The Exorcist III Reviews

Page 1 of 49
TheDudeLebowski65
Super Reviewer
June 9, 2010
The Exorcist III should have been called by its original title, Legion. But due to marketing issues, the studio felt that it would succeed more under an Exorcist moniker. Well let me just say it's far superior to the heretic and is far more creepy and intriguing than the previous film. The cast does a fairly decent job, and the film is filled with tense moments of creepy atmosphere and suspenseful scenes. A solidly paced and directed horror film, Exorcist III is a different take on the story, but it does succeed on creating effective terror and jolts. Although not as memorable as the original masterpiece, Exorcist III is still a necessary film to watch. What's great about the film is that it still manages at delivering good scares, but unlike the original, it doesn't have the intensity that you'd want from a film like The original, but compared to the second one, this third entry is an improvement. There's plenty of good elements to deliver an effective horror film here, but in the end I felt it also was a good stand alone film as well, not a film that necessarily needed The Exorcist title on the cover. The film is very entertaining for what it is, and though is not as horrifying as the original film, it still has enough good horror bits to really make it an interesting, and scary horror film to watch. If you loved the original, was disappointed by the second; then check this one out, the film is worth your time, and will give you a few good jolts in the process.
cancercapricorn2002
Super Reviewer
July 2, 2007
A number of brutal and ritualistic-type murders that have taken place in Georgetown has police Let. Bill Kinderman, George C. Scott, deeply concerned. Lt. Kindeman was in charge of the "Gemini Killer" serial murder case that happened fifteen years ago and the MO of these killings are identical to that of that long ago killer.

The fact that the murder victims now, a 12 years-old boy and two Catholic priests, were killed exactly the same way as those victims of the "Gemini Killer" were back then. The method of his savage actions was never reviled to the newspapers and the public yet these killings could not have possibly been done by him since the "Gemini Killer" was executed back in 1973, or was he?

Worthy follow-up to the original movie "The Exorcist" if you throw out the awful "The Exorcist Part II: The Heretic" made some thirteen years earlier. William Peter Blatty's "Exorcist III" starts where "The Exorcist" left off when the heroic Father Karras, Jason Miller,fell down a long flight of stairs outside the MacNeil residents taking the demon who was in possession of young Regan MacNeil's body with him to his death. At that very moment the convicted "Gemini Killer" James Venamun, "Brad Dourif" was executed for his crimes. The Devil took advantage of this moment in time by transferring the soul of Venamun into the dead Father Karras' body and at the same time bring Karras back to life. Wondering around the streets of Georgetown the now unrecognizable and comatose Father Karras was taken into a local mental institution where he spent the last fifteen years, strapped down in a padded cell, and known to those in charge only as patient X.

As time went by Karras' mental facilities slowly came back to him and with Venamun in control of his body and, this is hard to take, soul has been using the mental patients to do his bloody work. Manipulating their, crippled and very impressionable, minds the patients go out in the neighborhood as well as in the hospital and commit this latest string of "Gemini " killings.

"Exorcist III" has a lot of dream-like and surrealistic scenes in it which at times confuses you. As it moves to it final conclusion, in the graphic battle between "Good" and "Evil", it becomes very clear to what it's been telling you for the first 90 minutes or so. "The Devil" through the helpless Father Karras, whom he brought back from the dead, is waging his war against "Good" with one of those saintly men who stood fought and died for it.

George C. Scott gives his usual top-rate performance as the troubled and gilt-ridden, he felt that he should have saved Father Karras back in 1973, police Lt. Kinderman. At first Lt. Kinderman didn't really understand what he was up against, the Devil. When he finally did, at the end of the movie, he not only cast the Devil's demons out of the tragic priest but put Karras tortured soul to rest and peace forever, in a truly shocking and memorable final sequence.

