The Exorcist is probably one of the most famous movies of all time even beyond the often niche genre of horror. It was one of the first movies with such extreme content to get widespread attention as well as critical acclaim and award notice. 50 years later, anyone trying to make any kind of exorcism movie will still echo this film simply by how it was one of the first and how it did it so well. Even today, with films that are far more openly explicit and violent, The Exorcist is still extremely effective and creepy even if the title of “the scariest movie ever” could be debated over. However, with such an iconic film, comes Hollywood’s urge to franchise it. Even if most horror films do end up pumping a lot of sequels out ad nauseam, there’s an underlying feeling that the impact and importance of The Exorcist would make follow-ups feel less organic and more tacky and desperate.
And unfortunately, the sequel lineage to the film proved that sentiment true. Exorcist 2: The Heretic was made without the involvement of any of the creatives of the first and was directed by John Boorman, who didn’t like the story of the first. It faced script problems and ended up being deemed one of the worst films of all time upon release. There were two prequel films in the 2000s that were actually one film, directed by Paul Schrader, that the studio considered so uncommercial that they hired a new director and started from scratch. Even when they allowed the original version to be released as a separate film, both ended up as critical and financial failures. Most recently, David Gordon Green and his writing team from the recent Halloween sequel trilogy released The Exorcist: Believer which follows many recent legacy horror sequels by being a direct one to the first. It has gotten slammed by critics and despite two sequels being planned, the future creative direction has been called into question with Green expressing doubts about returning.
With all of these films in mind, however, I wanted to bring attention to The Exorcist III. The oddest film in the series, and yet the best sequel by a country mile. Not because all of the others are much worse films, but because III is genuinely a great horror film and an interesting companion piece to the first in its execution.
The film focuses on Lieutenant Kinderman played here by George C. Scott. He was a supporting character in the first film played by Lee J. Cobb, but now is the main focus. He is investigating a string of murders that mirror those committed by a dead serial killer named the Gemini Killer. When Father Joseph Dyer, his close friend and another character from the first movie, falls victim to the killings, Kinderman discovers something shocking. The spirit of the Gemini Killer was put into the corpse of Father Damien Karras by the demon that took over his body before his death and has been causing the killings as revenge for being forced out of Regan MacNeil. Kinderman now has to find a way to stop the killer before more innocents and those he loves are put in harm’s way while also coming to terms with his pessimistic worldview regarding humanity and spirituality.
It was directed by William Peter Blatty, the original author of the book that the first film was based on, and won an Oscar for writing the screenplay of the adaptation. This was the second and last film he ever directed, his other film being the obscure drama The Ninth Configuration. Unlike the other Exorcist sequels, this film was actually based on pre-existing material from Blatty’s sequel to his original book, Legion. Not only does this make for a film that is much closer to the original vision of the author, but it also brings an entirely different style and approach to its tone and story.
Being a novelist first, Blatty has a more subdued approach with his directing. Most of the camera work is static with a lot of establishing shots and uses staging to focus more on dialogue and the environment. Conversations are framed in a very simple manner and a lot of negative space is used with many looking like they would be in a stage play. However, not only does this play into the atmosphere and slow build of the film, but creates a sense of unease. We see very little violence, but the way it’s described can make someone just as uncomfortable as if they did. The focus on dialogue also helps drive the character and relationships in the film. Since the film is centralized on the characters’ personalities and relationships, we relate far more to their emotions and feel as confused and unnerved as they do in the situation.
As a sequel, while this movie directly continues many elements from the original Exorcist, it tries as hard as it can to avoid repeating elements that the first film made iconic. Many sequels tend to fall into the trap of trying to recycle aspects from previous installments and since other Exorcist sequels have done this, it’s a breath of fresh air to find that this film takes a deliberately different direction. Even when the film starts with the iconic theme of the series, Tubular Bells, it is extremely brief and is immediately replaced by a droning score, almost saying in its own way that it is moving on from the original film right from the start. This also applies to the horror. As mentioned before, rather than explicit violence or visceral scares driven by supernatural chaos, the horror of the film is based on silence, isolation, and empty space. Some may find this a bit too slow and not as interesting, but I find that more subtle scares can be as effective as showing everything on screen. This includes what many consider the greatest jumpscare in film history where the drawn-out build-up plays into the impact of the scare in a way that feels well-constructed rather than cheap. While the first film did have a substantial buildup to the possession and demon with a focus on conversations, III doubles down in that angle to the point that it feels more like a procedural mystery for the first half and we don’t even know there is a demon until an hour or so in. It also contributes to a more subdued, almost bitter tone. Many characters have a negative outlook or perception either in a given situation or in general. It makes the proceedings more ominous through how the characters react and interact and lets the audience understand why Kinderman has a pessimistic perception of faith and the world that he has and wants him to overcome the situation he is in.
