SYNOPSICS
The Exorcist III (1990) is a English movie. William Peter Blatty has directed this movie. George C. Scott,Ed Flanders,Brad Dourif,Jason Miller are the starring of this movie. It was released in 1990. The Exorcist III (1990) is considered one of the best Drama,Horror,Mystery movie in India and around the world.
A seemingly endless series of grisly killings that bear the trademark of the mass murderer, the Gemini Killer, terrorise the district of Georgetown. To further complicate matters, even though it's been seventeen long years since the killer's execution and that fateful night of pure terror in The Exorcist (1973), the sceptical police officer, Lieutenant William F. Kinderman, is still obsessed with solving the baffling case, as the death toll keeps rising. In the meantime, in the city's high-security psychiatric institution, a cryptic inmate who bears an uncanny resemblance to the late Father Damien Karras emerges from his deep catatonic state, claiming that he has all the answers Kinderman needs. But, who is the mysterious Patient X? Does the same unholy force that tormented Regan MacNeil have something to do with the brutal demonic murders?
The Exorcist III (1990) Trailers
The Exorcist III (1990) Reviews
Flawed though it is, I have a soft spot for this film for its intelligent, non-ironic journey into darkness.
William Peter Blatty can really write. Prose and dialogue. No argument. But can he direct a movie? On the strength of 'Exorcist III,' yes he can. This isn't to say that the film doesn't have its problems. On the contrary, its biggest problem, the out-of-character 'crowd-pleasing' SFX climax stops it from being one of the greats. So why do I have a soft spot for this film? If, like me, you appreciate horror films that are both scary and made for grown-ups, 'Exorcist III' is refreshing and memorable for its intelligent, non-ironic journey into darkness and for its refusal (bar that ending) to dumb down for the kids. If 'Scream' is your idea of a great horror movie, this isn't one for you! The cast is not nearly young and attractive enough, there are nowhere near enough gags (though Blatty's dry, sardonic wit is happily in evidence) and the film has no pretensions at being an autopsy of the genre, therefore somehow lifting it above the films it purports to comment on. 'Exorcist III' is literary beyond 'Scream's' self-referential trivia-chasing (I would love to hear Detective Kinderman critiquing that movie!) Read 'Legion' and you'll have an idea of how good the film should have been. Flaws acknowledged and accepted, don't miss out on Brad Dourif's best performance since 'Cuckoo's Nest,' scene-stealing turns by Ed Flanders and Nancy Fish, or the superlative production design, photography and sound. More than anything else, it's the atmosphere of the film that stays with me. I can recall very few films that have a better sense of the power of stillness and silence. So much of the violence is communicated only in dialogue; your mind reluctantly does the rest.
A Brainy Horror Movie... not for everyone
Most people go to horror movies for the emotional thrill, the gore and/or the adrenaline high of having things pop out and yell "boo!" Make no mistake: you won't find much of that here. So if you're looking for a movie that will make you spill your popcorn, you might wanna move on. But if you're looking for a true psychological thriller (psychological = appealing to the intellect, not the viscera), this will be one hell of a treat for you. The dialogue is fantastic. The acting is superb (Brad Dourif & George C. Scott on the same screen. What could be better?). The philosophy is provocative. And the mood is as thick as it gets. Much of the movie is composed of a series of dialogues between two people in a dark room. If you liked the second half of APOCALYPSE NOW, you will enjoy this immensely. I rank this movie as one of my all time English language faves with the likes of AMADEUS, 2001, Alfred Hitchcock's ROPE, PICTURE OF DORIAN GRAY, and CITIZEN KANE. I'm serious; it's that good. Unfortunately, it was marketed to the wrong audience, and that's why it received such low ratings. Let me repeat: this is not a spooky movie. It's actually a very intellectual story with a lot of big words, literary overtones and powerful acting, and it's one of the few movies which I consider superior to the book (but of course writer Blatty directed this, so I'd expect no less). Now don't get me wrong; it's anything but dull. There is one scene in particular that will scare the living crap out of you! It's a long scene done with one still camera, no music, no sound, hardly any action... but egads it's probably the most suspenseful/frightening thing I've ever seen in any movie. In the style of the classic thrillers, so much is left to the imagination of the viewer--and oh there is PLENTY of disturbing, shocking stuff to imagine. In one conversation you'll hear about a murder so vile that you'll never want to hear the word "catheter" again. And the beauty is that you never see a thing. If this subtle style appeals to you, then you certainly won't be disappointed. 10/10. And I don't give 10s very often.
