User Reviews (330)

Add a Review

  • I first noticed this film on YouTube in a series of videos that list "scariest movie moments." One of the scenes selected was from this movie and since it sent a chill down my spine so I decided to give the rest of the film a chance. That's when my blood damn near froze.

    Seeing that "Exorcist III" is a third entry in a franchise in which the second film has a very low reputation and the fourth didn't exactly draw much noise probably gets many people to overlook this film. The fact is that it is the Exorcist label that works against it. This is not really an exorcist movie as the original source novel was similar in theme, but not a sequel to Blatty's "The Exorcist." The exorcism scene was added in the middle of production and it feels slightly out of place with the rest of the film.

    However, it also provides an eerie element as the re-shot scenes has Jason Miller and the originally shot scenes had Brad Dourif and the final product cuts back between the two. It works in a creepy way, just watch and you'll understand. Though the film's best part is the incredible atmosphere. It is really something. Haunting music, dream sequences, and good mixture of the classic "jump scare" along with some brilliant "quiet scares" for lack of better word. The scene that drew me to this film is an almost update of the infamous "spider-walk" from the first "Exorcist." It is a terrifically designed scene, among many I might add, so you begin to wonder why Blatty didn't direct more films? I am almost itching to see what else he could come up with on screen.

    This is a thoroughly enjoyable and smart horror film with above average acting, writing, directing, and design as well as everything else. And it is best thought of as separate from the Exorcist series, just like the book was, even if it does include an exorcism. --- 8/10

    Rated R for violent content/terror. Ages 13+
  • 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?
  • 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.
  • paul2001sw-15 November 2005
    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.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    This second sequel to the horror classic doesn't, for once, obey the law of horror sequels, in that it manages to be BETTER than the first sequel. I'm not sure why a lot of people seem to be down on this movie. Maybe because the plot is a lot different from THE EXORCIST but surely any change - or originality - can only be a good thing? It's certainly one of the most expensive-looking and well-made horror movies of the '90s that I've seen, with every scene having that big-budget and crisply realistic gloss that makes it stand out from the crowd. The photography brings to life the atmosphere of the dark sets well and this is a most technically accomplished, polished-looking film.

    Although most of the action and incident is packed into the second half, this is nonetheless enthralling stuff, with sterling performances from an experienced cast keeping the viewer watching throughout. It does get confusing at times but the main thrust of the plot is easy to follow right through until the ending. One surprising thing about this film is its subtlety. For once the graphic murders are off screen, but their descriptions are enough to make you wince and make your imagination work overtime. It's definitely a case of less is more with this film, which contains some of the most horrible and sick-sounding murders ever.

    There's plenty of horror here, from physical jumpy shocks (the celebrated hallway murder, in which a white-sheeted figure emerges suddenly from a closed doorway, is brilliant and could show the producers of WHAT LIES BENEATH something) to pieces of sustained tension and the subtle elements of weirdly flickering lights and whispering voices on the soundtrack. The music is suspenseful, the script intelligent for once and not underestimating the intelligence of the viewer.

    George C. Scott (looking very old but still more than with it) is well-cast as the investigating policeman Kinderman; he makes his character a very human one who is moved to grief on more than one occasion yet still commands the authority and respect that a police lieutenant should. Ed Flanders is very good also in a sympathetic role as a priest, while Nancy Fish retains an air of mystery about her at all times, making her a character to watch when she's on screen (she turns out to be a red herring in the end, though). Also appearing briefly are Nicol Williamson as an exorcist and Jason Miller, who's soul is now trapped inside the body of another man (Miller puts in a frequently upsetting and startling turn). Best of all is the manic Brad Dourif as the Gemini Killer, who is in touch with the underworld. His ranting villain spends all of his screen-time in a padded cell yet, with his words and expression alone, he gives one of the most chilling performances in a long time.

