MovieChat Forums > The Exorcist III (1990) Discussion > Disappointed so far

Disappointed so far

posted 9 years ago by steveneven
20 replies | jump to latest

I'm 1 hour 31 minutes into The Exorcist III and I'm just not compelled to keep watching it. The first half hour did a good job of creating suspense. All the church scenes (that took place at night) were spectacularly spooky- even that one evil-looking statue gave me the creeps. I'll even give the film credit for the scene with the old lady crawling on the roof of the hospital (even though it didn't get me out of my seat- and it took place in the 2nd half).

However, if you cut out all the scary scenes, you don't have an interesting enough story. I just don't care about any of the characters in this movie. For "The Exorcist", when Reagan wasn't getting possessed or acting weird, you cared about the priests and the mother. All the characters were interesting and even a simple conversation about going to the movies was entertaining.

I'll still keep watching the film because I only have 20 minutes left, but for all the hype and the claims that this is the scariest movie ever, I'm left underwhelmed. I mean the first Exorcist was TERRIFYING. I still refuse to watch it again because every time I've seen it, I couldn't sleep at night.

I think the problem is not only the story but the fact that this movie doesn't have any huge jump-out-of-your-seat moments. Scenes are definitely creepy and maybe one or two will make you nervous, but "The Exorcist" is so far a film that's a lot scarier- by leaps and bounds.

[–] bastasch8647 9 years ago

It's not much contrasted to the Friedkin film... It lacks the near-grainy stark "documentary" realism of the Friedkin film, lacks the wide-screen "epic" tone of the former film's Iraq Prologue, and it is crippled by the fact that the studio forced Blatty into a rewrite that had to include an exorcist and an exorcism. The film is based on Blatty's novel Legion, which itself is an authentic, creepy Exorcist sequel, but does not have any "jump scares" or grossly grisly activity (except of course for the Gemini's "work")...so if translated more faithfully to the screen, the story still would not be a "Shocker".

But aside from the forced rewrite, Blatty did some gaffes himself - suddenly Kinderman is a grumpy snark, suddenly he and Karras were "best friends", suddenly he's so dull that he misses a major clue to the murder spree (he's standing directly in front of a headless Christ bust), suddenly

Damien Karras who was clearly redeemed personally and spiritually at the end of the first story, now - it turns out (and this is completely different from the Legion novel) was not completely victorious, but was captured by the vengeful demon while "on his way out", and stuffed back into his battered corpse, along with the soul of the Gemini Killer. Thus, in this revised story, Karras himself has become, like Regan MacNeil before him, the object of rescue from demonic enslavement by Fr. Paul Morning and Lieutenant William Kinderman. In the novel, Karras is completely absent, except as a revived corpse, because he has gone on to his heavently reward; and his old body is only inhabited by the Gemini, and sometimes by the Gemini's twin brother, who tries to convince the Gemini to stop killing and move on).

... and Blatty does the film no favors by incorporating a truly bad musical score by pal Barry de Vorzon, plus "oh! so scary" growling demonic sound effects - as if he doubted that his film was frightening enough on its own, so he put in some "Hear that scary music and that growling? Warning: this is a scary movie!"

Anyway, I myself can only recommend this film to hard core Blatty/Exorcist fans. I count it as a Guilty Pleasure, and leave it at that...

[–] bastasch8647 9 years ago

So - snapthabeat - did you manage to finish the entire movie? If so, what did you think of it...?

[–] dalecoleman3 9 years ago

Excellent analysis.

Much like snapthabeat, I just saw Exorcist III (last night), and I agree with all of your criticisms, but wow, it's still a fine horror film, on the whole. It's unfortunate that Blatty had to perform the gnarly rewrite that weakened the story, but I admired most of his directorial choices, and to me, it instilled an unnerving, creepy mood from just about the very moment it began all the way trough until the somewhat overwrought climactic exorcism sequence.

I also far prefer the novel's version of what happens with Damien Karras over what happens in the film adaption.

I finally saw Exorcist II: Heretic and this in the last week, and while I am a fan of John Boorman, his film was sadly deeply flawed (though intermittently vaguely interesting). Exorcist III--and yes, I wish it had been called, simply, Legion--is not the classic that the original film is, but it is a highly worthy sequel and a film I plan to revisit soon after taking another look at Friedkin's film.

[–] bastasch8647 9 years ago

dalecoleman, thank you for the kind words... Yeah, I "just can't quit" Exorcist III, even with all its flaws. In my earlier post I kind of short-changed what I like about the film, items such as:

Blatty brings us back to the original site of the story: Georgetown. During the opening credits, the camera slowly approaches the MacNeil house on the right and the top of the Hitchcock Steps directly ahead.

