Type in any movie or show to find where you can watch it, or type a person's name.

User Reviews for: The Exorcist III

Bradym03
6/10  3 years ago
The Exorcist III isn't nearly as brilliant as the first movie, but compare it to the sequel, it's a masterpiece. This is what I call sluggish film that you'll need a lot of patience to get to the good stuff. Well, the whole movie is kind of like that. Every time I think something is going to progress with the story it jumps right back. Luckily it doesn't do that too often and it's only for build up (i guess).

But it's not to say that "The Exorcist III" doesn't have it's scary parts, because it really dose. There's moments that are so eerie and quite shocking that the movie quickly cuts away to next scene so you don't even have a reaction or a thought of what you just seen. The movie takes a few minutes of silence as the scene plays on and then BOOM! And this actually did get to me. A great example of this is the Nurse scene which is one of the scariest scenes in movie history. During the scene you really don't get a sense of damage, but more of a safe feeling as every thing seems to be alright, until the horror kicks in. And I know that sounds very similar to every horror movie that use it's scars, but I think those movies get it completely wrong of how to make the build up and the scare executed in a way that it's effective. I think this is something that's missing in horror today.

Brad Douriff is in this movie playing The Gemini killer and he's freaking amazing. This is one of the best performances I've seen from Douriff and it just proves of how talented this guy truly is. I would go as far to say it's Oscar worthy and he isn't in the movie that much. He's so creepy and frightening that he steals the show.

But the actor that I thought was going to steal the show was George C. Scott, which is sadly not the case. He's a great actor and he was excellent in "Patton", but I found he's performance in this to be a bit over the top. I mean, I don't think he was RAZZIE worthy bad or anything, but he over reacted in the wrong parts. It came off a bit laughable. It's until the very end when he gets to shine as he's really giving it he's all. I give him that.

The interesting thing I found out about the movie (after i finished watching it) was that the author of the book William Peter Blatty wrote & directed this. You know when you hear people complaint that when a movie adaptation isn't as accurate to the novel it's based on. Well, it's kinda refreshing (to me) for an author to make the movie that he wanted to see. And I can say that he exceed in a few parts even if the whole thing feels a bit disjointed, and that goes to the writing.

Overall rating: "The Exorcist III" while not great, but at least gets back to it's roots of having a dark and unsettling atmosphere, something that was missing in "Exorcist II". The movie is honestly worth watching just for Brad Douriff performance.
Like  -  Dislike  -  10
Please use spoiler tags:[spoiler] text [/spoiler]
talisencrw
/10  6 years ago
Very good sequel retains the high standard Blatty's original screenplay set!

In going through the original 'Exorcist' trilogy (I have the DVD 6-pack, with the two versions of the remarkable original, as well as the two recent prequels, so far unwatched), I was intrigued of seeing Oscar-winning writer William Peter Blatty's second stint behind the camera (for the record, I adored his 'The Ninth Configuration', done a decade prior), especially for the franchise that became his bread-and-butter (though I loved two films he earlier had co-wrote: 'A Shot in the Dark' and 'The Omega Man').

He once again does quite a credible job--both with the writing and in helming the picture. To me, it didn't matter much that Linda Blair wasn't involved--I like how it became a search for an already-dead serial killer--and I have been a great fan of George C. Scott in genre films since the likes of 'Dr. Strangelove' and 'The Changeling'. The scares and shocks were genuine, and the suspense and interest were there. It made me wish that even more sequels had been made, it was THAT good.
Like  -  Dislike  -  0
Please use spoiler tags:[spoiler] text [/spoiler]
JPRetana
/10  one year ago
What's good in this film we can attribute to William Peter Blatty's script and direction and to the casting, especially Brad Dourif and George C. Scott; what's bad, to Executive Meddling – in particular the last minute exorcism performed by a last minute priest; it says a lot that Burton's Father Lamont from Exorcist II: The Heretic is more memorable than Nicol Williamson's Father Morning.

Unlike The Heretic, III looks and feels – except for a bizarre dream sequence featuring cameos by Fabio and Patrick Ewing as angels – like it belongs in the same world as The Exorcist; that is to say, it knows the words and the music.

There are haunting visuals that stay with you long after the film is over (the crucifix opening its eyes, the old woman crawling on the ceiling, Scott's daughter's near decapitation). At the same time, the film has a sense of humor that I would call shakespearean; Father Joseph Dyer (Ed Flanders), whose dialogue includes a reference to Mel Brooks's Spaceballs, is akin to the gravedigger in Hamlet or the porter in Macbeth.

What bothers me about III is the same that troubles me about The Heretic – though to a much lesser degree –, and it's the 'how.' Specifically, how Patient X, alias Father Damien Karras (Jason Miller), ends up in a cell in a hospital's psychiatric ward for the past 15 years.

It's a good thing that Blatty decided to have X played by both Miller and Dourif – more so the latter than the former –, because Dourif, as James 'The Gemini Killer' Venamun, has a long, expository, loose-end-tying monologue which proves that sometimes you can indeed polish a turd; it doesn't, even after allowing for supernatural intervention, make a lick of sense (the corpse of a beloved local priest bursts out of his "cheap little coffin" and goes missing, and no one is the wiser? Yeah, right), but it's all in the delivery.

Dourif turns in a blood-curdling, bone-chilling campfire tale (at one point he even briefly reflects "is this true?", as if he finds it hard to swallow himself). Now, I'm not saying Miller couldn't have done this, but in retrospect I don't see how he or anyone else could have; I only know Dourif did it because I watched him do it in a movie-stealing performance that doubled the considerable respect I already had for him and his craft.
Like  -  Dislike  -  0
Please use spoiler tags:[spoiler] text [/spoiler]
GenerationofSwine
/10  one year ago
This was the best sequel to The Exorcist they made, and that isn't really saying much. The second one was horrible and the ones that followed were horrible. In fact, I think they were so bad it was instantly remade.

But, this one was decent, it felt the most like an actual sequel to the Exorcist, it was unsettling, it was intelligent, it was pretty memorable in its own way. But it still was a bit too much, not underplayed enough to really feel like the one that started it all.

And, honestly, compared to what we have in the theaters today it is a great film
Like  -  Dislike  -  0
Please use spoiler tags:[spoiler] text [/spoiler]
Back to Top