    The special effects are pretty good, from the "possessed" make-up to the standout, unexpected shot of an old lady crawling about on a ceiling - certainly one of the most risky effects shots I've seen, but it pays off superbly. Events climax in a mini-exorcism with lots of special effects which don't disappoint. Blessed with a strong leading man, fine supporting turns, plenty of shocks and scares, and oodles of atmosphere, THE EXORCIST III is a worthy successor to the crown in this humble reviewer's opinion.
  • Most people go to horror movies for the emotional thrill, the gore and/or the adrenaline high of having things pop out and yell "boo!" Make no mistake: you won't find much of that here. So if you're looking for a movie that will make you spill your popcorn, you might wanna move on.

    But if you're looking for a true psychological thriller (psychological = appealing to the intellect, not the viscera), this will be one hell of a treat for you. The dialogue is fantastic. The acting is superb (Brad Dourif & George C. Scott on the same screen. What could be better?). The philosophy is provocative. And the mood is as thick as it gets. Much of the movie is composed of a series of dialogues between two people in a dark room. If you liked the second half of APOCALYPSE NOW, you will enjoy this immensely.

    I rank this movie as one of my all time English language faves with the likes of AMADEUS, 2001, Alfred Hitchcock's ROPE, PICTURE OF DORIAN GRAY, and CITIZEN KANE. I'm serious; it's that good. Unfortunately, it was marketed to the wrong audience, and that's why it received such low ratings. Let me repeat: this is not a spooky movie. It's actually a very intellectual story with a lot of big words, literary overtones and powerful acting, and it's one of the few movies which I consider superior to the book (but of course writer Blatty directed this, so I'd expect no less).

    Now don't get me wrong; it's anything but dull. There is one scene in particular that will scare the living crap out of you! It's a long scene done with one still camera, no music, no sound, hardly any action... but egads it's probably the most suspenseful/frightening thing I've ever seen in any movie.

    In the style of the classic thrillers, so much is left to the imagination of the viewer--and oh there is PLENTY of disturbing, shocking stuff to imagine. In one conversation you'll hear about a murder so vile that you'll never want to hear the word "catheter" again. And the beauty is that you never see a thing. If this subtle style appeals to you, then you certainly won't be disappointed.

    10/10. And I don't give 10s very often.
  • 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...
  • gavin69425 October 2015
    A police lieutenant uncovers more than he bargained for as his investigation of a series of murders, which have all the hallmarks of the deceased 'Gemini' serial killer, lead him to question the patients of a psychiatric ward.

    Although I actually enjoyed the second "Exorcist" film, most people consider it a stinker and like to pretend it never happened. For those people, this is the right film to watch. A great tale of possession, that follows rather directly (though belatedly) from the original.

    George C. Scott adds a certain weight to any film. Just as he did for "The Changeling", he makes what could be a forgettable horror film into something really worthwhile. He is a vastly underrated actor.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    This movie is possibly the most overlooked and underrated movie in the entire history of Western cinema. Sure, there are some unnecessary bits in it (particularly a scene involving Father Morning stuck to a ceiling with his limbs falling off one by one. It's supposed to be scary, but it's the funniest scene in the entire film), but overall, what we have here is, essentially, a trip into the mind of a psycho, a la Silence Of The Lambs, Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, etc. Okay, so inhabiting this mind happens to be the same demon as in the original film, but also there is the spirit of a dead serial killer. The body they are inhabiting is that of Damien Karras, and this spurns a curious Lieutenant Kinderman to find out as much as possible about him, which leads him into discovering exactly what happened to Karras after the night of the fall.

    But as I was saying, it's underrated. A golden raspberry for worst actor? Comical. George C Scott's performance here might not be as memorable as that in Patton, but it's still an excellent performance.

    And Brad Dourif, sharing duties with Jason Miller as the sinister 'Patient X' is a much more effective demon here than in the 'Child's Play' series.

    The only complaint I'd have on the actors front, is that the brilliant Nicol Williamson is underused as Father Morning, but the character was added in at the last minute by producers.

    There are plenty of comic moments, too, notably a scene in the open psychiatric ward involving a man in a wheelchair flashing at the charge nurse. (Trust me, you have to see it, really).

    Sadly, it's probably due to the risible 'Exorcist II' that this film was so overlooked, and instantly assumed to be awful. But then again, whether people like movies or not is down to taste, I suppose.