In this opening visual approach to the house, a black-cassocked priest is seen running from one side of the street and then back again from the opposite side. Immediately we are reminded of Damien Karras and his struggle in the MacNeil house: is this an abstracted flashback to the night of the fatal exorcism? Is this a kind of fever dream being shared by Karras and the Gemini, a kind of half-memory of that fateful night of Karras' "death" and Vennamun's "insertion"...?

Then there's the scene of the "mini-hurricane" in the church - the church that prominently features a statue of Mary, which of course resonates with the flower-bearing deacon's ghastly discovery in the first film.

Then of course, there's the scene of Dyer returning to the top of the Steps, where we last saw him at the end of the Friedkin film - and he gazes down to the bottom of the stairs, where he, and we, last saw Damien Karras alive.

And there's Father Paul Morning, the campus chaplain, who like Merrin, we discover, has had overseas exorcism experience. Although a tacked-on character, Blatty's spare brush strokes tell us volumes about the elderly priest's character - as well as creating a resonance with Father Lankester Merrin.

Blatty introduces us to Morning in a few totally, poetically, wordless scenes, which start with a classic shot of Dahlgren Chapel with its round fountain, nestled between two banks of college buildings. This is the exact area through which Karras and Kinderman strolled in the first film, talking about loneliness, movies, and murder. Then we see, through Morning's window, one of those buildings, and we recognize it as the very residence hall that Damien Karras called home, and into which he stepped after Kinderman jokingly told him, "I lied. You look like Sal Mineo". Thus, Morning and his small apartment are immediately and deeply embedded in a familiar Exorcist milieu.

... I know that I've been ranting, so I'll just close now, by noting that even though the exorcism was a tacked-on scene, I am glad that Jason Miller was available to return as...

... Damien Karras himself. In Legion and in the original Exorcist III script, only Karras' resuscitated body appears. But, in violation of the original story's premise, Karras himself/his soul was captured by the vengeful demon and reinserted, along with the Gemini's soul, into his still-warm corpse. So now Damien Karras himself appears as a living and tormented character in Exorcist III.

Originally I hated this change, because it seemed to have cheated Karras out of the clear victory he won at the end of the original story. But, after some discussion and repeated viewings, I have actually come to enjoy the presence of Miller playing Karras AS Karras - it brings a pathos and nostalgia into the narrative, as well as an extra urgency, because now Morning and Kinderman must struggle not only to end the Gemini's crime spree, but also to rescue the heroic, saintly - but trapped - Karras, who himself is now the victim of "Pazuzu". Karras' presence "ups the ante" theologically and exorcistically speaking... and that's another factor that I ended up enjoying about this film.

:)

[–] dalecoleman3 9 years ago

Wow! I can tell that, flaws or no flaws, you love this film. Your passion is abundantly relayed here. Thank you so very much for sharing these remarkable and fecund thoughts with all of us! :)

I look forward to revising my own initial opinion of the film after seeing it again, which I most certainly will--soon! Haha.

And yes, it was a bit gratifying for Kinderman to "free" Karras at the end!

[–] bastasch8647 9 years ago

Well, it's sure nice to find somebody new who likes this oddball little film and enjoys having a little fun kicking its ideas around...

... I know this will never happen ... but I'd like to see this film "cleaned up/restored" as was done with other films like Lawrence of Arabia and Spartacus.

Of course, those were epic, highly popular, famous movies - not so our poor little Exorcist III. But I never had the pleasure of seeing it on widescreen, just via DVD on computer monitor. But with an extra bit of cleaning up/color/shadow/brightness enhancement I would like to see what it could really look like at its best on the wide screen - maybe as a double feature with the original Friedkin film. Even if they never locate the supposedly "lost" footage, there may still be a few scenes that still exist which could be added-in (showing Fr. Kanavan's decapitated corpse in the confessional - just a brief shock-shot, nothing to be dwelled on; or maybe the touching scene of Kinderman saying "Goodbye" to the deceased Damien in the morgue, only to have the "life-monitor" start beeping after the room is vacated - etc.) ...

[–] Edward_de_Vere 9 years ago

You can look at this movie from a glass half-full or half-empty angle. Depending on my state of mind, it's either a lousy film with some good material desperately trying to find its way through, or a good movie tarnished with some terrible material. Generally, I give EIII the benefit of the doubt and go with two. I just wonder how much better of film it could have been in the hands of a less amateur director and without studio tampering (some people solely blame the studio and think that it would be a masterpiece without the tacked-on exorcism, the fact is that there are many, many flaws that are Blatty's own).

