The Exorcist III

Yes, it is

It’s worth watching, but yes, George C. Scott is terribly miscast. Lee J. Cobb was perfect in the original, and one can see how he could have made it work.

If for no other reason, Exorcist III is worth watching because it contains one of the top 10 or 20 all-time best-constructed/scariest scenes in the history of horror movies. There’s also quite a bit of top-notch acting going on, especially from Brad Dourif.

[quote]it contains one of the top 10 or 20 all-time best-constructed/scariest scenes in the history of horror movies

which scene is that?

R3, I think it’s best to watch for yourself. The fun of scenes like that is not knowing it’s the scene, if you get my drift.

I watched the rest of the movie. It’s not good. That one scene is nicely constructed and the horror highlight of the movie, although I’m not sure I’d put it in the top ten scariest scenes of all time.

Scott chews the scenery in this and that doesn’t exactly help matters. But the more I think about it, I just can’t see Cobb in this role at all!

The Jump scare.

There's also a retcon in The Exorcist III that treats Karras and Kinderman as having been close friends, a development seen in the novel that doesn't take shape in the original film. You have to accept certain conditions like this one, and another that sets the original movie in 1975 (to what end?). But above you have to go into this knowing you're in for more of a slow burn detective story than The Exorcist, and it's an effective sequel even if you feel like a good bit of footage fell on the cutting room floor. Morgan Creek didn't know how to market the film unless they connected it more explicitly to the original, and so we get a tacked-on ending, but it's not so bad (the director's cut, while faithful to the novel, just lacks the explosion the last end needs).

Scott plays up the existential anguish and bafflement of his character, and no wonder--there's so much ritualistic murder going on around him, you can see him carrying the whole movie on his shoulders sometimes, and there's some scenery chewing when he has to give voice to some of Blatty's high concept existential Catholicism. But I think his performance is wonderful regardless. His is a wilder, more weatherbeaten version of Cobb's interpretation. And I love the deeply embedded creepiness of this movie--like the original, there's a hard-to-pin-down dread and subliminal unease in the smallest details, not just in the famous big-scare but in quieter moments such as when Kinderman talks to the religious authorities who had a hand in sanctioning the "exorcism on Prospect Street." Blatty is a surprisingly clever director, a little less heavy handed than Friedkin; the actors seem more relaxed than in the 1973 picture (I don't think Blatty fired off live rounds or slapped actors in the face, as Friedkin did) and he gets hellfire and a psycho-for-the-ages turn from Brad Dourif.

There's a fan-made trailer on Reddit that I think captures the essence of some of this movie, which I think is the only worthy follow-up to the original (though I did have a soft spot for the well-crafted and little-seen Fox TV series with Geena Davis from some years back).

I was disappointed in it. I saw the recut version too.

The Exorcist is one of the best novels I have ever read and I’d like to see where Blatty took it after.

I've seen this movie and I don't recall it having any masterfully constructed scary scenes. It was OK, not as terrible as Part II but very run-of-the-mill.

Have you read Legion r7? That's the follow up book by Blatty III is supposed to be based on, though I don't know how faithful an adaptation the movie is.

It's still sitting on my bookshelf. I plan to read it but given how much the original terrified me (way scarier than the film) I'm procrastinating.

R9 No. I wish I had a copy! I love the original.

Odd fact —Blatty was friendly with Angela Lansbury and her husband. He wrote The Exorcist in her guest house.

R8, the scene is the one in the hospital hallway when the pretty blonde nurse is on duty.

I think I see where you’re coming from in that I agree with you that it’s not the masterpiece it’s often held up as being, but it is quite a good and effective scene, the best in the movie.

Overall I found it a bit cheesy. The demonic presence in this sequel just won’t shut up, and that drains a lot of the fear from it. Our greatest fear is the fear of the unknown.

I love the movie and the novel but I wish they showed the Dr. in the hospital that had that syndrome where he always saw he reflection of himself, then one day it started to talk to him. This is a real thing and one of the most disturbing things in the book.

Stupid and boring. An obvious cash grab from all involved

It has three good scenes but only that one moment that makes it worth remembering.

It needed another couple of rewrites.

It was a completely unnecessary sequel.

Watch Exorcist 2: The Heretic instead.