The Exorcist: The Complete Anthology (1973-2005)

[Dylan34]

Originally Posted by Webmaster1990

This site had me believe Dominion was the "better" of the prequels. I found "The Beginning" more tolerable. Maybe it had something to do with the video quality. Just my two cents.
P.S I did see "The Beginning" first, then Dominion maybe that had something to do with my preference.

I found certain aspects of each movie better than the other. Dominion has too much of a processed image yes but, I've see worse PQ in other films.

[Filmmaker]

Originally Posted by Webmaster1990

This site had me believe Dominion was the "better" of the prequels. I found "The Beginning" more tolerable. Maybe it had something to do with the video quality. Just my two cents.
P.S I did see "The Beginning" first, then Dominion maybe that had something to do with my preference.

You're not alone. DOMINION tries to pass itself off as more intellectually rich, studious and concerned with asking "big questions", but I found it all hopelessly pretentious, with a depiction of Pazuzu that seemed as far removed as how the demon is portrayed in the original film as I could imagine. It felt like a horror film by way of someone who writes college textbooks for a living. Yes, THE BEGINNING is essentially a dumber film, but it feels like a more organic entry in the series.

[UFAlien]

Originally Posted by Goremeister100

FULL CIRCLE (Aka: THE HAUNTING OF JULIA) is also worth watching if you enjoyed THE CHANGELING. Great film.

Also loved the ending to Full Circle, generally very good film, but couldn't get over one really big plot hole (which, as Google explained, was actually filled in the original book).

[Webmaster1990]

Originally Posted by Filmmaker

You're not alone. DOMINION tries to pass itself off as more intellectually rich, studious and concerned with asking "big questions", but I found it all hopelessly pretentious, with a depiction of Pazuzu that seemed as far removed as how the demon is portrayed in the original film as I could imagine. It felt like a horror film by way of someone who writes college textbooks for a living. Yes, THE BEGINNING is essentially a dumber film, but it feels like a more organic entry in the series.

Exactly. Similar demonic possession (attractive female being possessed), thus more familiar and enjoyable.

[Morsoth]

Not related to the Blu-ray set, but I just found out that they are planning a TV series set between Exorcist: The Beginning and The Exorcist, called: The Exorcist Chronicles (2015) - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3684046/

I'm very interested by that, since I actually quite liked The Beginning (I'm not a fan of Dominion...)

[hatter76]

Originally Posted by Morsoth

Not related to the Blu-ray set, but I just found out that they are planning a TV series set between Exorcist: The Beginning and The Exorcist, called: The Exorcist Chronicles (2015) - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3684046/

I'm very interested by that, since I actually quite liked The Beginning (I'm not a fan of Dominion...)

you should take a better look at that info

[TwelveVacancies]

Originally Posted by Morsoth

Not related to the Blu-ray set, but I just found out that they are planning a TV series set between Exorcist: The Beginning and The Exorcist, called: The Exorcist Chronicles (2015) - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3684046/

I'm very interested by that, since I actually quite liked The Beginning (I'm not a fan of Dominion...)

That's an unofficial web series.

I doubt we will be getting any TV show unless Blatty is involved or they don't use any of his characters. And I somehow doubt a series following Father Lamont would really take off.

Originally Posted by Filmmaker

You're not alone. DOMINION tries to pass itself off as more intellectually rich, studious and concerned with asking "big questions", but I found it all hopelessly pretentious, with a depiction of Pazuzu that seemed as far removed as how the demon is portrayed in the original film as I could imagine. It felt like a horror film by way of someone who writes college textbooks for a living. Yes, THE BEGINNING is essentially a dumber film, but it feels like a more organic entry in the series.

The portrayal of the demon in Dominion made far more sense to me than in The Beginning.

Pazuzu was a nasty piece of work in the original film but had no reason act that way in the prequels since the it had a completely different agenda. It was the demon's first meeting with Merrin and it wanted to lead him into temptation. It wasn't pissed off and seeking revenge like in the original.

