This movie is like "how to direct a good horror movie 101", and that it is only the second movie directed by a guy who was a novelist for most of his career makes his confidence and skill even more impressive and worthy of study. Blatty is of course a lunatic who takes all that Catholic shit super seriously, which is why this movie is so frightening. The hospital hallway scene, if you've seen it, you know the one I'm talking about, should be studied in film school. It's a S tier scare, but most of the movie just builds an unbearable sense of dread and tension just with dialogue and spooky atmosphere. So when Blatty really opens up the throttle to show you some truly insane shit like, I don't know, the crucified body of a child whose head has been replaced by a statue of Jesus Christ that's been painted in black face and had nails driven through its eyes, it hits hard.You've got God George C Scott in the lead, bringing his sense of pained resignation and barely contained rage to the fore like no one else can. A few all time Scott melt downs in this one, including one scene where he gets so angry he starts crying. To play off of, Scott gets God Brad Dourif as the Gemini Killer, in probably my all time favorite horror movie performance. No one goes to 11 quite like Dourif. He goes well past the line so many times and a less gifted actor wouldn't be able to sell it like he does.Not as good of a "classic movie" as the original, but this is a better all around horror movie in my opinion.
Revisited this with Kate last night. I gotta say, I've always dug this movie. It has some absolutely fantastic ideas, a great central performance from George C. Scott, and some gorgeously executed set pieces (that nurse in the hallway sequence remains one of the greatest of all time). The conversation sequences between Kinderman and the Gemini are exquisitely written and performed. I think I can feel the studio interference kick in for the last act - I haven't seen the director's cut, but will remedy that soon. Overall, I think this movie is a worthy sequel to Friedkin's classic, and deserves more appreciation than it typically receives.
100The man in cell 11. First re-watch in ten years or so. I first caught it after I fell in love with William Friedkin's 1973 classic, and I just don't think my 13 year old mind could handle such a cold, clinical departure from the ambiguous ruminations of faith that the original film offered. Whereas The Exorcist explored the fruitlessness of institutions when dealing with demonic possessions and the mysteries of faith, The Exorcist III argues that, with or without demons, the structures of the institutions around us are perpetually on the verge of collapse. George C. Scott's performance is molded out of frustration, often crumbling into fits of rage and tears as he thrashes against a seemingly unstoppable force. Brad Dourif is similarly at max volume, but with a clarity and patience that is truly horrifying. Not to mention William Peter Blatty's novelistic dialogue, which is as sharp as glass and compliments his direction - an exercise in horrifying restraint. Much like his performers - when he snaps, look out. There are scenes in The Exorcist III, even with the studio mandated changes, that render it as scary as any film ever made. A procedural that is hopelessly bleak - hospital hallways as caverns of death and padded cells as philosophical confrontation.