Both Brad Dourif & Jason Miller were just as good as Scott as the "Gemini Killer" James Venamun and Father Karras who both occupied the same, Karras', body. Like in a titanic tug of war Venamun and Father Karras were in conflict with each other throughout the entire movie. Until the evil, that was engineered by the Devil, on the people of Georgetown and the Catholic Church was finally put to an end.
This is a film that I wish we could get a director's cut. They're was a different opening and ending along with other scenes taken out by the studio. It seems this footage is lost now but hopefully it will surface one day.
Super Reviewer
April 4, 2010
(Review coming soon)
ScoopOnline
Super Reviewer
½ December 29, 2009
If you dont appreciate your time, watch this Movie. lol
Every good creation has 3 sides The Exorcist 3 doesnt count!
Super Reviewer
December 14, 2009
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
Super Reviewer
September 18, 2009
Great horror film! Not fair it got caught in the Exorcist franchise as it can stand on its own as a great movie. The script was fantastic, the acting was superb and the story, as silly as it might be, works really well in blending thriller and horror together. The nurse scene is classic horror at its best and the granny crawling on the ceiling is probably one of my favorite moments in cinema!
Super Reviewer
½ June 8, 2007
This movie creeped the hell out of me and gave me nightmares. I'm often afraid to re-watch it. There are a few scenes to make you jump out of your chair. I hate thinking about the dream sequence at the bus station in heaven, the hospital hallway, the statue with the painted Joker face, the little boy tied to the oars rising out of the floor, the priest in the confessional, the little Jesus statue, the spring loaded shears, the statue without the head, the old lady on the roof, the vials of blood - ewww! Spooky stuff. Such a creepy movie which pushed all my anti-devil buttons. IMHO, a classic as worthy as the original.
Super Reviewer
April 12, 2007
The movie is so creepy. I mean unbelievably creepy. No seriously you don't understand...creeeeepy.
deano
Super Reviewer
December 10, 2006
Worst prequel of the horror flick after almost 20 years about a priest possessed by the devil from the first film.
Cameron W. Johnson
Super Reviewer
½ October 24, 2013
I don't really know how effective these exorcisms are, because it doesn't seem like there is any getting rid of Pazuzu, or Pizzaria, or Leaning Tower of Pisa, or whatever, or at least that's our situation here, because he certainly isn't bothering Linda Blair anymore. Yeah, this isn't really all that much of an "Exorcist" film, so much so that it was supposed to be titled "Legion", but they had to change it for marketability's reason, you know, "seeing as how George C. Scott isn't going to be enough to sell a movie". I express sarcasm and all, but apparently neither Scott nor the title change could quite get this commercially promising project to make it to the $40 million mark, so it's a good thing that they saved money by having this be something of a passion project for William Peter Blatty. That's right, horror hooligans, this film is written and directed by none other than the author of the original novel "The Exorcist"...- oh, and, uh, "Legion", the book upon which this film is based, just in case you care at all. Apparently the other people behind this film didn't figure that you cared, because, again, they went so far as to change the title "Legion" to "The Exorcist III", and even incorporate exorcism plot elements that weren't even in the book... "which isn't to say that the name of Blatty, a very under-experienced filmmaker, was some other kind of a marketing scheme at all". It's hard to convey sarcasm in text form, especially when the sarcasm is ironically disingenuous, because it does feel like Blatty has his heart in this, it's just that the final product isn't quite what folks were expecting... "seeing as how 'Exorcism II: The Heretic' raised such a high standard for sequels of 'The Exorcist'". Yeah, shut up, I liked "The Heretic" just fine, but if we can put that and sarcasm aside, this film is decent and all, but its marketing is hardly its most questionable attribute.

