Sequels can be a dicey proposition. The mentality with most sequels is “the same, but bigger”—build upon what made the original film successful and lovable, but with more of it. That formula seems to work in terms of generating cash, but tends to leave audiences leaving with the sensation that what they saw was “good, but not as good as the original.”
The Exorcist III (1990), which ignores the events of the (so I have heard) disastrous Exorcist II: The Heretic (1977), is certainly “not as good as the original,” but it is still very good. It’s a film that takes a few viewings to drink everything in, but it’s worth the effort. Indeed, I’d argue it is an underappreciated masterpiece.
The Exorcist III follows fifteen years after the events of the first film. People are turning up dead in gruesome ways: their heads cut off and their bodies entirely drained of blood, matching the modus operandi of the Gemini Killer, who was executed fifteen years earlier. Police Lieutenant William F. Kinderman (played by George C. Scott in a truly standout performance), a burnt-out and overworked, yet dedicated, detective takes on the case, and immediately notices the similarities to the Gemini Killer’s M.O.
Scott’s performance is the star of the show. We see a man who is clearly suffering from a nervous breakdown as he doggedly pursues this new (or, perhaps, old?) serial killer. He is irate and humorous, lambasting his subordinates for their slow-wittedness and annoying questions. He frequently bursts into uncontrollable bouts of frustrated anger. Scott delivers such a convincing performance, I get anxious every time I watch this movie. Lieutenant Kinderman is the embodiment of the expression “no rest for the weary.”
Naturally, supernatural forces are at play. The same night as the Gemini’s execution, Father Damien Karras took on the demon Pazuzu in a brutal exorcism; the demon left Regan MacNeil’s body, possessed Karras, and Karras leapt from Regan’s window, falling down a devilishly steep flight of stairs (as seen at the end of The Exorcist). Could the Gemini’s damned soul have found purchase in the demon-possessed remains of Damien Karras?
Well, yes. And for fifteen long years the Gemini, with the help of “The Master” (Pazuzu), has slowly rebuilt Karras’s battered brain and body, until both were recovered to a point where the Gemini could exercise control on catatonics to carry out The Master’s bidding.
That might seem rather straightforward, but the film leaves a trail of messy breadcrumbs to get us to that point. As the audience, we know there is a demon out there, because (presumably) we’ve seen the first film. It is pretty obvious that the Gemini is back in some supernatural form. But imagine being Lieutenant Kinderman and having to explain to others, “The soul of the Gemini Killer possessed the body of a deceased priest and has a demon helping him commit murders via catatonia patients.” It would be Kinderman in the looney bin.
The cinematography of this film is incredible, too, with some painterly scenes and crazy closeups. One memorable scene early in the film depicts one of Kinderman’s dreams. There are angels (I think one is played by Fabio) and lots of dead people hanging out in what looks like the atrium of a train station). A big band of angels plays swing music, and two grotesque old ladies play piano. It’s just straight-up weird, in the way that unsettling dreams are.
The film itself is like an unsettling dream—or nightmare. As Kinderman pushes against the Gemini, his family becomes a target (“you have issued a clear invitation to the dance,” as the Gemini chillingly tells Kinderman). Kinderman’s deteriorating mental and physical health add to the drama, as we see a man rushing against time and Hell itself to defeat evil—and to give Damien Karras relief.

You write one hell of a review (pun possibly intended).
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks, Audre! 😈
LikeLiked by 3 people
Cracking review, mate, though I should say THAT scene would have crowned it. You know what I mean; where the nurse is stalked by the killer in the hospital. She goes in one door, she comes out. She goes in another, she comes out. She goes in one door and then suddenly, the camera flies forward as the killer paces after her. That is a beautifully executed, and terrifying, scene.
By the way, ask and ye shall receive! I’ve sent you an elaboration of my Halloween picks.
LikeLiked by 3 people
That scene is terrifying! And, yes, totally sells the scares.
Thanks, man! Just saw it. Thank you!
LikeLiked by 2 people
What I like about that particular scene is it’s essentially one shot, two if you count the zoom. Proof that you don’t have to over elaborate a scene; understated works just as well, if not more.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes. And it’s so mundane—she’s just going about her business—after just getting blessed out by that doctor!—and then BAM!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Honestly, I have never seen any of those movies as they are nothing less than very disturbing, no thanks! That’s my review, Tyler. 😂
LikeLiked by 2 people
They are quite disturbing—but that makes them so good!
LikeLiked by 1 person
For you, my friend… 😂
LikeLiked by 1 person
I like the weird stuff!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Exorcist One and Three are completely different movies. Some of the characters in the first occupy the third and there’s still the demon element but the first is a supernatural, heavily Christian drama and the third, a supernatural serial killer/slasher flick. The strength of religious conviction is the power behind the first and the mystery adds credence to the journey of the third.
Both are great movies but quite, quite different.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I see, and I still won’t watch them. I am guarding my thoughts…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Very smart. I respect that, John.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you, Tyler.
LikeLiked by 1 person
🙏
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, very, very true. Very different films.
LikeLiked by 1 person