    Try it. You might like it.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    After the disastrous reception that greeted "Exorcist II: The Heretic," you would expect no further attempts to franchise "The Exorcist" brand name. Why not let a classic film stand on its' own? That was the general belief until original series creator William Peter Blatty had an idea. In the mid-eighties, Blatty thought a concept for an "Exorcist" sequel, revolving around Kinderman, the detective from the original story. Published as the novel "Legion," the box was a best seller. Naturally, Hollywood demanded a film adaptation, expanding the "Exorcist" series into a trilogy. After William Friedkin and John Carpenter passed on directing the film, Blatty himself took up the job. "The Exorcist III" had a troubled production and mediocre box office but has developed a cult following over the year.

    "The Exorcist III" does not go for the bold shock value of the original film. Instead, it is more interested in creating a creeping sense of unease. The film begins with an extraordinary dream sequence, a point-of-view shot walking down a street, passing the first murder victim. The door of a church blows open, accompanied by diabolic cackling on the soundtrack, forcing the eyes of a crucifix open. The camera then crash-cuts to Karras rolling down the stairs. There are many moments of slow-building dread. A confession at a church begins calmly enough before escalating to screaming, murdered priest. Sometimes, the film punctuates these sequences with a strong jump scare. Kinderman wanders a dark, suddenly foreboding church. The face on a statue of a saint is suddenly replaced with a sadistic grin. Suddenly, a girl bumps into the detective, deflating the tension. The most famous moment, probably, in "Exorcist III" involves a long shot of a nurse doing her nightly duties which ends suddenly with a killer, clad in white and carrying a giant pair of sheers, entering to decapitate her. Moreover, the movie is just creepy, with a fabulously sinister sound design, frequently powered by unearthly growls. The image of an old woman scurrying across the ceiling or a sudden, near decapitation are startling, unnerving sights.

    Centering "The Exorcist III" is a powerful performance from George C. Scott. Lee J. Cobb, who played Kinderman in the original movie, had passed away, forcing recasting. It's just as well because Scott's Kinderman is practically a different character. The whimsical Kinderman who digs information out of people with double-talk isn't seen much here. Instead, Kinderman has suffered many losses and will suffer more before this is over. Blatty retcons his own work a little. In "The Exorcist," Karras and Kinderman only knew each other a short while. In this film, the two are characterized as best friends. This change, however, allows the character to be far more invested in the story. George C. Scott gives a fantastic performance. His face is world-weary and his words are usually blustery. He's a man who has experienced a lot so, when he breaks down in tears at one point, you know it's serious. Scott gets two fabulous monologues to himself. The first describes his wife keeping a carp in their bathtub, a bizarre bit of quasi-comic dialogue only Blatty could have written. The second one is a powerful speech near the end of the film where Kinderman establishes his belief in evil. That is the true climax of the film and a great moment.

    Much of "The Exorcist III" is devoted to Kinderman's discussion with the mysterious man in Cell 31. He is credited only as Patient X. A really interesting choice has two actors playing the part. Sometimes, Jason Miller plays the part, confirming the character as the revived corpse of Damian Karras. Other times, more frequently, Brad Dourif plays the madman. Dourif brings the strangled, coldly sadistic, slightly refined, and deeply unhinged style to the part that we expect from him. Even then, Dourif's voice constantly changes, rising and falling in pitch. The demon truly is legion, a multitude of wicked personalities always shifting around inside. The film's supporting cast is generally great. Ed Flanders has fine chemistry with Scott as the recast Father Dyer and Zohra Lampert and Nicol Williamson feel out the supporting case.

    The original "Exorcist" was a story about faith and guilt. The third film continues in a similar pattern but with a slightly different approach. Kinderman's guilt comes from loosing dear friends, from the thought that he failed them. His faith has wavered because of how much evil he has seen. The gruesome details of the murders weigh heavily on him. The story revolves these issues through two ways. By acknowledging the existence of the demon, of supernatural evil, it justifies the existence of a higher power, of supernatural goodness. Secondly, Kinderman is able to literally resolve his friend's untimely passing. He has to confront Karras' death and viscerally move pass it at one time. The final image of "The Exorcist III" is the cop standing above his dear friend's grave, finally at rest. Though not as powerful as the themes addressed in the first film, the movie handles its own ideas with a similar complexity and skill.

