|
 The Exorcist III 1990, 110 minutes Written and directed by William Peter Blatty Starring: George C. Scott, Brad Dourif, Ed Flanders, Jason Miller Based on Blatty's novel "Legion" IMDb - Letterboxd It has been 15 years since the exorcism of Regan MacNeil and the death of Father Damien Karras. Bill Kinderman (George C. Scott), a police lieutenant and former friend of Karras, is investigating a series of gruesome murders that match the M.O. of The Gemini Killer, a serial killer who was caught and executed 15 years ago. Kinderman's investigation takes an unexpected and unnerving turn when a man who looks exactly like Karras turns up at a psych ward and claims to be the Gemini. After the massive success of The Exorcist (1973), it's only natural that the studio would produce a sequel. Unfortunately, that sequel was Exorcist II: The Heretic (1977), a commercial and critical flop that Blatty (who wrote the novel as well as the screenplay for the original film) had no involvement in. Blatty decided to write a "true" sequel that ignored the events of The Heretic. Initially conceived as a film with William Friedkin attached to direct, the project turned into a novel called "Legion". The book was published in 1983 and was a success, and before long a film adaptation was in the works, this time with Blatty himself set to direct. He wanted to name the film after his novel and leave the word "Exorcist" out of the title entirely, if for no other reason than to distance his film from the awful Exorcist II. The studio disagreed and the title became The Exorcist III, and the film's poor performance at the box office is often blamed at least partially on that choice. (at one point the working title was "The Exorcist 1990", so it could've been worse)  I absolutely love this film. It's got some major flaws thanks to some studio fuckery (which I'll get to shortly), but it also has a bunch of really amazing scenes. George C. Scott and Brad Dourif are both at the top of their games here, which is good because a significant portion of the film is dedicated to monologues from both actors. It has a lot of genuinely scary and creepy moments too, including one of the best "jump" scares ever filmed. The chemistry between Scott and Ed Flanders (who plays Kinderman's friend Father Dyer) is wonderful, and the scene where Scott gives a short monologue about a carp while Flanders tries not to laugh is one of my favorites in the film.   Studio Interference and Re-Shoots The studio wasn't happy with the direction Blatty went with the film. He had created a mature and thoughtful psychological thriller, with lots of long monologues, very little gore, and most significantly - no exorcisms. They demanded some major last minute re-shoots that significantly changed the story and tone of the film. Blatty had cast Brad Dourif in the role of Father Karras, but he was forced to cut him out and instead use Jason Miller (who played Karras in the original film). However Miller was an alcoholic and just couldn't play the part - it involved a lot of long monologues and he wasn't able to remember the lines. So Dourif was brought back in, and the final version of "Patient X" combines the two actors - Miller when he is Karras, and Dourif when he is the Gemini.  The other major change is to the ending. Blatty's version didn't contain an exorcism scene, so the studio made him add one. It feels tacked on and entirely unnecessary, and doesn't fit with the tone of the rest of the film. Here's the thing though - while I think both of these changes were ultimately for the worse, I still like what we got. It sucks that we didn't get to see all of Dourif's original performance (which he claims is even better than the final version), but Miller is a good actor too and I like the way the film switches between them. The ending is also totally fine - it just feels like it belongs in a different movie. It's gory and over the top and feels very out of place in a film that is otherwise focused on dialogue and atmosphere.  yes, that's the Joker Theatrical Cut vs Director's Cut - which should I watch? Short answer - the theatrical cut (it's also the only one available to stream, so that helps) Long answer - Watch the theatrical first for sure, and then maybe check out the Director's Cut if you are curious about the film that Blatty originally intended to make. For years, Blatty's original version of the film was considered lost. The actual footage is still lost, but in 2016 Scream Factory released a "restored" version of the film that used VHS copies of the dailies to fill in the missing footage. These sections look like total poo poo though, and the ending of the movie is way too abrupt, so I definitely don't think anyone should start with this cut of the film. It's interesting as a curiosity though, and if you're a fan and want to see what could've been, it's worth a watch (or at least you should check out the changes).  Where to watch it: - It's currently available for streaming on Amazon Prime and Shudder. If you don't already have a Shudder subscription, there is a free trial available. - For a few bucks you can rent it digitally from a variety of different platforms. - It's also available on blu-ray from Scream Factory, which has a number of good special features if you're into that kind of thing  Previously featured films of CineD's Movie of the Month gey muckle mowser fucked around with this message at 01:15 on Mar 2, 2020 |
#
¿
Mar 1, 2020 23:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 10:59 |
|
|
Ehud posted:I watched this movie last year after it was featured in an RLM video, which is worth a watch after you’ve seen the movie... Thanks, I’ll check out that video when I have some downtime this week!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2020 01:23
|
|
|
TheBizzness posted:This is a great flick. I never laugh out loud at anything when I’m watching alone but the story about the fish in the bath tub got me good. Yeah I love it. It really seems like Flanders isn't just acting and is trying hard not to burst into laughter for real.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2020 14:51
|
|
|
Hedenius posted:Is it heresy to say I like it more than the first one? Not at all. I think the first one is the better film, but I enjoy this more and would rewatch it over the first any day
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2020 19:50
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:I am definitely going to watch this this month. I’m so glad I saw this thread because otherwise I never would have seen a movie called “The Exorcist III”. yeah it's one of those movies that people generally assume would be awful, which is often true for sequels to iconic films, but there are some exceptions. Psycho II is another one that's actually pretty good despite what you'd expect
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2020 14:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 10:59 |
|
|
today is Brad Dourif's 70th (!) birthday, so watch this movie in his honor
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2020 18:01
|
|