The performances also are all great. Scott is one of the great actors of his generation and while he is a bit more subdued here, he commands a great presence and serves well as the audience’s POV as the situation spirals into the supernatural. However, the star of the show here is Karas who is played physically by his original actor, Jason Miller, but is dubbed over by Brad Dourff to signify his possession by the Gemini Killer. The performance and dialogue really make the killer a striking and terrifying figure. He mostly just speaks, but he imposes his presence throughout any scene he is in. The fact that he is scary without doing much in terms of on-screen violence or action, but rather describing his killings and having very blunt motives of chaos, creates a memorable character whose words alone sell the menace and terror far better than most other horror villains. Even the smaller performances do a good job whether it’s the patients at the hospital Kinderman is investigating or other authority figures he converses which contribute both to the grim proceedings and uneasy environment the film exudes.
However, even with Blatty’s directorial involvement, the film did run into hurdles with the studio. He was asked to reshoot elements and forced to use the Exorcist name on the title which Blatty felt would be detrimental after the failure of the second film. The reshoots mostly affected the ending since the studio wanted Blatty to add an exorcism to the film since there wasn’t one originally. While it is a bit jarring in the film as is in terms of abrupt setup, the current sequence honestly works much better than the original since that one was much more anti-climactic. The present scene is a much more effective way to end the slow burn of the film by exploding into chaos and creepy imagery. The monologue by Kinderman in the scene also gives more closure to his arc through his coming to terms with his worldview of the ugliness of the world and overcoming it. While studio interference is commonly a negative attribute that tends to weigh down the artists’ vision, this is one of the few notable examples where the changes improved the film, at least in my opinion. Even with the changes, Blatty was still proud of the final film and that matters a lot since he had clashed with director William Friedkin during the making of the first and disagreed with some of the changes he made.
There is a part of me that doesn’t know if you would enjoy this film if you gave it a watch. It is very slow and deliberate. I feel that you need to buy into it fully to appreciate what it is going for. I can imagine someone expecting something more elaborate and coming out bored or disappointed. I get it though. Not every film will appeal to everyone. Heck, I watched 2001: A Space Odyssey and while I appreciated aspects of it and its impact on film and science fiction, I really couldn’t get into most of it. But personal tastes are personal and that is something that is valid as long as people approach their viewpoints in a reasonable way.
I will leave this discussion with this addendum. Horror sequels can be a coin flip. Some can be genuinely great and match the original while others feel cheap and uninspired. The Exorcist III is an example of making a great sequel by forging its own identity. While this approach doesn’t guarantee success, Exorcist II also took a different approach and failed miserably, it indicates that going back to older stories means you need to put effort into showing why it was worth doing so in the first place. These days, a lot of sequels and franchises feel more obligatory and have far less to say. Some, like The Exorcist: Believer, are mostly deflated greatest hits medley that really feels like they were made simply because an executive wanted to put something out there with a recognizable brand name. Even then, I do feel that sequels aren’t inherently a bad idea, even for films that probably don’t need one. It’s simply a matter of finding the right approach and executing it in a meaningful way. What makes The Exorcist III work so well is its commitment to its approach. The performances, dialogue, and direction all make the film distinctive and effective. More and more people have recognized the merits of the film and even lobbied for a director cut which was granted in 2016; though only to a partial extent since not all of the original footage was available. Overall, I do recommend you give this one a watch if you are interested. It’s something unique and special in a sea of repetitive sequels both in its own franchise and in horror in general.
