'THE EXORCIST III'. Extremely scary and with remarkable depth! (1 Viewer)

From my topic header it almost sounds as if I just saw this film for the first time doesn't it? The truth however is that i've seen it many times, but with every viewing the film reveals more and more hidden layers that went unnoticed to me before.
I saw it in theaters way back when, and I actually didn't really care for it that much when I saw it. I thought that it was slow and too confusing to follow. I guess that I went in hoping to see more of the Linda Blair type of stuff like the original to really judge it on it's own merit's and what it was trying to tell me. However I started watching it on cable a few years ago just for the heck of it and found that the film started to grow on me more and more, until finally I broke down and bought the dvd. Now i'm finally at a point where I can honestly call this film outstanding in just about every respect!
Not only is it incredibly scary and spooky (that nun in the hallway shot, and that old lady crawling on the cieling! Whoa!), but if you really pay attention to what's happening in the story you get really involved and that's what I love most about the film. It's really intriguing what goes on, and I think that William Peter Blatty did a wonderful job with it. Everything that happen's in the film makes logical sense, and is not just thrown in for a cheap scare or for effect, but rather everything that happens is the result of what came before. It also ties together beautifully with the original film's story of what happened to Bazoozoo the demon after it was cast out of Reagan by Father Karras and after he made his tumble down the steps. And also what became of Karras.
One of the things that turned me off originaly turned out to be one of my favorite tricks in the film. I could never figure out why Kinderman didn't notice that Karras's face kept changing into Brad Dourif's during their, extremely disturbing, conversations in his padded cell!? It wasn't until I realized that it wasn't really changing to him, but only to us the audience so that we could see without a doubt that he really was the Gemini killer, that I started to appreciate it. It was a great artistic move on Blatty's part to do that IMO.
The performances are also top shelf, especially George C. Scott and Brad Dourif! I don't really buy the idea that this is the same Lt. Kinderman from the original film, but it doesn't really matter because Scott was so good in it he made the role his own. I know one thing, Kinderman certaintly got more bitter and ill tempered over the years! In fact, he's turned into one cranky old bastard!
I also love that they got Jason Miller back to play Damian Karras, it just adds more meaning to the charactor that you can see that it's the same saintly but troubled priest from the first film, but who's body has been bady abused by Bazoozoo and the Gemini killer. You feel really sad for this poor man who's still alive in the technical sense, but tormented by what's taken over his body. His final line to Kinderman is deeply meaningful because of this. I don't think the film would have been as great without Jason playing Karras again.
I also love the films unexpected humor! Kinderman's whole dialogue about that Carp swimming up and down in his bathtub is just too funny! And so is father Dyer's line to that nurse "Go with God my child, may the shwartz be with you." had me rolling actually! And finally Kinderman's description of some nut who breaks into people's homes...and completely redecorates.
It's just something that you wouldn't expect to find in an 'Exorcist' film, and it was a nice change of pace I think.
Anyway, I love this movie and think it's one of the most underrated horror film's ever made. It stays in tune to the original, and is galaxies beyond that terrible sequel! The Exorcist III is a rock solid hair and hell raiser...with a brain to boot.
Anyone else?

I have to agree with you on this movie. In a way, I almost prefer this film over the first film.

While both are great at what they do, there is a beauty about the way the third film is executed that not even the first film can match.

(I am really dreading what this fourth installment might be...scares me just thinking of the plot so far...)

There's a fourth film in the works!? That's definitely news to me. What's the story with that?

I have always enjoyed this movie and have it on both LD and DVD. I wish they had included the "face changing" FX briefly seen on the trailer on the DVD. Weird little touches add to the whole of this movie; over the opening credits, we see a priest run back and forth across the street ahead, we see a little boy in the white T-shirt off in an alley before the one we see giving the rose. And I believe the "redecorating" line was from the original novel, as was the line Dyer said about "pot and lemon drops."

Can anyone confirm that Blatty was forced to change the ending to include an exorcism? Overall I enjoyed this film very much. Its to bad Blatty has only directed two films.

I heard something like that too Ray. I think the ending was shot at the last moment or something to that effect. I've heard others say they didn't like the ending, that it felt "tacked on", I don't agree.

The priest who does the exorcism on Karras can be seen throughout the film, so you knew that he was going to play a major part later. Weaving him in and out of the story renders the "tacked on" theory false to me. If he had just shown up without establishing him first, that would have been a different story.

Great film. I put up a thread praising this film, quite a while ago. Very spooky.

this film has always played very effectively to me
the nurse attack being a classic thrill scare, thanks to being built up well and shot in such an interesting manner...just sitting there waiting for something to happen.
then
and it's an INTERESTING story too. That's very important to its success as a film.

A very effective picture, one of the best horror films of the 1990s in my estimation. The exorcism is rather over the top, though, and I have the definite feeling that it's flashier than Blatty would have wanted had he had complete control, if not completely tacked on to begin with. But it just doesn't let go at all, and of course the hospital sequence is a classic.

The book (Legion) is pretty creepy too; highly recommended.

I'll admit that the ending was a bit flashy. However not to a degree that it ruined the film as other critics have stated. It's right on the border of being too much, but doesn't really cross it for me.

I love Exorcist III. I do hope that one day they restore Blatty's original version. The ending was tacked-on, though Blatty was the one who did the filming and editing. The producers thought the movie actually need an "exorcism", which is why there is one now. I have an article about the reshoots in a Cinefantastique magazine. The reshoots cost nearly a million dollars, mostly because of the elaborate effects. All of the scenes with Nicol Williamson (even the ones earlier in the picture) were part of these reshoots. If you notice, he doesn't interact with any of the other major characters other than Jason Miller. Even Kindermann only mentions him once, when he calls the parish to speak to him on the phone. It's a nice bit of voice looping, because his back is to the camera and you hear Scott's voice-over - speaking into the phone - "Father Morning, please." But we never see them talking. Williamson wasn't listed on any of the early publicity for the film, either. His name only showed up just before the film's release.

Still, a great picture.

Just to clearify my stance on the ending, I know that the ending WAS tacked on, I just don't think that it FEELS tacked on. It works for me is what i'm saying.

Everything in this film was spooky. From Scott talking about all of the killings, to the possessed nurse in his home, to the killing of the priest, to the scenes with Gemini killer.

One of the most under-rated horror flicks of recent years. Faber & Faber in the UK published a script book containing Blatty's screenplays for the original EXORCIST and EXORCIST III. You can read how his original cut plays out without the spliced in priest and exorcisim re-shoots.

Paul, thanks for the info about that book - I'll have to track it down here in the US. It sounds like something I should have.

That hallway scene is one of the scariest scenes I've ever seen. No joke, it was about four in the morning, and we were finishing up a Perfect Dark session of mass killing with shotguns and revolvers. I turned on the T.V. just before my friends were about to leave, and I remarked, "Hey, it's The Exorcist III, and it's that hallway scene!!!"
I played up the scene to them, and they all scoffed at the notion that it could be scary. Remember, they're all sleepy at this point. As soon as the scene took place, every single person was wide awake with fear.
Too bad though, there's a scene where:
A statue changes into a malicious being that looks like the Joker!!!

Interestingly enough, JOHN FRANKENHEIMER was slated to direct, until his unfortunate passing. I think the working title was DOMINION. Paul Schrader has taken over the directing job.

I've seen this movie twice but a while ago. I do remember it being really scary but I can't remember the plot much.

Can someone explain again the relation between father Karras, the Gemini killer and Pazuzu?