"The Heretic" seemed to be a fluffier answer to something as audacious as "The Exorcist", but relative lightheartedness hardly ended with this film's predecessor, with this film suffering from tonal unevenness that perhaps would have been more all over the place if William Peter Blatty, as director, wasn't more realized in his atmospheric effectiveness, yet nonetheless has a tendency to undercut tension with too much fluff, much of which doesn't even hit home by its own right, at least not in way it wants to. There are some unintentionally amusing cheesy moments in this film, which is certainly not as cheesy as the still decent "The Heretic", but distances you with a touch too much fluffiness at times, and further distances with yet more incoherency, this time in pacing. As good as "The Exorcist" is, it gets to be a little slow, and what helped greatly in getting "The Heretic" by as decent was entertainment value, in spite of some slow spells, so with the first two installments, alone, this series seemed like it was steadily getting less slow, and sure enough, this installment is hardly dry, but pacing problems that atmospheric cold spells could have stressed still stand, with the biggest pacing issue being the usual one: dragging, achieved through repetitiously meandering material, if not filler, that drags the narrative just about into aimlessness. The limited focus of this meandering thriller creates some pretty questionable pacing problems, and some rushes over characterization don't exactly help, so pacing seems to be enough to overwhelm the film with underwhelmingness, and yet, just for good measure, the film is sure to meander down a familiar path. I don't necessarily mean that this story is familiar in the way many might think, because in a lot of ways, this is barely an "Exorcist" film, yet Blatty makes it up to horror fans by hitting plenty of conventions from other thrillers, so much so that predictability eventually forms, reflecting a certain laziness, which is ironic, considering that shortcomings are made all the more glaring by palpable ambition. Blatty wants to really hit with this film, and I can't blame him, because this is a promising project, and one whose execution works in a lot of ways, but sadly can't overcome its own demons enough to fall short as a formulaic and uneven thriller. That being said, this is still a more worthy follow-up to "The Exorcist" than "The Heretic", and like I've been saying, I didn't even mind "The Heretic", so sure enough, this isn't too shabby of a thriller, not is it too shabby of an idea.

Like I said earlier, this film strays quite a ways away from the subject matter of William Peter Blatty's strong story concept for "The Exorcist", and it's a little too conformist to conventions of other thriller mythologies, but the concept behind this particular film is perhaps stronger than the final product itself, because as a mystery thriller, this effort has some thoroughly intriguing elements, flavored up by dramatic depth, and as a supernatural thriller, many elements added especially for this adaptation of "Legion" feel kind of forced, but come with their own intriguing ambiguities that all but haunt, at least on paper. Like I said, this film stands to be stronger, but the final product isn't so messy that you can't see the potential within this subject matter, which is considerable, and often done a fair deal of justice, even by something as light-seeming as style. Now, when I say that style seems light as a compliment to this thriller's effectiveness, I don't simply mean that stylistic effectiveness is limited, I mean that style isn't that strong in this effort, which still has certain aesthetic highlights worth appreciating, whether when we're talking about an atmospheric score by Barry Devorzon, or talking about Gerry Fisher's sometimes hauntingly sparse cinematography, whose tastefulness helps draw you in, but not as much as the person in charge of orchestrating style, as well as substance. William Peter Blatty, as director, hits enough missteps for his promising project to ultimately come out as underwhelming, but his strengths as storyteller cannot be denied, as the film is not only stylish, but has a certain meditative atmosphere to it that rarely dries up so much that blandness really kicks in amidst pacing problems, and bites pretty firmly when material kicks in, drawing tension in form of anything from intrigue to genuine chills. Whether it be some particularly intense scenes of danger, or particularly strong scenes in which George C. Scott's Lt. William F. Kinderman character confronts a lunatic who claims to be the fictitious, dangerous and supposedly deceased Gemini Killer in isolation, there are highlights here and there throughout this film that Blatty nails, and while such moments aren't nearly consistent enough to craft a rewarding final product, the inspiration that Blatty pumps into this film, at least director, is endearing, and carries the film a good ways, especially with a strong cast at his back. The unevenly used Brad Dourif steals the show in his startlingly effective portrayal of a profoundly disturbed murderer, but most everyone is commendable, and that particularly goes for leading man George C. Scott, who, make no mistake, was given a Razzie nod simply because of the Razzie's morbid sense of humor about classic talents in not-so classic follow-ups to classics, for although acting material is limited for Scott, his thorough charisma and potent dramatic layers as a man of the law whose exploration of a darkly mysterious case will leave him to face evils beyond human belief is very strong, and carries much of the film's weight. The film is about as well-acted as any "Exorcist" film, including the very well-acted first installment that we all know and respect, and while a strong lead, backed by strong supporting players, isn't going to be enough to carry the final product as downright rewarding, there's enough done right on and off of the screen for the final product to compel just fine, regardless of shortcomings.

