The Exorcist III.

Review #2101: The Exorcist III.

Cast: 

George C. Scott (Lieutenant William F. Kinderman), Ed Flanders (Father Joseph Dyer), Jason Miller (Patient X / Damien Karras), Scott Wilson (Dr. Temple), Brad Dourif (James Venamun / The "Gemini Killer"), Grand L. Bush (Sergeant Mel Atkins), Nicol Williamson (Father Paul Morning), Nancy Fish (Nurse Emily Allerton), Tracy Thorne (Nurse Amy Keating), Barbara Baxley (Shirley), and Harry Carey Jr (Father Tom Kanavan) Written and Directed by William Peter Blatty.

Review: 

"It was always meant to be a psychological thriller, not a special-effects horror film...I can say that it would make me very happy indeed if some day people were able to see my original version of Legion, which was rather different from the one now in release as The Exorcist III."

In 1983, William Peter Blatty wrote a follow-up book to his famous novel The Exorcist (1971). He found inspiration for his "Gemini Killer" with the real-life Zodiac Killer, who apparently called it "the best satirical comedy" he ever saw in one of his letters that he wrote to the San Francisco Chronicle. While it is a horror book, it is an investigative case kind of book, since it involves the character Lieutenant Kinderman (as seen at times in the original book) on the trail of a string of murders (involving mutilation) that have the resemblance to ones done by a murderer that had been thought to be dead years ago (one thing that apparently differs from film to book is the lack of the Gemini Killer's father, a preacher). Apparently, Blatty wrote it with the intent to do a film with William Friedkin as they had done with the aforementioned Exorcist in 1973, but when Friedkin passed on it, Blatty went forward in writing it as a novel. The resulting success led to shopping around for a director to do a film, and while people like John Carpenter (oh hey, wondered if he thought an exorcism would be needed for the film?) were considered, it ultimately went to Blatty, who had previously directed The Ninth Configuration (1980), an adaptation of his 1978 novel. Ironically, a book that came about at the hands of a serial killer loving the film adaptation enough to call it satire would have its film adaptation cited as inspiration for a serial killer upon its release.

I'm sure that the changes instituted from the original intent must have hurt Blatty badly, but a Director's Cut of the film, utilizing as much recovered footage as possible (which include video tape footage), does exist for people to look over. I imagine more than anything that the fact the film was called "III" rather than the book title is probably what hindered the film from being more than the mild hit that it was, and Blatty stated as much in the years that followed. Morgan Creek Entertainment (who Blatty went with because Carolco suggested a story where Regan from the first film gives birth to possessed twins) felt that the film needed an exorcism rather than the lower-key ending that Blatty envisioned (I'm not kidding, he just walks in and shoots the possessed Karras, which apparently is higher key than the novel, in which the Killer, having decided to explain to the detective the whole thing and seeing his dad die, wills himself to death), and the director's cut features more of Dourif as the Gemini Killer, as opposed to the jumping around between Miller and Dourif, because as you will know from the film, the character of Karras did not in fact die die in 1975 (well, the film was released in 1973 but here we are talking about 1975), he just happened to wind up in the loony bin and was left unrecognized by the staff while the spirits festered; Williamson is the one who shows up as a result of these changes, specifically for the climax. Honestly, the thing that probably sticks with me is the gradual pacing. It reminds me of a procedural, slowly getting to the point with a mostly game Scott that talks a big game more than anything before the part with Dourif (i.e., one consisting of long speeches) makes the film have some life in it. This is the kind of movie that likes to tell rather than show that seems to believe it is honing the spirit of the original...while in fact it only reminds you of the exact opposite. Sure, it is an entertaining film at times, but the 110-minute runtime asks quite a bit from the viewer. Scott gets to chew the scenery a bit, where one minute he is giving someone a stuffed penguin and then all of a sudden, he is going "We're FINE!" to a nurse; his "slime and stink" line at the end when it comes to belief probably is the best part of his whole time. One wishes for more time spent with Scott and Flanders, because they sure have the whole bit down for gruff amusement, but I suppose the shock is what is meant to matter (or something). Honestly, the reason to see the film is for Dourif, because, well, he really is the kind of actor to pull off derangement well, particularly since he doesn't get interrupted (just don't think about the fact that the audience is seeing him as opposed to the body that the spirited killer is in, which is Miller to a sprinkle of lines). The fact that Williamson doesn't have much to say is amusing when considering his importance for the climax (well, aside from those little moments where he is seen), and he most writhes around when it actually does happen. The climax, well, it does help the film more than it hurts it. A little bit of fire and dismemberment does lend the film some juice beyond the attempts at calm dwelling horror, because screw it, there's nothing one can do to compare to the original Exorcist anyway, giving the folks a show is at least a worthwhile proposition, considering the fact that crawling on the ceiling seems more of a "oh" kind of moment. The shadow of the one and true Exorcist film never really leaves one's sight when it comes to watching this movie, which is a mildly involving film through and through. If one has the patience for it, you might find something really curious, and that is more than enough in the midnight hour of good and evil.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Next: Saw II.

