MovieChat Forums > The Exorcist III (1990) Discussion > the new director's cut doesn't make sens...

the new director's cut doesn't make sense.


i love this movie. it's one of my all time faves. i just watched the newly released director's cut and it's a big disappointment for the most part. the cutting back and forth between the regular quality print and the (new additions) poor VHS quality film print is so jarring (even the original MY BLOODY VALENTINE re-release that did the same thing with poorer quality print footage being put back in the film was done far better) that it makes watching the new cut not enjoyable.

the storyline also doesn't make sense in this new restored cut since Kinderman is in shock that the man in the dangerous ward mental health cell is Damien Karas but yet it's clearly Dourif's The Gemini Killer. at one point Kinderman is sitting 3 feet away from The Gemini and Kinderman is asking "DAMIEN IS THAT YOU?" (and that's even before Kinderman even considered that possession could be a possibility). so yeah, i'll stick with the original theatrical cut. it's far superior.

reply

Kinderman is in shock that the man in the dangerous ward mental health cell is Damien Karas but yet it's clearly Dourif's The Gemini Killer. at one point Kinderman is sitting 3 feet away from The Gemini and Kinderman is asking "DAMIEN IS THAT YOU?"

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but my understanding was that Blatty had shot the final moments of the exorcism with Dourif as Karras, to make it clear that Dourif, not Jason Miller, was playing Karras this time around. That scene should have prepared the viewer for an all-Dourif role as Karras/the Gemini. Is this establishing scene not in the new cut...?

reply

That scene should have prepared the viewer for an all-Dourif role as Karras/the Gemini. Is this establishing scene not in the new cut...?


No. The movies opens pretty much the same way, only black and white. There are some deviations later in the opening, but no redo of the original film. It shows the same thing...the body crashing through the window and falling down the stairs.

- - - - - - -
I am not a fan. I just happen to enjoy movies. Fans are embarrassing.

reply

Thanks for that important information - I was wondering how the film opened...

:)

reply

I thought the way the film opened in the theatrical cut was expertly done. One of the best openings I've ever seen, in fact. I hope, based on what you're saying here, that most of its brilliance and tone is retained in the alternate cut.





I'm not a control freak, I just like things my way

reply

If you think the theatrical cut has one of the openings you've ever seen (and I agree with you), I think you'll find the alternate cut interesting, but not nearly as good.

Just my $0.02. I far prefer the theatrical cut (and I'm not taking anything away from the fact that it's AWESOME to finally be able to see Blatty's original vision).

------

Wait a minute... who am I here?

reply

Yes, I too enjoyed the theatrical cut more. BUT, I want to say that I am thrilled to have the alternate cut as well. It is always enjoyable to see what might have been. We don't get enough in the way of this stuff from the studios. I appreciate the effort to piece this together!

- - - - - - -
I am not a fan. I just happen to enjoy movies. Fans are embarrassing.

reply

Either way... the ending, I suppose, seems to be the most important factor between the two versions.

I'm just curious how the film will get evaluated with a new edit that does not end with the tacked-on scenes forced by Morgan Creek. Most people over the years comment that the film is brilliantly executed in its tone, pacing, and atmosphere, but also mention the ending as a downer. I'm intrigued to see what the IMDB rating would look like if this new edit was rated on its own.

It seems to be the case that the theatrical ending is too over-the-top, while the original ending is too underwhelming and hardly climactic. Still, a patiently unraveling horror piece with such an atmospheric tone deserves an equally subtle ending. Therefore, I would like to know how the new cut would be rated by a new legion (pardon the pun) of viewers.


It all comes down to which ending people find the least flawed, and which cut ultimately the most suitable for the story. Moreover... I'm willing to bet a third edit could be made that includes the Miller scenes and yet also retains the director's original ending; a combination of the two current cuts, that is. Sort of how Blade Runner has three edits, and now The Wicker Man has three edits (though I have yet to see "The Final Cut" of the latter). I also hear that The Ninth Configuration has more than two editions as well.





I'm not a control freak, I just like things my way

reply

I happen to really like the theatrical ending. Is it over-the-top? Sure, but it is delightfully over-the-top and has more impact on me as a viewer. The director's cut ending ending just kind of happens and then ends. There's no emotional punch or anything. I will commend the director's cut ending for being more realistic (to a fault) but the theatrical ending has more excitement for me.

reply

I don't mind the theatrical ending. I just would like to see the film end with a subtlety that matches the rest of the picture.

It would be awesome if they could also release a cut that edits both films together in a way that retains the theatrical opening, the Miller scenes, and splices it together to keep the director's original ending.

They can chop and screw this film all sorts of ways to make all sorts of edits (what I hear Blatty did with The Ninth Configuration, and kinda like the various editions of Cameron's T2).





I'm not a control freak, I just like things my way

reply

I don't mind the theatrical ending. I just would like to see the film end with a subtlety that matches the rest of the picture.

My "own" ending, although corny, probably sappy, and not all that subtle:

= = = = =

[Fr. Morning has not died in the exorcism.]

Final scene:

Opens as does the current standard version - the university president pensively looking out a window, a gathering of Jesuits looking on, etc.

Kinderman is standing at Karras' graveside, Fr. Morning next to him in a wheelchair, face bandaged, arm in a sling. [In a scene deleted from the original cut, Kinderman in the coroner's office whispers, "Goodbye, Damien". This graveside scene restores it.]

Kinderman: Goodbye, Damien.

Pause...

Morning: Save Your servants [this time, plural]...

Kinderman: ...Amen.

Kinderman wheels Morning away from the graveside.

Final shot:

Kinderman and Morning in middle distance with Damien Karras' grave marker in foreground, as if looking on [as the shattered window looks on Kinderman and Dyer in the Friedkin "director's cut"]. Obviously, then, this scene resonates with the final lines of burgeoning friendship between Kinderman and Dyer at the end of the original novel and in the director's cut.

Fade to black as the faint tinkling of Tubular Bells is briefly heard, which then gives way to the choral music used in the film's end credits.
Roll end credits.

= = = = =

Of course, this ending doesn't fix the extreme elements of the exorcism, but at least it establishes that Morning lives, and that Kinderman will be gaining a new Jesuit friend now that he's lost Dyer. It links Kinderman and Morning as new friends, just as they had been allies in the "exorcism" of Damien Karras.

And of course it doesn't address the ... "realities" ... of the story, e.g., how do Kinderman and Morning explain to the authorities their involvement with Karras, especially Kinderman's "execution" of a helpless man in a straitjacket - etc. At least they could bolster each other's testimony - and there's always the possibility that prior to (re-)burial, an autopsy was done on Karras that would indeed confirm that he was indeed, incredibly, "Patient X" of Cell Eleven - which would help support Kinderman's and Morning's claims. But still, there are lots of loose ends dangling there...

reply