Bottom line, unevenness in tone and pacing behind a story that is too formulaic for its own good, and told with too much ambition for its own good, leave the final product to fall short of rewarding, but there's still enough potential to this story concept, tastefulness to musical and visual style, effectiveness within William Peter Blatty's atmospheric direction, and strength within the acting - particularly by show-stealer Brad Dourif and show-carrier George C. Scott - for "The Exorcist III" to stand as a flawed, but often effective and ultimately adequately worthy installment in Blatty's classic saga.

2.75/5 - Decent
Ryan M
Super Reviewer
½ July 25, 2012
*** out of ****

Let's get something straight. This is not really "The Exorcist III". It may don the name, but only because the studio intended for it to be a commercial effort. It is a continuation of the events that closed William Friedkin's screen adaptation of "The Exorcist", which was based on a novel written by William Peter Blatty - who wrote and directed this film. It picks up after Father Karras (Jason Miller) jumped out the window of the MacNeil house in Georgetown, Washington and rolled down that famous flight of stairs to his death, with the demon Pazuzu still possessing his body and soul. But "The Exorcist III" does not involve Pazuzu at all. In fact, its demons consist of mortals and immortals; things both real and paranormal. It's an ambitious mixture, yes, but surprisingly enough it actually ends up working and makes the material more than just another cheap "sequel", which - more or less - it kind of is and kind of isn't.

The story follows a series of bizarre murders - mostly decapitations - that occur fifteen years after "The Exorcist". The MacNeils don't live here (in this universe) anymore. The first murder is of a teenage black kid, and the crime scene is being investigated primarily by Lieutenant William Kinderman (George C. Scott); who always gets depressed on the anniversary of Karras's death. This explains why he and his priest friend Father Dyer (Ed Flanders) attend a screening of their favorite movie - the cheerful "It's a Wonderful Life" - on that day. Soon afterwards Father Dyer is mysteriously hospitalized and then murdered in cold blood. There was another murder before this; that of, yes, another priest - this time one who gets a direct visit from a supposedly sinful old woman who mutters strange and disturbing things under her breath hoping that the priest will hear her out.

The fingerprints left at each of the murders are that of a different person; so there is more than one killer. Kinderman somehow relates the murders to those committed by a man known as the Gemini Killer some time ago; although the man had since been sent to the electric chair. Nevertheless, the head of a local psychiatric ward sees some resemblance between this Gemini fellow and a guy in Cell 11 that has been locked up, merely existing in this secluded little room, for fifteen straight years. When Kinderman visits the patient, he first resembles Karras; but he then reveals himself to be something far more sinister and diabolical. He claims that he is the Gemini Killer (Brad Dourif), and he is quite possibly just a demon capable of possessing multiple bodies to commit the murders, if he is in fact the perpetrator.

Blatty's last job behind the camera was as the writer and director of "The Ninth Configuration", an adaptation of a novel he wrote, but that was about ten years prior to "The Exorcist III". He hasn't gone on to direct anything else since, although I can't see why. He doesn't seem to resent the experience of making the film, and he's apparently happy with the final product even if the studio restrained him just a bit and forced him to include an exorcism scene last minute. What more could you ask for? Blatty demonstrates every basic quality of a talented genre filmmaker; and some of the best scenes here rival the atmosphere of the first "Exorcist", which is my favorite horror film, although clearly not Blatty's. My biggest gripe is that it's got a great hour and thirty five minutes, and then the last fifteen are fairly silly in comparison. This is the final fifteen where Blatty brings out the big guns; although the guns don't come with dramatic gunpowder but rather lots and lots of special effects, all of which have dated by now. But Friedkin's first film is no different; yet still better. But why compare?