Redux: The Exorcist.

Redux #037: The Exorcist.

Cast: 

Ellen Burstyn (Chris MacNeil), Max von Sydow (Father Lankester Merrin), Lee J. Cobb (Lieutenant William F. Kinderman), Kitty Winn (Sharon Spencer), Jack MacGowran (Burke Dennings), Jason Miller (Father / Dr. Damien Karras, S.J.), Linda Blair (Regan MacNeil; Eileen Dietz as stand-in), Father William O'Malley (Father Joseph Dyer), Barton Heyman (Dr. Samuel Klein), Peter Masterson (Dr. Barringer), with Rudolf Schündler (Karl, House Servant), and Mercedes McCambridge (The Voice of Pazuzu) Directed by William Friedkin.

Review: 

From my review on April 22, 2011: 

To be honest, I found this film to be a little underwhelming. The first hour is just talking, and building up to the Exorcism. It finally comes, and we do see the scariness in the Devil. I felt underwhelmed for the first half, but the second half helped. The acting is decent, with some scare from Regan and special effects that hold up to this day.

"When [William Peter Blatty] wrote this book he knew that I had a background in documentary films as well, and he wanted the story to be filmed as realistically as possible, and so did I. We did not want to make a scary horror film or a fantasy film. At that time as well as today, the public knows very little about exorcism, little to nothing. Everything that is known about it is sensationalized in the public, and certainly the film I made contributed to that; there is no question about it. Because people regarded it as a horror film. But I made the film as a believer." - William Friedkin.

Admittedly, there are a handful of reasons one could do to look back upon The Exorcist in 2023. For one thing, the film (released in late December) is celebrating its 50th anniversary this year. Another thing is that 2023 is also the beckoning of a new "Exorcist film", specifically one that is serving as the first of a new trilogy that follows just the original film, complete with a returning cast member from before that makes its premiere on the very first Friday of October. Another is the fact that it seems appropriate to look back upon the career of its director William Friedkin, who passed away in August. But for me, I think the best reason of all is the fact that Movie Night's very first review of a film in the horror genre way back over a decade ago, was this very film. Granted, it wasn't the first horror film I ever saw, because in addition to those R-rated action films, I watched a few horror films before I was even 15, as one might do, but it certainly was a big film that one can hold up within the horror genre...and I guess I really set it up so highly in my head that it only seemed good enough for an 8/10 rating. The quantity and quality of the review is obvious, so here is a chance to re-write that wrong. The film is adapted from William Peter Blatty's 1971 novel of the same name, which was inspired by events that had allegedly been occurred in 1949 with a boy named only "Roland Doe". Blatty had heard about it when studying at Georgetown University (studying in English, which he also did for a master's degree at George Washington University), but what set him on the path to write it was seeing the film adaptation of Ira Levin's novel in Rosemary's Baby (1968), which pleased him right until the ending involving the resolution of the unborn child. Once a comic novelist and a screenwriter for comedies, the resulting success of the novel was tremendous, to put it lightly, and he got his wish to have William Friedkin serve as director with the success of The French Connection (1972). Friedkin was raised in the Jewish faith, but he found himself more welcoming of the teachings of Jesus as a declared agnostic. As such, when it came to influences, one film cited was Carl Theodor Dreyer's Ordet (1955). As such, Friedkin hired actual priests to appear in the film along with serve as technical advisors. Over four decades later, he would direct a documentary titled The Devil and Father Amorth (2017), which featured Father Gabriele Amorth, an exorcist for the Diocese of Rome that had mentioned Friedkin's film in his first book (An Exorcist Tells His Story). Friedkin worked closely with Blatty on the screenplay (the latter served as both screenwriter and producer). Blatty would write two further novels involving faith with The Ninth Configuration (1978) and Legion (1983), for which the latter served as the sequel to the aforementioned Exorcist; Blatty spearheaded the film adaptations of both novels as director in 1980 for Configuration and 1990 for the now retitled Exorcist III. Forty years after publishing the novel, Blatty did a revising of the novel that added a new chapter.

