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.

The Goodbye Girl.

Review #1455: The Goodbye Girl.

Cast: 
Richard Dreyfuss (Elliot Garfield), Marsha Mason (Paula McFadden), Quinn Cummings (Lucy McFadden), Paul Benedict (Mark), Barbara Rhoades (Donna), Theresa Merritt (Mrs. Crosby), Michael Shawn (Ronnie), Patricia Pearcy (Rhonda), and Nicol Williamson (Oliver Fry) Directed by Herbert Ross (#244 - The Sunshine Boys)

Review: 
"I think Herb Ross is the best director I've worked with in films. The others just don't understand my material as well."

"I always knew I was going to be an actor and that was that - no doubts, no uncertainties, no changing my mind. And that was when I was like, nine, ten. And it never changed."

It's good to make a comedy-drama when you've got the hands to make something meaningful. The film was written by Neil Simon and directed by Herbert Ross, who had collaborated with Simon in a group of films and plays that went from The Sunshine Boys (1975) to Max Dugan Returns (1983). Ross was a dancer-turned-choreographer-turned director, while Simon was a playwright and screenwriter that had started his line of work with radio before moving to TV with Your Show of Shows (1950-54), plays with Come Blow Your Horn (1961), and film with After the Fox (1966). Both lead actors had already had their moment in the sun rise in the decade in the year of 1973, starting with Dreyfuss in a quick rise from TV to American Graffiti while Mason made her feature debut in Blume in Love that led to work in theater with Simon (along with marriage after meeting during auditions for The Good Doctor). Simon had originally written a script named "Bogart Slept Here", which would have had Mike Nichols direct and Robert De Niro star in a film about the changes in an struggling actor's life after becoming a star. Production on that lasted just a week before De Niro was found to not being suited for the comedic aspects (with Nichols following later on), and Simon reportedly re-wrote the script in a span of six weeks.

For 110 minutes, one is presented with a fairly neat package of comedy and drama, rolling along with a few neat lines and some quirk-laced characters that interact with some zip to make a romance that paints its corners with fair conviction and enough moments to make it worth it. While it does prove awkward at times, Dreyfuss and Mason do eventually make things worth it in the build to establish interesting chemistry that makes the second half resonate with interest over the establishing half. Dreyfuss grows on you very quickly, having a spark of sensitivity and energy that inspires plenty of curiosity with good timing that drives as a bright charmer, whether that means trying to act in a play to his best or drunkenly reading scathing reviews of said play. Mason does well with what she is given, straight-laced but not too unapproachable for banter with Dreyfus or with Cummings, who makes for a fine family pairing to watch. The supporting cast is fine, with Benedict making for a worthy eccentric to see play out in his moments on screen, since the Richard III production scenes (based on an actual production that Mason had a part in) are generally the most amusing sequences in the film anyway, delivering a bit of perspective to what can go in a vision for something (regardless of how strange or funny it might seem). On the whole, when the film hits its mark in making you care for these characters, it hits with charm without needing to go overboard in one genre over the other to make a worthy watch for the era.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Excalibur.

Review #1210: Excalibur.

Cast: 
Nigel Terry (King Arthur), Helen Mirren (Morgana Le Fay), Nicholas Clay (Sir Lancelot), Cherie Lunghi (Queen Guenevere), Paul Geoffrey (Sir Perceval), Nicol Williamson (Merlin), Corin Redgrave (Duke of Cornwall), Patrick Stewart (King Leodegrance), Keith Buckley (Sir Uryens), Clive Swift (Sir Ector), Liam Neeson (Sir Gawain), Gabriel Byrne (King Uther Pendragon), and Robert Addie (Prince Mordred) Directed by John Boorman (#565 - Zardoz and #975 - Deliverance)

Review: 
The legend of King Arthur is a myth that has lived on in various forms of media for centuries, such as in prose or in novel form. Naturally it has served as something to adapt to the world of film, each having their own sort of style to tell the tale - whether involving a comedic take (A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court, itself an adaptation of a novel from Mark Twain), or as an adaptation of a Broadway musical in Camelot (1967), or as a parody in Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975). In 1969, John Boorman had wanted to make a film about the Merlin legend. His plans to do the film with United Artists did not come to pass owing to the scope of the script (for which he wrote with Rospo Pallenberg), with the studio offering him the chance to do an adaptation of The Lord of the Rings. While Boorman did not end up doing an adaptation of such material, he incorporated set design and imagery ideas from that stalled attempt for this film, which is based off the prose Le Morte d'Arthur by Thomas Malory. It is obvious that Boorman clearly wanted to make the definitive version of the legend, utilizing its 140 minute run-time to try and make a big grand story spectacle from life to death. It reads a bit like a history paper written in a fever dream by someone who really wants to get all of this information down before it flashes away - it may seem a bit long, but that's because he really wants to wow you with all that is going on. The spectacle does tend to outweigh the actual characters at times, and a lesser made film would buckle under the pressure - but Boorman manages to keep it all together to make an engaging fever dream of a movie.

