit an exceptionally dark and creepy one. As the signs of actual devilry begin to increase, the detective leading the case (played brilliantly by George Scott) starts to wonder if he's going mad. Only when the film is forced, near its conclusion, to represent the nightmare literally, does it inevitably become a little daft (but that charge could even be levied at 'The Excorcist' itself). I'm not generally a huge fan of horror movies, but this one is definitely above average, for its skill in modulating the tension and in restraining from excess until its final scenes. In conclusion, ignore the title, and watch.

This is so... So... Uncanny. For a number of reasons.

First off, maybe George C Scott protested his Oscar win for Patton because he could see into the future and thought he really deserved it for the scene in Exorcist III where he talks about having to look at the carp fish from his wife in his bathtub(?) One can dream.

I should note seriously that he is quite good here, being what should be the closest thing to an audience avatar (which, in this case with Blatty, means not entirely so much) as he is investigating these twisted murders by a serial killer called "Gemin" - who everyone thinks died 15 years before, when that little McNeil exorcism thing happened - just as Father Damien Karras did... Except the killer's real M.O., kept out of the press, keeps appearing with these victims, including a 12 year old and some priests. Scott manages to coney a lot of frustration and pain and anguish, at times subdued and other times not at all in that BIG Scott performance way, and he is something that, if only somewhat, can keep us tethered to some sort of reality (carp and all).

I think an issue in this film is that Blatty never got the memo from David Fincher when he said his line about people thinking there's five ways to shoot and scene, but in reality there's actually two, and one of those is wrong. And while Blatty made this before Fincher said that, the main idea applies: Blatty shoots scenes, not all the time but enough I could notice, in ways that say he either doesn't know where to put the camera just right or doesn't care or is just experimenting because he thinks the material calls for close-ups HERE when it should be a wide or medium. This also goes for the pacing at times, where a character will-in on a previous scene with a line or it's a hard CUT to something else. But this is in scenes establishing characters and the stakes in the first act for the most part, and it creates this weird feeling that Blatty may or may not have intended. It sure kept me on my toes (it's a movie to put the phone down and just WATCH), and even the direction of certain supporting players (like that one nurse that *yells* her dialog for some reason) is also off-kilter.

That's the phrase to look for here is off-kilter, which would be fine if this wasn't meant to be a sequel (of sorts, or spin-off or follow-up, whatever you want to call it) to The Exorcist, and despite the studio monkeying around with Blatty and forcing the title and franchise on him (though the book, Legion, does follow Kinderman and is in this world), Blatty is sort of defying the stark/documentary type of realism that was set up in the first story, which made it so horrifying, and since he is a true believer in this stuff (Friedkin, who wasn't, brought a different take on it), that also makes it... Odder.

Like, is the conflict that Kinderman isn't a believer and has to become one to stop this possessed killer, who happens to take on the face sometimes of Karras (Miller returning... for half of a performance, allegedly due to his drinking problem he couldn't remember all the lines to Blatty's turducken-sized monologues for Vinamen) Or is it simply a mystery with a particularly twisted horror bent that includes some gory details?

So what elevates what is a bit of a mess of a horror mystery, even before it gets to the climax - where the studio spent 4 million because they ordered that Blatty had to make it a full-blown Exorcist movie for several minutes? The scenes with Miller and Dourif in that dark mental hospital cell are masterful and remarkable, tense and even terrifying for how effectively Blatty is shooting and cutting together, the lighting and staging, what are long dialog/monologue scenes, the cracklingly good performances from these two men who tap into not just the evil but the misery and diabolical thrill of beong evil, and that for as long-winded as it might seem (particularly the second round, the first scene, where it's almost 50/50 Miller and Dourif, is aces)... It finds its footing and feels unique in that way where it can get under our skin. A good ten minutes of this is as unique and brilliant as any great horror movie ever.

There are a few other moments of creative filmmaking too, like that long sustained take showing the nurse doing her work in the hallway that leads up to a OH HELL moment, and a chase and confrontation in Kinderman's house that has energy and terror, and also that surreal (if short) sequence in the heaven waiting room, featuring the scariest jazz ever.

I cant say Exorcist III is particularly great, but watching it now almost 30 years later there's a lot to admire about it too. I even admire the warped go for broke level of horror of that finale (I do intend some day to watch Legion the director's cut). It's not the sort of movie most of us would expect from a movie called Exorcist III, but it has a closer look and tone than (certainly) Exorcist II. And if it is at times Cinema-by-Committee, then at least that wild almost amateur but creative novelist Blatty got to flex a little.