Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
30 of 32 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
The TRUE sequel to the orginal Exorcist!, June 4, 2002
From the eerie opening dream sequence, I was drawn into this film by William Peter Blatty's great screenplay (based on his book, Legion) and confident directing. He deftly blends elements of mystery and horror together to create an atmosphere of evil that is both subtle at times and shocking at others. And just as William Friedkin did in the orginal Exorcist, the employment of auditory stimuli are used in a way that get under your skin and stay there. The plot revolves around Detective Bill Kinderman--played this time by the great George C. Scott--trying to solve a series of gruesome murders that seem to somehow be related to the exorcism of Regan MacNeil 17 years ago. The story is allowed to develop at a relaxed pace, and will keep you guessing as to what's happening and why. But as it continues to unfold, Kinderman's faith in God, which he admits that he doesn't have much of, and his own sanity are tested by an ungodly force that he can't begin to comprehend. Blatty takes all the things we believe in and comfort us--faith in God, religious symbols, and Good over Evil--and tries to eradicate them right in front of our eyes and make us question our own comfortable reality. Overall, there are many scenes that will bring you right out of your seat because they are so damn scary. The few parts with Kinderman interrogating the Gemini killer (Brad Dourif) are also very intense, and are a rare glimpse into the mind of a sick killer. One problem I had with the film is that the ending seemed a little too predictable and rushed, but in conclusion does not detract from the overall strength of the film that much. If you appreciate intelligent horror films (yes, there are some of them around), you should see this well-made film.
|
|
|
22 of 24 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Easily the scariest movie of the 1990's, July 13, 2001
Exorcist 3 is a sequel to the first exorcist in terms of story line and characters. But you can't compare the two as the two movies are not the same. Exorcist 3 is more like a serial killer movie and it is a very good one. Too bad this movie was a flop during its theatrical run so it never achieved the same popularity as the first Exorcist. But it is a very creepy and scary movie and suprisingly there is no gore portrayed in the movie. Check out chapter 22, I think that has the greatest jump in horror movie. The scene I am talking about only last a couple seconds but I guarantee that if you think of Exorcist 3 you will remember that particular scene. The late George C Scott gave superb performance as Detective Bill Kenderman who is puzzled as a serial killer that was executed in the electric chair 15 years ago appear to strike again. Look for cameo by Patrick Ewing and Fabio in a dream sequence. I would have given this 5 stars if only Warner has released this DVD with some extra features. This DVD has none except one theatrical trailer which I think shouldn't be considered as an extra feature. Warner has released the first Exorcist 3 times on DVD. I do hope they rerelease this with extra features. Meanwhile for [price] list price DVD this is an absolute must for horror fans.
|
|
|
21 of 23 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
A brilliant, truly intelligent thriller, December 2, 1999
Nine years after its release, "Exorcist 3" remains one of the most unfairly maligned films ever made. After the disastrous "Exorcist 2: The Heretic" (which involved neither "Exorcist" director William Friedkin nor writer William Peter Blatty), Blatty created a true sequel to the original masterpiece. Brilliant, thoughtful, and character-driven, "Exorcist 3" will disappoint only those who do not have the patience to listen to beautifully-crafted dialogue and allow the film to steadily weave its web. Why did the film perform poorly at the box office? In our modern canon of horror films, we've grown accustomed to horror sequels avoiding all rational reason for existing (character development, unanswered questions, etc.) and instead being conceived from the beginning as tired re-treads designed only to make money. There's even a camp value here, and many horror sequels are considered sussesses for this: more of the same; strong opening weekend; end of story. "Exorcist 3" avoids these traps, and was ultimately punished for it. First of all, the film's original title -- "Legion" -- is the proper introduction to the film's themes. Unfortunately, the choice was made that since the more intriguing and appropriate "Legion" didn't have immediate title-recognition and probably wouldn't effectively draw audiences, the more recognizable "Exorcist 3" was chosen...against Blatty's wishes, and in spite of the fact that "Exorcist 3" wisely ignores the very existence of "The Heretic" and begins where the original ended. (One does have to wonder why the producers didn't compromise with a title like "The Exorcist: Legion.") Structurally, "Exorcist 3" also attacks our senses in a much subtler (but equally unnerving) way than seen in the furious conclusion to "The Exorcist." Don't get me wrong -- "The Exorcist" is one of my favorite films, and embodies flawless film-making from beginning to end. The fact that "Exorcist 3" is much quieter and more character-driven, however, meant that many members of the original's core audience didn't know what to make of it; in addition, the plot of "Exorcist 3" requires a working knowledge of the events surrounding the original, meaning that younger viewers who hadn't even seen the original were doomed to be lost in the film's complex plot. Again, all of this is a shame. "Exorcist 3" is not only one of the smartest horror films ever made, its considerations of the nature of faith (and the imagery which surrounds these questions) make it one of the most thoughtful. Blatty has always dealt with issues of faith in his writing, and the meditations on the subject in "Exorcist 3" are among the most profound I've seen in film. Consider the question asked of Lt. Kinderman (George C. Scott) in the film's conclusion: "Have I helped your unbelief?" In the power of the moment, we expect a certain response from Kinderman. We hear a quite different one, however, and we're momentarily puzzled -- until we consider the deeper issues of faith behind the monologue and the spiritual journey Kinderman has been on. The response then makes perfect sense, and the film would work no other way. This is great writing, given even more power by Scott's performance. Because this is a thriller, the film's thrills need to be addressed. As I said, the film is much more quietly intense than the original -- but I challenge you not to leap from your chair during the payoff of the hospital hallway scene (one shot with no edits...just slowly, steadily building tension). The craftsmanship of this scene is a wonder to behold, and has deservedly received comparisons to the scene-structure of Hitchcock.Regardless of all that I've said, I can acknowledge that the film won't be for everyone. Things don't jump out at the audience every five minutes (with the requisite music stinger to make absolutely sure we jump), and I understand that many look for that and that alone. But "Exorcist 3" is so much more, and represents the work of people who cared about where their story was headed...and why. It is a genuine classic.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
DVD ~ Richard Burton
DVD ~ Stellan Skarsgård
DVD ~ Stellan Skarsgård
DVD ~ Ellen Burstyn
DVD ~ Gregory Peck
on 