    "The Exorcist III" was originally an even more low-key production before Morgan Creek demanded reshoots. Specifically, they were convinced an "Exorcist" movie couldn't happen with an exorcism. So a new subplot, about a priest going to exorcise Patient X, was hastily added. The sequence also contains most of the gore and special effects seen in the film. They are mildly effective but obviously last minute additions. William Peter Blaty has expressed a desire to create a director's cut but Morgan Creek hasn't been interested in cooperating. Perhaps his vision of the film would be a smoother affair. Even in its theatrical cut, "The Exorcist III" is still a pretty good movie. It doesn't attempt to recreate the shocks of the original, instead doing something very different, providing some worthy chills of its own.
  • Of course, a two-hour film of paint drying would be better than EXORCIST II. EXORCIST III is better than a two-hour film of paint drying...marginally.

    There are a few nice moments; the carp stuff is cute, and there are a couple of good eerie shots in the hospital. But ultimately, the movie collapses under the weight of a ludicrous and muddled plot, fairly awful performances (for which I blame the director; Scott would surely have done better if left to himself), and poor dialogue (notably Dourif's interminable monologue about how he possessed Karras's body, which could have been cut down to about five lines and been much more effective).

    And speaking of Dourif, he should have been fired. Not for anything he did, but because once the studio had made its last-second decision to bring back Jason Miller, Dourif was superfluous. The character has Karras's body, it looks like Karras, why do we keep switching back and forth from Dourif to Miller to Dourif? Instead of rewriting the script, Blatty should have reshot all of Dourif's scenes with Miller in the role.

    But I'm not sure how clearly Blatty was thinking while making this film (having never read LEGION, I'm not sure whether this logical slip occurs in the novel). Blatty uses the old trick of having the cops give out false details about crimes in order to distinguish a real confession from a false one. Kinderman comes to believe that current murders are being committed by the dead Gemini Killer because the killings have the look of the real Gemini murders, not the fake details which were printed in the papers.

    However, we have already been informed that the Gemini Killer was executed. So the real details of the killings (which involve the mutilation of the bodies) would have come out in the trial. Remember the coroner in the OJ Simpson trial testifying in detail as to the condition of the bodies? Same deal.

    So all a copycat killer would have had to do is read the trial transcripts--or even the news reports about the trial.

    Blatty's final mistake (apart from making this film at all, of course) was to abandon the traditional, coherent Catholic theology which gave the original EXORCIST its extraordinary depth and power for a weird plot about one dead person possessing the body of another dead person (who apparently wasn't quite dead, because his soul is still inside his body, but who was dead enough that it took the first dead person [the one possessing, not the one possessed] fifteen years to repair the damage to his [the possessed person's] brain).

    I am not looking forward to EXORCIST IV.

