This is so... So... Uncanny. For a number of reasons.

First off, maybe George C Scott protested his Oscar win for Patton because he could see into the future and thought he really deserved it for the scene in Exorcist III where he talks about having to look at the carp fish from his wife in his bathtub(?) One can dream.

I should note seriously that he is quite good here, being what should be the closest thing to an audience avatar (which, in this case with Blatty, means not entirely so much) as he is investigating these twisted murders by a serial killer called "Gemin" - who everyone thinks died 15 years before, when that little McNeil exorcism thing happened - just as Father Damien Karras did... Except the killer's real M.O., kept out of the press, keeps appearing with these victims, including a 12 year old and some priests. Scott manages to coney a lot of frustration and pain and anguish, at times subdued and other times not at all in that BIG Scott performance way, and he is something that, if only somewhat, can keep us tethered to some sort of reality (carp and all).

I think an issue in this film is that Blatty never got the memo from David Fincher when he said his line about people thinking there's five ways to shoot and scene, but in reality there's actually two, and one of those is wrong. And while Blatty made this before Fincher said that, the main idea applies: Blatty shoots scenes, not all the time but enough I could notice, in ways that say he either doesn't know where to put the camera just right or doesn't care or is just experimenting because he thinks the material calls for close-ups HERE when it should be a wide or medium. This also goes for the pacing at times, where a character will-in on a previous scene with a line or it's a hard CUT to something else. But this is in scenes establishing characters and the stakes in the first act for the most part, and it creates this weird feeling that Blatty may or may not have intended. It sure kept me on my toes (it's a movie to put the phone down and just WATCH),and even the direction of certain supporting players (like that one nurse that *yells* her dialog for some reason) is also off-kilter.

That's the phrase to look for here is off-kilter, which would be fine if this wasn't meant to be a sequel (of sorts, or spin-off or follow-up, whatever you want to call it) to The Exorcist, and despite the studio monkeying around with Blatty and forcing the title and franchise on him (though the book, Legion, does follow Kinderman and is in this world),Blatty is sort of defying the stark/documentary type of realism that was set up in the first story, which made it so horrifying, and since he is a true believer in this stuff (Friedkin, who wasn't, brought a different take on it),that also makes it... Odder.

Like, is the conflict that Kinderman isn't a believer and has to become one to stop this possessed killer, who happens to take on the face sometimes of Karras (Miller returning... for half of a performance, allegedly due to his drinking problem he couldn't remember all the lines to Blatty's turducken-sized monologues for Vinamen) Or is it simply a mystery with a particularly twisted horror bent that includes some gory details?

So what elevates what is a bit of a mess of a horror mystery, even before it gets to the climax - where the studio spent 4 million because they ordered that Blatty had to make it a full-blown Exorcist movie for several minutes? The scenes with Miller and Dourif in that dark mental hospital cell are masterful and remarkable, tense and even terrifying for how effectively Blatty is shooting and cutting together, the lighting and staging, what are long dialog/monologue scenes, the cracklingly good performances from these two men who tap into not just the evil but the misery and diabolical thrill of beong evil, and that for as long-winded as it might seem (particularly the second round, the first scene, where it's almost 50/50 Miller and Dourif, is aces)... It finds its footing and feels unique in that way where it can get under our skin. A good ten minutes of this is as unique and brilliant as any great horror movie ever.

There are a few other moments of creative filmmaking too, like that long sustained take showing the nurse doing her work in the hallway that leads up to a OH HELL moment, and a chase and confrontation in Kinderman's house that has energy and terror, and also that surreal (if short) sequence in the heaven waiting room, featuring the scariest jazz ever.

I cant say Exorcist III is particularly great, but watching it now almost 30 years later there's a lot to admire about it too. I even admire the warped go for broke level of horror of that finale (I do intend some day to watch Legion the director's cut). It's not the sort of movie most of us would expect from a movie called Exorcist III, but it has a closer look and tone than (certainly) Exorcist II. And if it is at times Cinema-by-Committee, then at least that wild almost amateur but creative novelist Blatty got to flex a little.

