Exorcist III...1990...110 minutes...R...starring George C. Scott, Jason Miller, Brad Dourif, and Ed Flanders...written for the screen and directed by William Peter Blatty
"I dream of a rose...and of falling down a long flight of stairs...."
Based off of Blatty's own book _Legion_, Exorcist III follows Detective Kinderman as he explores a series of gruesome murders that have haunting echoes from his past. The signature on the killings matches that of a serial killer who died 15 years ago, and as Kinderman follows the leads on the case, he uncovers a dark and almost impossible mystery. The murder is tied into another incident from the past that he was privy to as well, a matter of a certain exorcism....
Since Blatty was heavily involved in this movie, I consider this movie the true sequel to the Exorcist as opposed to Exorcist II: The Heretic...apologies to Linda Blair and Richard Burton, who did their best there. (I may get to that movie at some point, we'll see.) The movie is a fairly faithful adaptation of Blatty's book, although the ending does differ. I read from imdb.com that this incongruity was based on the studios wanting an exorcism in their Exorcist movie. (which does kinda follow, but go figure.) In fact, what detracts from the overall creepiness of the movie is that there are places where you can tell that it was deliberately given some moments to make it more of a big movie.
The first, and most obvious, of these decisions was the involvement of Jason Miller. Not that I disagree in general with having him in the movie, but the Gemini Killer personality that inhabits Karras's body was originally just supposed to be played by Brad Dourif...instead the movie hops bewteen Miller and Dourif in a way that's confusing...especially since the Gemini is predominant in most of the scenes. However, since Jason Miller was in the first Exorcst, I expect that his involvement was partially there to help tie the two movies together.
Second, there are a LOT of orchestrated "audience jump" moments...people popping up suddenly in hopes to startle the viewers. It's awell-known gimmick, and while it's to be expected I found it to be getting a bit old. Mind you, there's one orchestrated moment involving a nurse moving through a hospital hallway which is blocked and executed wonderfully and still gets me even when I know when the scare is coming. Such moments are few, though...I prefer moments they have where a statue in a church looks one way under the normal light but gets hideously warped when the light goes out.
The writing is still a strength in the movie, especially in some of the dialogue, but some things didn't translate well from the first movie. Kinderman talks about how close he was to Father Karras, but in the first movie the two characters share little screen time together and the relationship seems like a stretch. The recut version of The Exorcist helps explain the Kinderman/Dyer relationship much better, though. What I do find interesting is that one of my favorite lines from the novel _The Exorcist_ got transposed into this movie: A possessed Karras tells Father Sunshine, "This time you're going to lose."... something that the demon was supposed to say to Father Merrin in the original.
Overall, the movie isn't nearly as effective as the original but it's a decent movie by itself...it certainly shines in comparison to other of the movies in the Exorcist franchise. Plus, there's a lovely cameo of Samuel L. Jackson early in his career...though his voice must have been dubbed over. As long as you're not expecting "The Exorcist" itself, I think you'll find this movie enjoyable.
I give it 3 autopsy shears out of 5.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
The Exorcist (The Version You've Never Seen)
The Exorcist (recut)...1973 original, 2000 version release...132 minutes...R...starring Ellen Burstyn, Max Von Sydow, Jason Miller, Lee J. Cobb and Linda Blair...written by William Peter Blatty...directed by William Friedkin
I think most people know this charming little story, which demonstrates why no one should ever play with a ouija board EVER. An actress gets to witness the transformation of her young daughter from average kid to demonically possessed creature, while a priest struggling with his faith is thrust into a spiritual battle that he has a hard time believing is even possible, and a second priest is brought back to a conflict with an old enemy that nearly killed him some 12 years ago. (*whew*) The movie is based on a best-selling novel written by William Peter Blatty, and was recut with additional footage and some digital manipulation to help tie pieces of the story together.
Let me say this statement up front: I consider this film to be a classic and a benchmark in terms of horror films. I'm not the only one, of course. The film made a box-office sensation when it was released, and is still listed on the top of various lists for best horror movies to this day. So what makes it work? Like any great movie, it's a combination of various factors.
One, the performances given by the cast are rock-solid. Even watching it now, I still find myself understanding and believing the struggles that Father Karras is going through. I buy that Regan is a normal, if possibly spoiled kid before things inevitably spiral downward. It's a clear switch between normal Regan and the thing possessing her. While the whole history of Father Merrin's previous exorcism is lightly touched on, the fear he has when he finds the ancient amulet in the Iraq dig and has his premonition is clearly visible.