    4/10
  • William Peter Blatty's The Excorcist III is my favourite in the series, and if that leaves some people aghast with disbelief, I'll still hold my stance. Don't get me wrong, the first film is a classic of atmospheric dread, the sequel is a psychedelic oddity that's also very underrated, but there's something about this one that just sat better with me than any of the others, including the two prequels with Stellen Skarsgard. This one deviates from the pattern as well as lifts the focus from Linda Blair's character, paving a cool new story for itself and breaking new ground. It's also got one of the single most terrifying moments I've ever seen on film, orchestrated perfectly enough to give a good dose of goosebumps to the strongest of spines. The immortal and always excellent George C. Scott plays Kinderman, a police lieutenant who is on the trail of a bloodthirsty serial murderer nicknamed The Gemini Killer. The killer himself has actually been long deceased, but uncanny similarities in the current crimes have freaked the police right out, and so he follows the clues to a foreboding psychiatric facility. It soon becomes clear that there's something very mysterious going on, and something very wrong with the patients. Skittish Dr. Temple (Scott Wilson) seems to know what's going on, but also seems not to, or to be too scared to divulge anything. A terrifying patient named James Venuman (Brad Dourif is so scary you'll want to hide behind the couch) seems to contain something malevolent inside him, his ravings making eerie sense to the detective. There's a few surprise cameos from veterans of the franchise, as well as work from Ed Flanders, Nicol Williamson and, believe it or not, an appearance from Fabio, of all people. The atmosphere is so thick you could choke on it, the dread hanging in the air like clammy mist, helped in part by the disturbing choice of location, Dourif's sheer ghoul act and cinematographer Gerry Fisher's camera, which lurks along walls and corridors and turns the facility into a haunted house, and our nerves into a jittering mess. Underrated as both a standalone fright flick and as an entry in the Excorcist series. Top notch creepfest.
  • "Exorcist III" has a strong anchor in George C. Scott (as Det. Kinderman, played by Lee J. Cobb in the original "Exorcist"), an actor who gives a better performance than this type of film deserves. He is given good support by Ed Flanders (as Father Dyer), Brad Dourif (as the reincarnated "Gemini Killer") and Jason Miller, as Dourif's incarcerated 'host.' William Peter Blatty, author of the original novel, takes the screen writing and directing credit, producing a film that is shockingly effective in its subtlety--this is not a horror film of jump-scares and slit throats, but of atmosphere, mood, and contemplative discussion. While this adaptation of Blatty's unrelated novel "Legion" crams in the exorcism angle to questionable effect, he creates a tight, suspenseful tale with a dash of surrealism (what is up with that "heaven" sequence with Fabio?)--"Exorcist III" is a strong film and a fine franchise entry (especially after John Boorman's lamentable "Exorcist II: The Heretic"), but don't expect projectile vomiting, crucifix masturbation, and the other shock effects of its predecessor.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    William Peter Blatty adapts his own sequel to THE EXORCIST (the book was titled LEGION), completely ignoring THE HERETIC. Ironically, EXORCIST III is, in many ways, an inferior movie.

    Homicide detective Kinderman (George C. Scott, replacing Lee J. Cobb) is in the middle of a bizarre investigation involving priests and children being brutally murdered in the method used by a serial killer executed fifteen years earlier. The investigation leads to a psychiatric ward where a straight-jacket-bound man claims to be the killer--and bears a striking resemblance to the late Father Karras (Jason Miller), who lept to his death from the possessed girl's bedroom window in the original EXORCIST.

    This intriguing premise has potential, but Blatty piles on so much overwrought mumbo-jumbo that the plot collapses under its own weight. There are some good moments (a nurse being stalked and killed during the night shift stands as one of the scariest sequences in modern horror cinema), but Blatty over directs relentlessly, and even the simplest of scenes are headache-inducing.

    His screenplay is also a mess, with some mind-bogglingly awful dialog (the "fish in the bathtub" speech is one of the most bewildering and pointless examples of exposition I've ever heard) and glaring inconsistencies with the original film (and book). A couple of examples are the fact that Karras and Kinderman barely knew each other in THE EXORCIST, yet here they apparently were best friends; and in a bit of contrived dialog, a connection is made between one of young victims and the original possession, by saying that the kid's mother is the one who figured out that the demon was speaking in English in reverse. This is wrong, as in the original movie (and book) a male friend of Karras is the one who figured that out.

    Scott chews the scenery like a champ, Brad Dourif is effectively bizarre as the killer's ghost and Viveca Lindfors has a creepy little part as a catatonic mental patient. Zorha Lambert, on the other hand, as Kinderman's wife, gives a howlingly bad performance.

    The working title was LEGION, and initially it was going to be an unrelated thriller until studio execs thought it would do more business as a direct sequel. Therefore, the title was changed and some awkward (and fairly incoherent) footage was added, including scenes with Nicol Williamson as a priest who eventually performs an exorcism at the film's conclusion.

    The result is a jumbled train wreck of a movie, though it's developed a loyal cult following.
  • The Exorcist III (1990)

    *** 1/2 (out of 4)

    Police Lieutenant Kinderman (George C. Scott) is investigating some brutal murders, which appear to be being committed by the Gemini Killer. The only problem is that the killer has been dead for fifteen-years, which sets it back to when the MacNeil girl was possessed by a demon and Father Karras was killed. Somehow Kinderman believes the two are connected and playing out in the current time.

