The Exorcist III



Lieutenant Kinderman is getting more frustrated by the day. He’s trying to solve the case of a murdered 12-year-old boy and a local priest. He thinks the two cases are connected somehow, but so far he’s been coming up empty. It isn’t until the murder of a second priest that Kinderman finally stumbles upon more solid clues that point the lieutenant in the direction of a man claiming to be the Gemini Killer, a notorious serial killer who mutilates his victims whose name begins with the letter ‘K’. Kinderman knows the man has to be involved in the killings, because he knows details about the crimes that only the killer would know. The only problem is, the man in question has been comatose and locked in the hospital psych ward, and the real Gemini Killer has already been executed over 15 years ago.



Well, that was weird.

At least that was my first thought as soon as the movie ended. A movie that I have been putting off watching for some time, and if you’re asking yourself why, then you obviously haven’t forced yourself to sit through the pain of watching Exorcist II: The Heretic. And if you’re asking yourself why I’d let that stop me and hold off on this when I had just recently forced myself to get through all 15 Puppet Master movies, the short answer is that I used to have higher standards for myself.

Anyway…

The Exorcist III is a psychological horror movie from 1990, a sequel that emerged a good 15 years after the second film, because that abomination sucked so badly that the powers that be figured it would take that long before its horrors could be purged from the world’s collected consciousness. Usually after a stink bomb like that a third film would only end up sinking even deeper into the special circles of Hell that horrible horror sequels tend to reside in. But The Exorcist III manages to buck that trend, thanks in part to being both written and directed by William Peter Blatty, the writer of the first film. Blatty is much better known for being a writer than a director, however, so some of the film ends up feeling and looking a little… not bad, necessarily, but a little wonky, I guess? Thankfully the writing is usually on point, even though the film has a lot of very odd imagery and often feels like it’s filled with more humor and dark, snarky sarcasm than you can typically find outside of the latest teen comedy.

Like I said…weird.


Have I been reading too much Batman, or is that the Joker making a brief cameo appearance?

In defiance to the more…shall we say “stark” realism that was portrayed in the first film, this sequel has a more “go for broke” approach in regards to the subject matter. This can be both helpful and detrimental, because some of it works and some of it doesn’t, at least as far as the ‘horror’ aspect goes. For instance, some of the rapid fire imagery (like our friend Joker up there) can just feel really odd and out of place, sometimes almost humorously so. I know I certainly wasn’t expecting to see a Heaven scene complete with a full blown old lady band when I started watching this film, but there it was!


Hey, guys. How’s heaven treating you? You getting paid by the gig, or the hour, or…?

But other times, even though it may feel oddly implemented, the imagery still ends up being really creepy, like the scene where a woman seems to be channeling Spiderman and crawling along the ceiling. I think a lot of this comes down to Blatty maybe just not being 100% comfortable in the director’s chair, because some scenes do seem to be shot in a rather… let’s say curious manor. But other times his direction and vision seems to be perfectly ON POINT, and we get awesome shots like the one with the nurse in the hallway at night, or the first interrogation scene that involves Miller and Dourif switching back and forth, which is just *chief’s kiss*. Now, whether any of that works for the viewer or not is going to be up to personal preference, but I think it’s safe to say that it all remains effective in giving the film a very off kilter kind of vibe.


Spiderman! Spiderman! Does whatever a spider can ~ ♫

I think what helps keep the movie feel more grounded is the great acting and cast of characters. And while I think this is really where the writing comes into play, I feel it can’t be stressed enough to point out that in less capable hands a lot of the scenes would have ended up being A LOT cheesier. George C. Scott as Lieutenant Kinderman puts in just the kind of performance you would expect from George C. Scott. He ranges from calm and professional, to emotional and deeply intense. In a movie involving possession he’s the closest thing the audience has to an avatar. His character is a man who knows how ridiculous the situation around him is and he rolls his eyes accordingly. But he’s also a professional who has a job to do, and damn it, he’s going to do it. Even if that means having to put up with the live carp that his mother-in-law bought that she is now letting swim around in his bathtub (Don’t ask).


You know, it’s a large bathtub and a carp’s not that big. I wonder if I can fit a whole salmon in there….?

But Scott isn’t the only standout. He may end up with most of the screen time, but you also get to enjoy the talents of Nancy Fish as the annoying nurse, Scott Wilson as the jittery doctor, Ed Flanders as Father Dyer, Jason Miller reprising his role as Father Karras, and of course Brad Dourif plays the Gemini Killer, because one of the things Dourif is good at is playing a creepy, murderous asshole. And you know what? I’ll watch him do it every time, because he’s just that good at it. Add in Barbara Baxley, Zohra Lampert, and Sherrie Wills as the snarky Kinderman clan and you have a good, but also very entertaining cast of quirky characters that actually feel like characters, instead of just your standard horror trope stand-ins.


Psst, I love Dourif, but Grandma here is my favorite.

I think my only real complaint about the movie is that it’s set up more as a crime mystery than a horror. And while that’s all fine and dandy, the problem is that, as the viewer, we kinda already know what’s going on, so the mystery aspects aren’t all that mysterious. It also doesn’t help that this is a sequel, so we already have at least some idea of what’s going to transpire before the movie even starts. Oh sure, there are still plenty of surprises, but a lot of the plot is hinted at early on, both through subtle and sometimes not so subtle methods. So unless you spend most of the film’s runtime fiddling with your phone, you’re already going to have a pretty good general idea of what’s going to happen well before it actually does.

So, to my absolute shock, I ended up really liking The Exorcist III. It’s not at all what I was expecting after seeing the first two films. But you know what, that’s okay. Because the surprise of it actually being a fun experience was much more enjoyable that way. I’m not going to say it was perfect, because it’s not. Even though it’s being completely serious, some of the scenes and characters do come off as a little hokey. And though I think Blatty did a fine job sitting in the director’s chair, especially when it came to emphasizing the limited, claustrophobic surroundings, there were a few moments where the framing and scene set-up felt a little… off. But I think those are minor qualms. Overall I thought the film was very entertaining. So if you’re into character driven horror with a touch of quirkiness, then give this one a go. But if you’re looking for something as dead-ass serious as the first Exorcist… Eh, you might not like this.

The Exorcist III is available on a variety of streaming services.

The Exorcist III is also available on DVD and Bluray.

Helpful Links: