The EXORCIST III Really is The True Sequel To The EXORCIST
And everything around these 2 movies suck donkey balls and YES, the hallway scene in the EXORCIST III was very well done and unnerving..
shareOH PLEASE, this movie was lame. It had a good thing going, but fumbles. It's too slow and boring with the real action happening in the cell with Father Morning. Morning really should have been Father Riley and he should have been the father of the Gemini Killer to showcase a father-son battle and when the Legion book has James' father being a priest. A missed opportunity the movie could have done if William Blatty thought hard enough.
Recasting Dryer and Kinderman were the biggest mistakes. I get they were following the Legion book and the characters were there, but given those original actors couldn't come back the characters should been different ones entirely. I think they could have gotten William O'Malley back, but Lee Cobbs was dead and thus his character should have died with him. Dryer and Kinderman just didn't feel like the ones from the original. Kinderman was already old as hell in the original and here he is fifteen years later still in the force? And when did he become so hot headed? Perhaps this should have been Kinderman's younger brother.
Say what you want about Exorcist II, but at least that movie had more action and proper continuity ties with the first one and character consistency, something III really lacks with its returning characters. The only issue I have with that movie is them not mentioning Karras and only focused on Merrin and his efforts, but oddly this movie would do the same thing focusing on Karras and erasing Merrin out of the picture. The latest sequel Believer would erase them both entirely and neither is mentioned by name when the events of the original is brought up. Weird.
EXORCIST 2: The HERETIC was more of a BOMB and embarrassment back in the day then The EXORCIST 3. All you have to do is look at the reviews and even the Cast of the EXORCIST 2 were embarrassed by it
shareThey shouldn't be and I don't care about the reviews. I watched the movie and liked it for what it is. It was trying new aspects and not rehashing what made the original work. I love that it was bold enough to do something different. People need to lighten up on it.
shareO'Malley wasn't actually an actor, he was a Jesuit priest who was a technical advisor and they ended up deciding to cast him as Dyer.
There is one scene in the movie, when his character is giving Karris his last rights, and he was required to really do some serious acting. He was, not too surprisingly, struggling badly to come up with the required emotion. Friedkin asked O'Malley if he trusted him, then proceeded to give him a very hard slap. His hands were really shaking in that scene, from adrenaline probably.
I'm well aware of this, but William O'Malley did fine for what it's worth and given his laid-back role then and what was required for Dryer now to an even lesser extent, I could see him doing just fine. There was no need to recast and it tickles me that even KARRAS was recast initially before it was decided to bring in Jason Miller because it only made sense one original character, a main one at that, is played by the same actor. Ugh, this movie was a mess.
I also find the whole Friedkin smacking O'Malley to be rather overdramatic. How bad could the director have slapped the dude to have him shaking that much?