    Writer-director William Peter Blatty's THE EXORICIST II is like a lot of movies in the fact that it was handed over to the studio and they weren't happy with it so re-shoots were done. After all, if people are coming to see THE EXORCIST III shouldn't they get an exorcism? I will leave that up to each viewer whether or not the post-production changes actually worked but for my money not only is this the best sequel in the series but I think it's a strong contender for being the best movie. Yes, you heard me right. In many ways I think this film is even better than the first movie.

    Blatty's novel Legion is the source for this and there's no question that this is an extremely well-made and well-acted thriller (not horror) that manages to be quite creepy throughout and also manages to have one of the greatest jump scares from any movie ever made. What makes the film work so well is that it's basically a police thriller that has a very good story dealing with a serial killer and a mystery possibly tying it to an exorcism from years earlier. I'm certainly not going to ruin any of the twists in the movie but for me they work extremely well.

    Another thing that makes this film so great are the performances. Scott, filling in for Lee J. Cobb who had passed away, does a remarkable job and certainly helps sell the film. Scott was one of our most underrated character actors and he brings a lot to the film including making you believe everything that you're seeing. With someone like Scott in the picture it just gives the movie more credit just like THE OMEN got by having Gregory Peck in it. There's a wide range of emotions that Scott has to play but he certainly nails the character. Ed Flanders, Jason Miller and Nicol Williamson are all good as is Scott Wilson and Nancy Fish. Brad Dourif is also good here, although I think the scenes with him are the weakest in the film.

    THE EXORCIST III features a great score, some terrific cinematography and as I said a convincing story that holds your attention throughout. People can debate on whether or not the exorcism at the end was needed but this here is certainly a very good thriller.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Nowadays, sequels are terribly frowned upon. They're infamous for being cheaply made only with the intent to grab money from people with the promise that it'll be just as good as the original. I had purposely skipped The Exorcist II because I had heard that it was laughably bad and not worth watching whatsoever. And initially, I wasn't even going to see this one. But I'm sure glad I did.

    George C. Scott plays the protagonist: a detective who's investigating a string of murders that are uncannily similar to the Gemini Killer case; a serial murderer who's victims are killed in grotesque and sinister ways. But there's only one problem: The Gemini killer was supposedly sentenced to death 15 years earlier, so he's left to figure out how he's able to kill again. Without giving anything away about the plot, I will tell you that the Gemini Killer is played by a phenomenal actor who I'm personally a fan of. Brad Dourif appears in only two scenes in this entire film, but damn do they stand out. He is absolutely enthralling. Dourif is able to invoke such rage, ferocity and insanity without coming off as completely over-the-top. He subtly creates a tragic yet terrifying complex of personality traits embodied into a mesmerizing performance. It was an absolute delight to watch him in the film.

    Thankfully there are other things to like about this film aside from Dourif's amazing performance. There are several well shot scenes that are just as disturbing as they are compelling. The last act in particular had me on the edge of my seat: it's the most tense I've ever been while watching a film in a long time. With that said, I wouldn't exactly classify it as a "horror" film so much as a suspense/crime drama. But it still has some fairly creepy moments.

    However, one thing that disappointed me was George C. Scott's acting in the lead role. Being such a seasoned and well experienced actor at this point in his career, you'd think that he could never give a bad performance. But unfortunately, he does in The Exorcist III. If you looked up "chewing the scenery" in the urban dictionary, I'm almost positive you would find his name there. Scott poorly delivered so many lines that I would actually find myself laughing during some scenes, but for all of the wrong reasons.

    Now to be fair, this may be the fault of William Peter Blatty who at best, was an amateur behind the camera. And clearly he was better at writing than he was at directing. He may have given Scott unclear or vague instructions which caused Scott to become confused and just wing it as best he could. Also, I should mention that not all of Scott's scenes are bad, but had a more experienced director been on set, things might have worked out differently. Scott's less than par acting in this film is the reason why I won't give it a higher rating than a 7.

    But overall, it's a great film that really exceeded my expectations, especially in the last two acts. It's as good as sequels come and I would recommend it to fans of the original film. One thing that people might find surprising is that it actually ties into the first Exorcist film rather well. I believe it's worth watching for Brad Dourif alone, but there's some additional scenes in the film that are also worth checking out. It's not everyone's cup of tea, but if you keep an open mind this film will definitely shock you.
  • The Book "The Exorcist". Author, and "The Exorcist" (1972) Oscar-Winning Screenplay Scribe, William Peter Blatty, Writes and Directs this Spin-Off.