With a title like 'Excorcist 3', one doesn't hope for much. But in fact, this film is really only so titled to exploit the value attached with the name, and although it was written (and also directed) by the writer of the original film, it's actually a stand-alone movie in it's own right. And while William Blatty may be hard pushed to rival the efforts of the original's director, William Friedkin, he doesn't do too bad a job: he's a little over-reliant on abrupt cutting to achieve his shocks, and the budget for the special effects was obviously inadequate, but this is a suspenseful and chilling thriller. All supernatural movies suffer from a degree of innate silliness, and satanic movies perhaps especially so, but this film is constructed as if it was a conventional serial killer thriller, albeit an exceptionally dark and creepy one. As the signs of actual devilry begin to increase, the detective leading the case (played brilliantly by George Scott) starts to wonder if he's going mad. Only when the film is forced, near its conclusion, to represent the nightmare literally, does it inevitably become a little daft (but that charge could even be levied at 'The Excorcist' itself). I'm not generally a huge fan of horror movies, but this one is definitely above average, for its skill in modulating the tension and in restraining from excess until its final scenes. In conclusion, ignore the title, and watch.

This second sequel to the horror classic doesn't, for once, obey the law of horror sequels, in that it manages to be BETTER than the first sequel. I'm not sure why a lot of people seem to be down on this movie. Maybe because the plot is a lot different from THE EXORCIST but surely any change - or originality - can only be a good thing? It's certainly one of the most expensive-looking and well-made horror movies of the '90s that I've seen, with every scene having that big-budget and crisply realistic gloss that makes it stand out from the crowd. The photography brings to life the atmosphere of the dark sets well and this is a most technically accomplished, polished-looking film.

Although most of the action and incident is packed into the second half, this is nonetheless enthralling stuff, with sterling performances from an experienced cast keeping the viewer watching throughout. It does get confusing at times but the main thrust of the plot is easy to follow right through until the ending. One surprising thing about this film is its subtlety. For once the graphic murders are off screen, but their descriptions are enough to make you wince and make your imagination work overtime. It's definitely a case of less is more with this film, which contains some of the most horrible and sick-sounding murders ever.

There's plenty of horror here, from physical jumpy shocks (the celebrated hallway murder, in which a white-sheeted figure emerges suddenly from a closed doorway, is brilliant and could show the producers of WHAT LIES BENEATH something) to pieces of sustained tension and the subtle elements of weirdly flickering lights and whispering voices on the soundtrack. The music is suspenseful, the script intelligent for once and not underestimating the intelligence of the viewer.

George C. Scott (looking very old but still more than with it) is well-cast as the investigating policeman Kinderman; he makes his character a very human one who is moved to grief on more than one occasion yet still commands the authority and respect that a police lieutenant should. Ed Flanders is very good also in a sympathetic role as a priest, while Nancy Fish retains an air of mystery about her at all times, making her a character to watch when she's on screen (she turns out to be a red herring in the end, though). Also appearing briefly are Nicol Williamson as an exorcist and Jason Miller, who's soul is now trapped inside the body of another man (Miller puts in a frequently upsetting and startling turn). Best of all is the manic Brad Dourif as the Gemini Killer, who is in touch with the underworld. His ranting villain spends all of his screen-time in a padded cell yet, with his words and expression alone, he gives one of the most chilling performances in a long time.

The special effects are pretty good, from the "possessed" make-up to the standout, unexpected shot of an old lady crawling about on a ceiling - certainly one of the most risky effects shots I've seen, but it pays off superbly. Events climax in a mini-exorcism with lots of special effects which don't disappoint. Blessed with a strong leading man, fine supporting turns, plenty of shocks and scares, and oodles of atmosphere, THE EXORCIST III is a worthy successor to the crown in this humble reviewer's opinion.