The film has an interesting look to it, owing to the lighting choices (such as the forest scenes or parts involving the sword) that occurred due to production having rain fall on each day of the shoot, filmed entirely in Ireland. The result makes it seem like one is watching a otherworldly type of movie, with eerie and fitting cinematography from Alex Thomson. The aluminium on the knights glistens well at times, especially. The key highlight of the film is Williamson, who can switch from clever wit to foreboding when needed, wise and tricky as one would hope. He sells the film well whenever he pops up on screen, that is for sure. Terry (who dabbled in film on occasion when not on the British stage) has the task of trying to play the man of the myth from adolescence all the way to a withered man without seeming lost in the tale - he does just fine with that. Mirren (also known for her work in the theatre) isn't given too much depth with her conniving part, but at least she is game to have some scheming fun for her moments. Clay and Lunghi don't fare as great, each being a bit passive while not having too much chemistry of sorts with Terry, whether friend or lover. It doesn't come to the point where it undercuts the film as a whole, but it feels more haphazard than it probably should. Geoffrey ends up having to try and help carry the film a bit for the film's last half, and while he does seemingly make the role grow from when he is introduced, he can't help make it seem that the film could run out of steam when it tries to give focus on the Grail. The others of the cast fill their roles when required (including early performances on film for Stewart and Neeson, which is neat in some way). The film promotes itself on nobility and comradeship from its fabled Knights of the Round Table, where the king embodies the land he and his subjects walk on. It is a film that indulges in sets of armor, violence and a sense of hope, juggling itself amiably as an epic that merits its own place in entertainment among fantasy films. Perhaps it doesn't hold up as well as it should with some of its narrative workings, but it makes up for it with plenty of fun, spectacle and a fairly game cast that works out a quest of the legend and comes up with most of the right ideas in time.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Return to Oz.

Review #393: Return to Oz.

Cast
Fairuza Balk (Dorothy Gale), Brian Henson (Jack Pumpkinhead), Sean Barrett (Tik-Tok), Nicol Williamson (Dr. Worley/Nome King), Jean Marsh (Head Nurse Wilson/Mombi), Denise Bryer (Billina), Lyle Conway (The Gump), Pons Maar (Lead Wheeler), Emma Ridley (Ozma), Piper Laurie (Aunt Em), Matt Clark (Uncle Henry), and Justin Case (The Scarecrow) Directed by Walter Murch.

Review
Released 46 years after the classic The Wizard of Oz (#159) (though there have been several films based on Oz in that span), and 234 reviews after I did my take on the film, I decided to review this, and why not considering summer's around the corner, so it's like a "return" for me. I don't like doing puns that much though...Anyway, this film has been called "dark", "depressing", and "cult classic". Are any of those words true? It is all a matter of opinion. But frankly, I like this film. Dark? Sure, but the Wizard of Oz had its moments of terror as well, what with the Flying Monkeys and all, so that criticism is on a slippery slope to begin with, but then again I like some dark elements, and it works allright in a land of Oz such as this. It is somewhat depressing...in the beginning. If the film had been less dark, it would be called out for being too similar to the 1939 film, and because it went dark, it gets called out for being too much not like the 1939 film, so it can't win either way with some people. It isn't as bleak as it could be because at least there is a sense of determination, a sense that these characters are worthy to be invested in, and while the Wheelers could be terrifying for young kids, it won't be as much for older ones, so that criticism doesn't have much of a leg to stand on. Plus, the Nome King effects are really good in my mind, and it shows a level of creativity, and the character is wicked enough to be a good villain, not Wicked Witch wicked, but oh well. The acting is good, even from a young child actor such as Fairuza Balk, a good choice for Dorothy. The five (Balk, Henson, Barrett, Bryer, Conway) are not exactly as great a group as the original, but at least they come close enough. This may have its oddities, but that doesn't mean it should be forgotten, as it is indeed a cult classic. Take it for what it's worth. Countdown to 400 Reviews: 10, 9, 8, 7...

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.