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.

In Cold Blood.

Review #1426: In Cold Blood.

Cast: 
Robert Blake (Perry Smith), Scott Wilson (Dick Hickock), John Forsythe (Alvin Dewey), Paul Stewart (Jensen, the reporter), Gerald S. O'Loughlin (Harold Nye), Jeff Corey (Walter Hickock), John Gallaudet (Roy Church), James Flavin (Clarence Duntz), Charles McGraw (Tex Smith), Sammy Thurman (Flo Smith), Will Geer (Prosecuting attorney), John McLiam (Herbert Clutter), Ruth Storey (Bonnie Clutter), Brenda C. Currin (Nancy Clutter), and Paul Hough (Kenyon Clutter) Written, Produced, and Directed by Richard Brooks (#871 - Cat on a Hot Tin Roof and #1033 - Dollars)

Review: 
"If you’re thinking of getting into the movies, you better like it a whole lot. You better love making movies. Because it’s not easy--it’s not easy to make even a bad movie. You better be prepared to eat it, unsalted, because that’s the job of a movie maker. You better like it, because that’s what you’re going to have to do.”

The late 1960s were exactly a time for boundaries to be pushed further for film. Richard Brooks proved to be one of numerous directors that would bridge the gap between the studio system style of directing films and the growing independence (with some studio influence) of later years to make for a career of over 40 years of directing, writing, and producing. He had originally started work as a journalist and sports reporter before deciding to move to work in the theater and work on B-films. He also wrote novels as well, with The Brick Foxhole (1945, written while in the Marine Corps) being adapted as Crossfire (1947) being turned into a film. He moved to noir thriller not long after the war ended, helping to write works such as The Killers (1946) and Key Largo (1948) before given a chance to direct with alongside write with Crisis (1950). He would do 24 films in total as director (with the ones after Cat on a Hot Tin Roof being done independently after leaving MGM), with highlights including Blackboard Jungle (1955), Elmer Gantry (1960), and The Professionals (1966). Even early in his career he received respect, being described by French magazine Cahiers du Cinema as a "rebel" American auteur filmmaker, who believed that telling and doing a story was most important (stating that directing, editing, and scoring was writing). This went hand in hand with his reputation as a hard-as-nails man of his work who was prone to outbursts of anger, even when he became producer of his films (six of his last nine were produced by him including this one). On one of his films, he gathered the crew on their first day and told them that while they may have their own ideas and contributions about how to make it improved, they should keep it to themselves since it is was going to be done his way as "his fucking movie".

This was adapted from the novel of the same name by Truman Capote, who wrote what he labeled a "non-fiction novel" (being one of the first works to be associated with that genre) over the span of six years (while accompanied by friend Harper Lee) that detailed the 1959 murders of the Clutter family in Holcomb, Kansas that that had a triple narrative that jumped around the lives of the killers, the family, and the other members of the rural community (two films were subsequently made involving Capote's experience with writing the book in Capote and Infamous). The film strives for realism right down to the locations, since the sites of the actual crime in Kansas were used for a good deal of filming, most notably with the Clutter home (although the state penitentiary scenes were not allowed to be filmed in the prison, so sets were used instead). One noted difference between the novel and film was the adding of a reporter character to the proceedings, no doubt inspired by Capote (who went to Kansas after hearing about the murders to cover the manhunt and do interviews, where he eventually formed a bond with Smith). They even had some of the original jurors from the trial appear for the film. The attention to detail, combined with a documentary-style cinematography from Conrad Hall makes for a highly effective film. Brooks was firm in his intent to not have big stars play the main characters, feeling that it would be a distraction (Columbia Pictures originally wanted Steve McQueen and Paul Newman, for example). Blake was a child star who had grown up to less known roles as an adult while Wilson was in only his second ever film role, recommended by Sidney Poitier and Quincy Jones (who both worked with Wilson earlier with In the Heat of the Night). Blake proves the best performance of the whole group, one riddled with creeping conviction that lures you into a world of darkness as a brutal contradiction that creeps under the surface until the climatic flashback, with his conversation about his father in the rain sequence (where it looks like tears that stays on his face) being a somber highlight. Wilson captures dark charm that fits the other side of the crazed coin with an impulsive nature that seems likes a ticking time bomb, whether that means trying to lure someone into a trap or force their way through street senses. Forsythe (known for his television work) delivers quality as the real-life authority figure, while Stewart (a portrayer of often sinister and cynical characters in film, television, stage, and radio) delivers cynicism like a Greek chorus (which Capote took exception to) that observes the pursuit with eventual narration that contrasts him with everyone else, particularly since he is the one to ponder over the events that have occurred with the film after it closes, and the other members of the cast do well whenever there is some focus on them (such as Corey and McGraw each talking about how they tried to raise their kid). The film balances its narratives with care that builds to its violent action near the end with key amounts of darkness and shock (likely better than if it had just been shown in the first half), with a message that mostly hits its mark in the end, depending on how one feels about the death penalty. On the whole, this is a efficient film, filled with detail and execution with devastating lead performances and a 134 minute run-time that makes for a creeping experience that packs a punch after five decades as a gem of realism and a study of human nature.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.