Dominion actually explored this by having the demon front up as the almighty Lucifer and psychologically attack Merrin in order to try and get want it wanted (as Merrin says in the original "the demon is a liar and will mix lies with the truth to attack us, and the attack is psychological"). In The Beginning all it did was scream obscenities at him. What's the point, other than to mimic the original film? Sarah's possession makes everything leading up to it completely redundant.

There was also no reason for them to use similar possession make-up for Sarah since Regan had actually inflected those wounds on herself and they became infected over time. Sarah just suddenly appeared that way. It would have been far more effective if they had just used similar contacts and then given her a more sickly appearance like Karras had (in both the original and 3).

Everything in The Beginning just feels so forced to me. All the references to the original film made little sense or had no relevance to the story.

[bigshot]

Oh man! I Netflixed Exorcist III yesterday and watched it to see if I should get the blu-ray set. That is just about the worst direction in a big budget movie I've ever seen. Brad Dourf is excellent as he always is, and George C. Scott is OK (not his best performance by any stretch though). But just about everyone else in the film acted like they were in a third grade play. That nurse and doctor were HORRIBLE. Were they supposed to be comic relief or something? The script was jam packed with references and exposition in dialogue. Every character spoke in the same sort of voice. The whole first half of the movie was like one monologue after another. It was like it was written by a first year film student.

The direction was completely devoid of style. The original Exorcist had very sophisticated sound effects. This one just had some sort of low frequency fart whenever something scary happened. The visuals were a joke... that dream sequence in the Heaven waiting room made Exoricist 2's dream sequences look like Citizen Kane. A CAMEO OF FABIO AS AN ANGEL?!?! Good lord that was a bad movie. They must have spent their entire budget on G. C. Scott and then had to shoot the whole film in one take to make up the difference. The quintessential cash in movie.

[tommynorcal]

tl;dr

[slimdude]

Originally Posted by bigshot

The direction was completely devoid of style. The original Exorcist had very sophisticated sound effects. This one just had some sort of low frequency fart whenever something scary happened. The visuals were a joke... that dream sequence in the Heaven waiting room made Exoricist 2's dream sequences look like Citizen Kane. A CAMEO OF FABIO AS AN ANGEL?!?! Good lord that was a bad movie. They must have spent their entire budget on G. C. Scott and then had to shoot the whole film in one take to make up the difference. The quintessential cash in movie.

Were you only concentrating primarily on the cinematography, the cast, special effects and sound, while neglecting to focus on the storyline itself? And if so, you've missed the entire concept of the movie!

[Dylan34]

Originally Posted by slimdude

Were you only concentrating primarily on the cinematography, the cast, special effects and sound, while neglecting to focus on the storyline itself? And if so, you've missed the entire concept of the movie!

The Exorcist 3 is by far the best film of the franchise after the original. I don't understand the dislike for it, especially when comparing it to the Exorcist 2. Now, you have to have an aquired taste for that film to get into it. E3 has a great story I think.

[bigshot]

The reason that I don't like 3 is because of the direction. The Exorcist was a VERY stylish movie with wonderful cinematic touches. Exorcist 2 was blown up like a big red balloon, but at least Boorman made it unique and entertaining, even if it was goofy and not very scary.

Exorcist 3 is directed like a TV movie with lots of personal references to movies and books the writer must have been reading at the time. The dialogue is all concocted and reeks of "writer speak" where every character talks the same... in the voice of the screenwriter- particularly the scenes between the cop and the priest. The performances of the nurse and doctor were astoundingly amateurish. I find it hard to believe that anyone allowed that scene where the doctor tries to give the cop a bum steer with a rehearsed spiel to go on the screen. It's the worst acting I've ever seen. Even Scott seems taken aback by it. George C. Scott's family were barely in the movie. (something had to have been cut there.) And the computer animated cheek pooches wiggling like jello at the end were laughable, as was grinning granny skittering around on the ceiling... and that boneheaded heaven dream with Fabio! Wow! A reference to his "I can't believe it's not butter" commercial where he wears angel wings and no shirt. Whose idea was THAT?!

The only really well done sequence in the film is the talk between Brad Dourf and George C. Scott. And that was because the camera just focused close on two really good actors and let them take over the reins. I might try the most recent one, but I'm kind of getting the feeling that the Exorcist franchise turned South really fast right after the first movie.

