The Exorcist III: The Horror of Studio Notes
Last weekend, my wife came downstairs and was alarmed to find me in my big serial killer glasses watching The Exorcist III at 9:30am. Apparently, the film was a favorite of Jeffrey Dahmer, a real life detail that made its way into the new Netflix series. I can see why he liked it. It’s about a brutal psychopath who, with the help of demons (or the devil himself), is resurrected post-execution and able to possess the bodies of others to continue committing his murders.
Why was I watching this on a Saturday morning? Well, I’ve always heard good things! The Exorcist is, of course, a classic. I’ve never seen Part II, but, by most accounts, it’s terrible. I skipped over Part III in all my youthful movie-going. Instead, I opted to embrace Exorcist: The Beginning, which had studio drama far more extreme than Part III. I won’t get into it here, but the film was panned. Why did I like it? I can’t honestly remember, but I liked a lot of stupid stuff back then. Despite that critical/box-office failure, the franchise endured. There was a series on Fox a few years ago that I never watched and now there’s a new trilogy in the works from David Gordon Green. Apparently, the new film(s) will attempt to give the Exorcist the ol’ Halloween treatment (Green is responsible for that revival as well), ignoring sequels and other canon to serve as sequels to the original.
This is all to say that there’s probably more Exorcist stuff than you remember — and maybe more coming than you were asking for. So, I can see why Part III sometimes gets ignored. It shouldn’t be though. Jeffrey Dahmer was right! It’s good. Maybe not so good you should force unsuspecting houseguests (victims) to sit through it, but it’s got a lot going for it. Maybe the Dahmer series and the forthcoming Exorcist films will give it some well-deserved attention (even while the latter relegates it to some alternate movie timeline).
My title for this entry is kind of a joke, but this is definitely one where the studio gets accused of unnecessary meddling, especially by director William Peter Blatty. It’s hard not to see it, but it really doesn’t sink the film too much. I guess the original cut of the film didn’t include an actual exorcism and a studio exec’s assistant thought that was strange (they did have a point there), so they shoehorned in a few awkward scenes and a completely new character (an exorcist) and re-shot the ending with more devilish pizazz. As I said, it’s not bad, but I can see why Brad Dourif (who is excellent here as the Gemini Killer) called the original version “purer”. Without all that stuff, it’s a perfectly unsettling and well-made horror film.
To me, George C. Scott almost seems out of place as our lead, but his strange humor and awkward performance end up working really well here. I guess I should address the film still I chose as well. Fabio appears briefly in a dream sequence, along with legendary New York Knick Patrick Ewing, who is credited as the “Angel of Death”. That might seem like a cause for laughter, but I love that scene. It is a little funny, yes, but it’s also quite sad, and it helps situate the audience in this weird and otherworldly space our protagonist is crossing into. Another awkward and risky choice that pays off!
Is it scary? Yes. Some say it’s scarier than the original. This isn’t an objective thing, so maybe that’s true for some. Personally, I find the first film a lot more disturbing than Part III, but there are some great twists, a creepy villain, and some people crawling around on the ceiling. Definitely give it a watch if you have time, but I’d recommend watching the original first as there are some direct connections that I didn’t pick up on right away.
Is it streaming? Yes. It’s on a whole mess of services currently like Peacock, Amazon Prime (with ads), Tubi, and Crackle.