[–] bastasch8647 9 years ago

Yes, sadly it's true that many of the film's flaws are Blatty's. Enthusiasm for the project did not make Blatty a better director, unfortunately. I know it's a cliche, but I wish Friedkin had had a chance to direct it. He would have trimmed down Blatty's excesses and returned the film to the kind of "Exorcist ambience" which Friedkin created so shockingly and realistically for the original film...

[–] steveneven 8 years ago

I finally finished the movie, guys! Haha. Sorry for the hiatus. My criticisms still stand, albeit the climax is pretty cool. I will give the film this much credit: the tone is extremely consistent throughout. The film just drips of dread and despair. I would still say this movie isn't terrible, but I can't re-watch it. There are long stretches of nothing happening, I didn't care about any of the characters, and the film is a little too long. I think a compilation of all the creepy moments in this film would be worth a re-watch. Well, at least you fans get a pretty kick ass Scream Factory Blu-ray this fall!

[–] bastasch8647 8 years ago

Glad you came back! I think I get what you mean by its "depressing" quality - a lot of dripping, window-running rain...and maybe it's just me, the color green kind of predominates, which to me makes it look somewhat morbid and anemic, as if it needs a little color correction. But I'm sure that's how Blatty wanted it to look...

[–] apriloish 8 years ago

actually this theatrical cut is better then what his original version would have been

[–] john-harmon-63936 8 years ago

This was Jeffrey Dahmers favourite movie. Pity it wasn't "The sound of music" could have saved 17 lives.

[–] apriloish 8 years ago

i dont think a movie had anything to do with him killing people

[–] WoRlD_ReNoWN 8 years ago

yup its intellectual fodder. The first one you REALLY did care about each character as their development in the totality of the story mattered. You even cared about the house sitter, who coming out to greet Karras, MATTERED. Little scenes, mattered. Wasn't a fan of the directors cut, as such I wasnt with Donnie Darko's DC either, but that is because I can't peal myself away from what was initially given to us.

That sad, this film grossly wasn't necessary, ruined the purity of the first one, and while it delved into perhaps many lingering questions so many had for decades, it should he dealt in more innate meaning in regards to Pazuzu, instead of the overacting and diatribe of intense one way dialog from Brad's character. But what do I know.

[–] apriloish 8 years ago

lol dude this film is the best sequel to the original the demon or what ever isnt what made the original interesting it was the possession itself no body really wants a big history of the demon brad dourif owned this movie an was just as good as any one from the original as for the characters of the original no man nobody ever cared about anyone but the main cast i never cared about jo smo house keeper lol this film is all most as equal to the first the only big problem it has is the rushed ending

[–] GeneBeaumont76 8 years ago

Honestly, I would have to completely disagree. I loved the characters in this film and find the story to be told in a way that I feel is compelling and I enjoy the ending of the film. I never understood why people took issue with the ending as I always found it to be intense and engaging.

While I do love the original, I put this one on equal footing with the original. Whether that's blasphemy or not, I don't care, I love both. I feel both are scary in their own ways, but I personally found The Exorcist III scarier. Mostly because I haven't seen The Exorcist III parodied or spoofed like the original has so many times so the scares and atmosphere are more refreshing to me. Just my two cents.

[–] bastasch8647 8 years ago

Nice to hear that you like this film so much...I keep going back to it every year. It's the only authentic sequel to the first story, and as you observed, it hasn't been spoofed into jaded parody like the Friedkin film has...

[–] apriloish 8 years ago

this film is considered a good film by the majority of horror fans as for the film its self its a really good film all most equal to the original this an the first an two different film styles they knew the couldnt re create the original or the great exorcism scene of the first which no movie has equaled so they played it smart an made a totally different type of exorcist film the original is a faith finding possession film this is a cop drama possession thriller they both work in there different ways the only thing that brings this one down is the ending feels rushed its not a bad ending its just rushed it needed to be a more smoother somber ending with a little bit of flash i saw the directors cut an this theatrical version is much better this film an the original are a great double feature then if you want throw dominion in there the best prequel an you have a nice clean trilogy

[–] apriloish 8 years ago

you do understand this is a thriller right its not meant to be like the original its meant to be slow paced an character driven the characters in this film are just as interesting as the ones from the original an no better written brad dourif in this film gives a more fun performance an more entertaining performance then all most every one from both films combined this is a detective thriller an a dam good one the ending is the weakest part of the film with a rushed climax

[–] WoRlD_ReNoWN 8 years ago

Climax as in the silly little costumes and angels coming from the ground with a silly little pit that was supposed to be a hole to hell, or whatever? Uh huh. As if George C. Scott didn't make you want to gouge your eye out with a borrowed pencil from Pazuzu's desk set through the whole cheesy film, you surely wanted to during the final moments.