[bigshot]

Originally Posted by slimdude

Were you only concentrating primarily on the cinematography, the cast, special effects and sound, while neglecting to focus on the storyline itself?

In movies, stories are generally told with acting, cinematography, visuals and sound. If a movie doesn't have that, it might as well be a book.

[tommynorcal]

Exorcist 3 is based on the novel Legion by Blatty and wasn't supposed to be a direct Exorcist sequel. I'm sure you thought the ninth configuration was a "TV movie" too seeing as they share a lot of style.

[WJWS Channel 13:Amity]

Originally Posted by Webmaster1990

This site had me believe Dominion was the "better" of the prequels. I found "The Beginning" more tolerable. Maybe it had something to do with the video quality. Just my two cents.
P.S I did see "The Beginning" first, then Dominion maybe that had something to do with my preference.

Great thing about movies, is everyone can take away a different experience

[Dylan34]

Originally Posted by bigshot

The reason that I don't like 3 is because of the direction. The Exorcist was a VERY stylish movie with wonderful cinematic touches. Exorcist 2 was blown up like a big red balloon, but at least Boorman made it unique and entertaining, even if it was goofy and not very scary.

Exorcist 3 is directed like a TV movie with lots of personal references to movies and books the writer must have been reading at the time. The dialogue is all concocted and reeks of "writer speak" where every character talks the same... in the voice of the screenwriter- particularly the scenes between the cop and the priest. The performances of the nurse and doctor were astoundingly amateurish. I find it hard to believe that anyone allowed that scene where the doctor tries to give the cop a bum steer with a rehearsed spiel to go on the screen. It's the worst acting I've ever seen. Even Scott seems taken aback by it. George C. Scott's family were barely in the movie. (something had to have been cut there.) And the computer animated cheek pooches wiggling like jello at the end were laughable, as was grinning granny skittering around on the ceiling... and that boneheaded heaven dream with Fabio! Wow! A reference to his "I can't believe it's not butter" commercial where he wears angel wings and no shirt. Whose idea was THAT?!

The only really well done sequence in the film is the talk between Brad Dourf and George C. Scott. And that was because the camera just focused close on two really good actors and let them take over the reins. I might try the most recent one, but I'm kind of getting the feeling that the Exorcist franchise turned South really fast right after the first movie.

Jason Miller did a damn fine job too!!!!

[Bumblefeet]

Exorcist III is my favorite out of the Exorcist movies, even though it can't match the artistry of the first one, and arguably everybody who worked on the first Exorcist could not either in any of their later careers. The Exorcist is a unicum in filmmaking, the sequels wouldn't exist if it weren't for its status and box office success. That said, Exorcist III -despite the last minute added exorcism-, was such a fresh take on those characters and locations and does feature some wonderful dialogue and directing; Yes, Blatty crams as much references, jokes and theatricality in the dialogue and performances, but somehow it works. In the 90s you had off the cuff dialogue and zingers, and you had to pay attention to it as it was exposition heavy. I don't mind this.

As a matter of fact I found Exorcist III a welcome deviation from the otherwise dull horror genre which at that point in time had become the slasher of the week with dumb, sex craving teenager victims who stumbled over their speech. To see a movie that featured mainly seasoned actors, great writing and atmosphere, I ate it all up! Also the mystery, to have a villain who is

[Show spoiler]basically already caught and in shackles

, still be as menacing and dangerous as both Dourif and Miller act out, was magnificent. Also, the adult relationship between Scott and Flanders (the priest), is so heartfelt that what follows gets me every time. Contrary to those dumb teenagers getting slashed up, these are characters I cared for while watching them undergo the horror.

Even the dream sequence, which some may find silly and contrived, is filled with premonitions and symbolism while at the same time reflecting Blatty's hilarious take on the afterlife, I think that sequence feels closest to Ninth Configuration.