    Frustrating His Efforts were Continuous Interference from the "Money Men" from Everything from the Title, Blatty Wanted "Legion", the Title of His Follow-Up Book.

    He was Also Forced to Totally Edit and Redo the 3rd Act, Making Demands that "Father Karras" (Jason Miller) be Included in the Screen-Play, and On and On.

    The Final Film, as Blatty had No Out and Capitulated, does Include These Significant Changes and More.

    But the Movie is so Creepy and Unsettling, both Dialog and Images, that it Sustains the Changes and is a Disturbing, Worthy Watch in the Supernatural-Horror Genre.

    A Movie that has Outstanding Acting from a Great Cast.

    Including George C. Scott, Brad Dourif, and Ed Flanders, Along with a Sarcastic Script Peppered with Gut-Wrenching Horror and Thrills, with Sharp Expressionist Cinematography.

    The 3rd Act is the Weakest and Suffers the Most from the Aforementioned Forced Change.

    As it Becomes Confusing with Scenes and Dialog Becoming Hard-to-Follow with the Removal of Previous Items that would Make Things Make Sense.

    There Are Chills and Shudders to be Had Despite the Troubled Production,.

    As it Stands, it is Worth a Watch for Movie Fans in General and for Horror Fans a Must-See.
  • Being a gigantic fan of the original Exorcist and having read the review of this film and having seen the horrible Exorcist 2, I was very weary. So one night I rented this movie and was blown away. It's written and directed by William Peter Blatty, who wrote the original book and this book. He does an amazing thing with taking the lore of the original and having a murder mystery about the "Gemini" killer and joining them with a perfect balance. Acting is top notch and there are some very very creepy moments. I say that if you liked the original you will most likely like this, as long as you keep your mind open and don't expect a carbon copy of the original.
  • I recall watching this at around age 15 or so, and really not liking it. This was around the time I was more into slashers, like Freddy or Jason. This was just too slow for me. Fast forward thirty years, and it's a new appreciation. The pace just adds to the seriously dark atmosphere. Dourif was amazing, seriously underrated.
  • 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.
  • patches8922 September 2021
    Warning: Spoilers
    The only Exorcist sequel/prequel that was genuinely a good film merging some psychological horror with slasher vibes. Where I thought there was an element of parody in the original this one was a pure horror which I guess is what writer/director William Peter Blatty wanted. Would recommend watching.
  • One might imagine that, after the debacle that was The Exorcist II, the franchise would have returned to the head-spinning and vomit spewing of the original, but to writer/director William Peter Blatty's credit, he tries something a little different with The Exorcist III, his film's serial killer plotline more akin to The Silence of the Lambs for much of the time. The nearest the film comes to William Friedkin's 1973 classic is with the brief special effects laden exorcism scene in the final act, which was forced upon Blatty by the film's producers.

    The majority of the film sees George C. Scott's cop Kinderman investigating several gruesome murders that mimic the modus operandi of The Gemini Killer, who was executed in the electric chair fifteen years earlier. Kinderman's enquiries lead him to cell eleven of a secure hospital ward where a patient who resembles dead priest Father Damien Karras claims that he is the Gemini Killer, having possessed Karras's body as he died.