It's a strange film full of strange - but bewildering and beautiful - images and memorable situations. And it's an absolute blast to watch. It's a shame that the footage from Blatty's alleged "Director's Cut" is now lost forever (well, as far as we know); but the version that remains is good enough as it is. By mixing a crime drama with a horror film (filled with genuine scares and chills, no less); Blatty's made a film that is both messy and fascinating. Not to mention intelligent and thoroughly thought-provoking. Dourif's performance is probably one of the most criminally underrated in horror history and his scenes are unmistakably some of the most compelling. This is the kind of movie where the unhinged zaniness of Dourif feels right at home; this is an explosively imaginative picture that possesses the senses for a good hour and fifty minutes, which is about as much as one can take at once in the case of "The Exorcist III". It doesn't overstay its welcome and I can definitely dig that.
Super Reviewer
September 5, 2007
I hope someday we are able to see Blatty's original cut of the film (which is supposedly wildly different from this one in tone and execution) because its clear the intent is to make something that is more of a companion to 'The Exorcist' than a direct sequel, so all of the exorcism stuff that was added on in re-shoots of the ending feel out of place. It also (thankfully) disregards Exorcist II, so calling it III doesn't make much sense. What does remain of the original idea are the most engaging sequences and makes the film watchable (even creepy at times). The scenes with Brad Dourif alone warrant the film a viewing.
Super Reviewer
April 18, 2007
Less talk, more show.
Super Reviewer
September 28, 2007
creepy at times but i expected more form william freidken considering he directed the original
iLeo
Super Reviewer
March 26, 2007
Loved this movie.
Super Reviewer
February 11, 2007
Don't get me wrong, I love The Exorcist. I think it's truly a classic film, let alone horror film. But personally, I think this one is superior. Some really creepy and off kilter scenes and disturbing imagery, plus wonderful performances by Brad Douriff, Scott Wilson, Jason Miller and George C. Scott (for the most part) elevate this as another great Blatty film. Ninth Configuration is one of my favourite films of all time, and this excellent movie feels like almost a companion piece. Philosophically far better than the previous 2 and in terms of story, this one easily has the best, far more dimensions than the simple possession storyline. I just wish Blatty would direct another film already!
½ April 3, 2012
The Exorcist 3 is an under appreciated film that unfortunately has to deal with the fact that it holds the moniker of the scariest movie ever made and also should have never been tied in with the original. The Exorcist 3 is based on the book Legion by the author of The Exorcist and while it is a slow and creepy book it has nothing to do with an exorcism. Blatty is given the opportunity to direct and does a great job of setting a dark atmospheric creepy feel and while it is a great movie the last 10 minutes or so really let it down,of course the required exorcism that the studio demanded appears nowhere in the book and the resulting effect was almost comical. Still Blatty should be commended for making such a creepy film all while being micromanaged by the studio.
July 27, 2013
There wasn't any actual connection to the original Exorcist until about 45 minutes in, then things started making sense. A much better sequel than the previous one, that continues the story 15 years after. Brad Dorif had an amazing performance.
March 29, 2010
It could be better. It's one of those movies that were made just because of the success of the first ones, but it makes the audience very disappointed. Unnecessary!
September 29, 2011
Such a great sequel, it almost washes the taste of Boorman's film out of the viewer's mouth.

William Peter Blatty adapted his own novel Legion for this one and he does a great job of building suspense and creating some rather unsettling visuals throughout the film.

Recommended.
Page 1 of 49