If you really didn't take anything away from this movie, I wont recommend you to read the book as it's more in that same style as the dialogue and writing, however there is a neat side story that doesn't get touched upon in the movie. Blatty really had to trim his book for the movie and then reshoot the movie to add the exorcism and fireworks at the end. Sadly his original version is lost but it's all there in the book as well as the screenplay that got published. This movie does touch upon the quest for an explanation for pain and suffering, the senseless act of killing, and the sadistic nature of deriving pleasure from it, and taking pride in it (that whole Dourif monologue ending in a punch).

I wouldn't go as far as calling Exorcist III intelligent horror, perhaps in its original cut that might have held up, but ever since I've seen it, there hasn't been any horror movie that made me feel like I experienced something as thought provoking, and maybe in that regard it does match "The Exorcist".

P.S. Aside from FABIO, there were also cameos by Larry King, Patrick Ewing and Samuel L. Jackson.

[bigshot]

Any supernatural horror film would be a welcome change from 80s slasher movies, but I'm glad that horror movies have gotten back to visual storytelling again! Modern horror movies are a lot more sophisticated than Exorcist 3.

Question... you mention a reshoot. Did a previous version bomb with preview audiences and they reworked it? Because that would explain all the expositional dialogue shoehorned in and the scenes in the looney bin that don't match the tone of the rest of the movie at all. Who directed this? What other films has he done?

I kind of suspect that the people who really like it read the book. I didn't. I'm judging it purely as a movie.

If I end up in heaven and I see this, I'm gonna look up Kokumu and see if he can lead me to Pazuzu instead!

[Dylan34]

Originally Posted by Bumblefeet

Exorcist III is my favorite out of the Exorcist movies, even though it can't match the artistry of the first one, and arguably everybody who worked on the first Exorcist could not either in any of their later careers. The Exorcist is a unicum in filmmaking, the sequels wouldn't exist if it weren't for its status and box office success. That said, Exorcist III -despite the last minute added exorcism-, was such a fresh take on those characters and locations and does feature some wonderful dialogue and directing; Yes, Blatty crams as much references, jokes and theatricality in the dialogue and performances, but somehow it works. In the 90s you had off the cuff dialogue and zingers, and you had to pay attention to it as it was exposition heavy. I don't mind this.

As a matter of fact I found Exorcist III a welcome deviation from the otherwise dull horror genre which at that point in time had become the slasher of the week with dumb, sex craving teenager victims who stumbled over their speech. To see a movie that featured mainly seasoned actors, great writing and atmosphere, I ate it all up! Also the mystery, to have a villain who is

[Show spoiler]basically already caught and in shackles

, still be as menacing and dangerous as both Dourif and Miller act out, was magnificent. Also, the adult relationship between Scott and Flanders (the priest), is so heartfelt that what follows gets me every time. Contrary to those dumb teenagers getting slashed up, these are characters I cared for while watching them undergo the horror.

Even the dream sequence, which some may find silly and contrived, is filled with premonitions and symbolism while at the same time reflecting Blatty's hilarious take on the afterlife, I think that sequence feels closest to Ninth Configuration.

If you really didn't take anything away from this movie, I wont recommend you to read the book as it's more in that same style as the dialogue and writing, however there is a neat side story that doesn't get touched upon in the movie. Blatty really had to trim his book for the movie and then reshoot the movie to add the exorcism and fireworks at the end. Sadly his original version is lost but it's all there in the book as well as the screenplay that got published. This movie does touch upon the quest for an explanation for pain and suffering, the senseless act of killing, and the sadistic nature of deriving pleasure from it, and taking pride in it (that whole Dourif monologue ending in a punch).

I wouldn't go as far as calling Exorcist III intelligent horror, perhaps in its original cut that might have held up, but ever since I've seen it, there hasn't been any horror movie that made me feel like I experienced something as thought provoking, and maybe in that regard it does match "The Exorcist".

P.S. Aside from FABIO, there were also cameos by Larry King, Patrick Ewing and Samuel L. Jackson.

Brilliantly said. Nice job!

[SymbioticFunction]

Originally Posted by bigshot

Exorcist 3 is directed like a TV movie...

Really? Personally I find the photography of both Ninth Configuration and Legion to be well above par and impressively cinematic. Don't have an issue with the acting either.