Two, the writing and dialogue is sharp and mostly tight in terms of story. The original version's Iraq segment is the exception to this statement; the linkage between the Pazuzu statue and the events in Washington wasn't clear...and even though some digital imagery helps in the recut, there's a case to be made that it's still not exactly crystalline why these events are linked. (That said, I am always amused by a line Kinderman says about keeping the windows closed...drafts being a magic carpet for diseases...since Pazuzu is a demon of the Southwest wind in Assyrian/Babylonian mythology) Okay, exception noted...the rest of the story has great dialogue and moves at a steady pace.
Three, minimal soundtrack. It's one of the things that I had noted when I'd first watched the movie; that you weren't flooded over with mood music all through the movie...no buildup like is typical in a lot of horror movies. I'm not sure I can explain why, but the lack of background music makes the whole thing more effective. Again, there's a notable exception: Mike Oldfield's "Tubular Bells", which is now inexorably tied to this movie. Even so, the music occupies only the briefest of moments on the screen.
Most of all, though, I think that what really makes this movie is its depiction of the rational impacted by the irrational...which I think is at the core of all supernatural horror. I'm not sure I've seen a better movie showing what happens when modern, rational, and intelligent people find themselves in a situation that they can't explain, can't understand, and have no real tools to deal with. The medical sequences (which get to me, mostly because I have a nasty fear of hospitals and needles) are the best example of this conflict...Regan goes through all sorts of painful medical tests and her doctors find nothing physically wrong, of course. I think it hits on the basic fear that life will always have unknowable and uncontrollable aspects, no matter how much we learn or try to exert control on the world.
Anyways, watch this movie if you haven't. (and why haven't you?) Like it, don't like it, whatever...but if you're interested at all in the genre and haven't seen this movie, you're missing a foundation block of discussion. If nothing else, see what sacred the bejeezus out of audiences in the early 70s. No time to be anything less than bold, I give this movie 5 ancient statues out of 5.
I think most people know this charming little story, which demonstrates why no one should ever play with a ouija board EVER. An actress gets to witness the transformation of her young daughter from average kid to demonically possessed creature, while a priest struggling with his faith is thrust into a spiritual battle that he has a hard time believing is even possible, and a second priest is brought back to a conflict with an old enemy that nearly killed him some 12 years ago. (*whew*) The movie is based on a best-selling novel written by William Peter Blatty, and was recut with additional footage and some digital manipulation to help tie pieces of the story together.
Let me say this statement up front: I consider this film to be a classic and a benchmark in terms of horror films. I'm not the only one, of course. The film made a box-office sensation when it was released, and is still listed on the top of various lists for best horror movies to this day. So what makes it work? Like any great movie, it's a combination of various factors.
One, the performances given by the cast are rock-solid. Even watching it now, I still find myself understanding and believing the struggles that Father Karras is going through. I buy that Regan is a normal, if possibly spoiled kid before things inevitably spiral downward. It's a clear switch between normal Regan and the thing possessing her. While the whole history of Father Merrin's previous exorcism is lightly touched on, the fear he has when he finds the ancient amulet in the Iraq dig and has his premonition is clearly visible.
Two, the writing and dialogue is sharp and mostly tight in terms of story. The original version's Iraq segment is the exception to this statement; the linkage between the Pazuzu statue and the events in Washington wasn't clear...and even though some digital imagery helps in the recut, there's a case to be made that it's still not exactly crystalline why these events are linked. (That said, I am always amused by a line Kinderman says about keeping the windows closed...drafts being a magic carpet for diseases...since Pazuzu is a demon of the Southwest wind in Assyrian/Babylonian mythology) Okay, exception noted...the rest of the story has great dialogue and moves at a steady pace.
Three, minimal soundtrack. It's one of the things that I had noted when I'd first watched the movie; that you weren't flooded over with mood music all through the movie...no buildup like is typical in a lot of horror movies. I'm not sure I can explain why, but the lack of background music makes the whole thing more effective. Again, there's a notable exception: Mike Oldfield's "Tubular Bells", which is now inexorably tied to this movie. Even so, the music occupies only the briefest of moments on the screen.
Most of all, though, I think that what really makes this movie is its depiction of the rational impacted by the irrational...which I think is at the core of all supernatural horror. I'm not sure I've seen a better movie showing what happens when modern, rational, and intelligent people find themselves in a situation that they can't explain, can't understand, and have no real tools to deal with. The medical sequences (which get to me, mostly because I have a nasty fear of hospitals and needles) are the best example of this conflict...Regan goes through all sorts of painful medical tests and her doctors find nothing physically wrong, of course. I think it hits on the basic fear that life will always have unknowable and uncontrollable aspects, no matter how much we learn or try to exert control on the world.
Anyways, watch this movie if you haven't. (and why haven't you?) Like it, don't like it, whatever...but if you're interested at all in the genre and haven't seen this movie, you're missing a foundation block of discussion. If nothing else, see what sacred the bejeezus out of audiences in the early 70s. No time to be anything less than bold, I give this movie 5 ancient statues out of 5.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)