    Sadly, as original as the majority of this film is, it also proves frustratingly dull for much of the time, with a glut of exposition heavy dialogue, an extremely slow pace, and only one decent scare (the much lauded hospital hallway scene) to keep the viewer from nodding off. As out-of-place as the studio sanctioned exorcism undeniably is, at least it's entertaining, which is more than I can say about George C. Scott's character complaining about a carp in his bath.
  • William Peter Blatty The Exorcist III's has excellent dialogue, well paced, superb acting, solid character arcs and plot development mark this fine demonic horror/detective story. I feel George C. Scott's performance is as good as he has ever played in any of his previous films. Further back up by Brad Dourif magnetic monologue's . The atmosphere surrounding the film is one of foreboding , anticipation and ultimately the despair of satanism. May not have the visceral impact of the first film, but it gives viewers far more than they had any reason to expect. It would probably be much more highly-regarded were it not for the pedigree it has to live up to. Exorcist III stands alone, one of those rarest of birds: a horror sequel with ideas of its own.
  • You know you're in trouble when the box-art for the movie in your hands doesn't bare any rave-review quotes or snippets. Far be it from the discriminating viewer to judge a book (or DVD) by its cover, though, because while "The Exorcist III" looks like a subpar sequel to a classic film, the fact of the matter is that there is more to it than meets the eye. A film that is notorious for tinkering by the producers, despite being in the hands of "The Exorcist" creator William Peter Blatty, this third entry in the saga has more brains than the average 80's horror film and more weight than any sequel within the genre is ever expected to hold.

    George C. Scott plays police lieutenant Kinderman (a character seen briefly in the first film), hardened but human, who is on the trail of a mysterious, sadistic and methodical killer who takes after the famed Gemini Killer (a take on the real-life Zodiac Killer), despite the fact that he has been dead for fifteen years. When a longtime friend in Father Dyer (Ed Flanders) emerges as the next victim, a chain of events unfolds that brings back a familiar face from the past in Father Karras (Jason Miller reprising his role from the first film). Bit by bit, what Kinderman unearths turns out to be bigger than himself and threatens his very existence.

    Scott is reliable and likable as always in the role of Kinderman, and while Jason Miller isn't given much to do here, it's a pleasure to see him again. Brad Dourif, best known as Chucky in the "Child's Play" series, is the wild-card of the film and nearly threatens to steal the show in one of his most intense performances. The script, based off the Blatty's novel, "Legion," is hardly a re-hash of the first film, and compared to other sequels from its era, is quite a refreshing change of pace as an intelligent and classy picture in its own right. The gore and special effects are kept to a minimum, as the movie is just as much about its characters and dialogue as it is about its horrors.

    The film's not without its faults, of course. Take the tacked-on ending that reeks of studio interference, for example. Blatty's battles with producer James G. Robinson (who had nothing to do with the original film in the first place) result in an intelligent horror movie/sequel that simply doesn't know how to end itself. It's as if someone was standing there saying: "This is fine and all, but we need an exorcism scene!" and voila! While it results in a rather gruesome and exciting special effects opportunity, the man-sticking-to-the-ceiling bit feels out of place with the tone of the rest of the film, which for the most part, keeps things cerebral and tasteful. This little bit felt like something you'd see in a "Hellraiser" flick, not that there's anything wrong with that. As for Patrick Ewing playing the Angel of Death in a dream sequence? Don't even get me started. Heck, even an appearance by Fabio seems bound and determined to rain on a decent parade.

    In the end, "The Exorcist III" is a solid sequel that falls short of greatness. Its creativity and inventiveness is undermined by the insistence on re-introducing elements from the original film for nothing other than keeping with the namesake. Fans who felt themselves left in the cold by "The Exorcist II" will find this a treat, as will anyone else who loves an intelligent horror/thriller. Despite its flaws and the fact that it effectively killed off the franchise (was it ever meant to be?) "The Exorcist III" is as close to greatness as any of the sequels or prequels gets to the original.
  • Sooo . . . first let me be honest that I thought I was buying a DVD of 'The Exorcist'; you know that movie with Linda Blair. Somehow I missed the Roman Numeral 'III' stuck in the middle of the 'O' in Exorcist on the cover. Took me about twenty minutes to realize something was drastically wrong with this movie, or at least my expectations of it. You see, I'd never seen the first Exorcist, still haven't, but I knew there was supposed to be this rather gifted child star. Nope, not in this one. And some really outstanding special effects, especially for 1973. Nope, there are some reasonably passable gore scenes, but nothing like a spinning head, and, considering it was 1990 when this one was released . . . what a disappointment.

    Now, I have always had a lot of respect for Mr. Scott. . in fact his 1971 black comedy "The Hospital" still ranks as one of my favorite movies. But what drives a gifted, principled actor to sign on to a project like this? I really hope he thought it would turn out far better than it did.
An error has occured. Please try again.