The original cut of the film lasted 122 minutes after Warner Bros. suggested cuts in order to fit more screenings, which Friedkin did. However, in 2000, a "The Version You've Never Seen" version was released that features a handful of cut sequences from before, most notably with the final scene that seems more in line with the book, which results in a runtime of 132 minutes. The mysteries that matter most to the film, true to Friedkin's word, are ones of faith, goodness, and the one of inexplicability. It is is a carefully built film on intense scale that is best enjoyed with great patience. Calling it the first of anything in horror is perhaps a too bit lofty to use, because of previous great horror films such as Psycho (1960), but I'm sure you can see the importance of a film like this beyond just calling it a film about possession, because it is a film of sacrifice and finding one's faith. The power of that comes with the cast to hold up such tremendous production values, for which I'm sure you would already guess. There were a variety of actors considered for key roles in terms of the desires of Warner Bros., such as asking Audrey Hepburn first about the leading role (she declined, as did a few others) or the late switching of Stacy Keach for Jason Miller (playwright of That Championship Season). Both Burstyn and Miller were big on doing these roles (the former was quoted as believing it to be destiny to play the role and the latter, who had studied for the priesthood, felt that he was Karras). Friedkin got his way with the casting of both actors and the rest eventually fell into place, which even included a critic of the book in O'Malley. Each of the core cast succeed in drawing a film of dread within atmosphere that is homed in realism as much as one can expect when seeing vomit or a cerebral angiography or whatever strikes a nerve in the realm of anxiety, moral or otherwise. The film is as much Miller's film as it is one of Burstyn & Blair when it comes to the driving point because of how he draws you with such intensity that comes from a great array of guilt and wavering spirit. Don't get me wrong though, Burstyn and Blair do just as well, with the former's sense of fear for her loved one shining through with the scattered innocence/corruption of Blair providing great terror. True, there is a certain voice quality in dubbing that can only come from an Academy Award winner in McCambridge and a minimal use of a double for intense scenes, but I think you know what I mean when I say that Blair went through the whirlwind and survived with a useful performance. Von Sydow and Cobb provide grizzled support that you greet for those familiar with those actors or voices (the former in aged makeup, of course). It is a film that builds in the terror of what enfold before you get to that exorcism, and it probably stands to reason that any film since this one involving exorcisms or possession has considerable ground to cover when it comes to trying to play distinct from this one. None have probably stokes half of the controversy that comes with its tone of haunting qualities or religious fervor, for better or worse. The sacrifice made at the end, now combined with the revised ending, makes it all the more involving as a film fit for its age and genre, a useful lesson for horror through and through.

In the end, what is about The Exorcist that makes it endure so vividly in reputation? There are a variety of factors, but the most important is that Friedkin and company had the faith required to craft a film as straight to the line as they wished to do that struck a nerve within the viewer of the time that works just as well now because it respected its viewer with patience and craftsmanship to make for a worthy unsettling time. It is probably hard to figure just which Friedkin film ranks among his best, but it is perhaps The Exorcist that endures most when it comes to the realm of looking forward to the season of horror or perhaps the time to look upon one's faith, and that is perhaps worth more than anything in the material sense.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Well, the clock is soon to strike 12 on October, so why not get a head start? October will be quite the showcase to show a wide variety of horror films from the past such as The Monster to the current year within The Exorcist: Believer. We shall see how many films get a spotlight here and what finds its way for the first week of November.