Legion: Exorcist III
Exorcist III (1990) was the follow up to the classic Exorcist. Despite the number three next to the title, this was the true sequel to the first film. Writer/ Director William Peter Blatty wanted to simply call the movie "Legion" like the name of his novel. But the producers wanted to cash in on the Exorcist name so he caved into pressure. In Europe it's called Legion: Exorcist III. This wasn't going to be the first or the last conflict Blatty would have with the producers. The novel was a straight forward mystery/ thriller. The producer wanted some gore and "exorcism" thrown into the mix. Blatty wanted to make an atmospheric horror film, the producers wanted a prototypical 80's horror film. The producers wanted Jason Miller and an exorcism! Who won out? The film follows the friendship between Father Dyer and Detective Kinderman. Meanwhile a serial killer is running around Georgetown gruesomely murdering the city's residents. Kinderman is called into duty and is puzzled by the brutal slayings. That is until he follows the clues and they lead him to a very unlikely place. Kinderman's faith in man is tested as he continues on through out this bizarre and seemingly never ending case. George C. Scott is excellent as Kinderman. he plays the role of the detective as if he was tailored made for the part. Ed Flanders co-stars as Father Dyer. Nicol Williamson has a guest star spot as a Father Merrin type priest (his scenes seemed to have been added during post production because they don't fit in with the rest of the movie). The ending felt rushed and it has "post production" stamped on it. Word has it that the film was indeed tampered with during the post production. I think so to because the book's ending was far different than what was put out on the silver screen. Is the movie worth watching? Yes it is because it's a worthy follow up to the Exorcist. Even though it was fiddled around with during the final phase of production, scenes seem to have been added and the ever presence of the producers looking over the director's shoulder, it's still a great film. I'm probably one of the few people who are actually satisfied with the movie. I wished Blatty could have the original version of this film restored. I enjoyed the book and the movie as well. Highly recommended! A majority of people hate intellectual horror films. What's wrong with having to think once in a while?
The best Exorcist sequel
I have heard mixed reviews of this film. Some saying its the best Exorcist sequel and some saying its utter crap. Well to the people who say it's utter crap you have no idea what your talking about. This is by far the best Exorcist sequel, probably because it was actually written by William Peter Blatty (Writer of the first Exorcist). I think this should really be the Exorcist II because it begins where the first one finishes, and also because The Heretic was a joke. One of the reasons why I love this film is because it is essentially a mystery film (which I'm not usually to keen on) but it also has the major horror elements that make a horror film. The hallway scene at the hospital is one of the best horror scenes I have seen. Just the tension and the fact you don't know whats going on and the silence, then suddenly... well I wont give anything away. Its definitely different to the original so if your looking for another The Exorcist then look elsewhere, but this will probably still scare the daylights out of you. Overall, fantastic film and I'm glad that Father Karras is in this film because I loved his character in the original. 9/10
Comically underrated and overlooked.
This movie is possibly the most overlooked and underrated movie in the entire history of Western cinema. Sure, there are some unnecessary bits in it (particularly a scene involving Father Morning stuck to a ceiling with his limbs falling off one by one. It's supposed to be scary, but it's the funniest scene in the entire film), but overall, what we have here is, essentially, a trip into the mind of a psycho, a la Silence Of The Lambs, Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, etc. Okay, so inhabiting this mind happens to be the same demon as in the original film, but also there is the spirit of a dead serial killer. The body they are inhabiting is that of Damien Karras, and this spurns a curious Lieutenant Kinderman to find out as much as possible about him, which leads him into discovering exactly what happened to Karras after the night of the fall. But as I was saying, it's underrated. A golden raspberry for worst actor? Comical. George C Scott's performance here might not be as memorable as that in Patton, but it's still an excellent performance. And Brad Dourif, sharing duties with Jason Miller as the sinister 'Patient X' is a much more effective demon here than in the 'Child's Play' series. The only complaint I'd have on the actors front, is that the brilliant Nicol Williamson is underused as Father Morning, but the character was added in at the last minute by producers. There are plenty of comic moments, too, notably a scene in the open psychiatric ward involving a man in a wheelchair flashing at the charge nurse. (Trust me, you have to see it, really). Sadly, it's probably due to the risible 'Exorcist II' that this film was so overlooked, and instantly assumed to be awful. But then again, whether people like movies or not is down to taste, I suppose. Try it. You might like it.