Paramount Pictures had run their course with Jason Voorhees, and gladly sold the rights to New Line Cinema for them to do with it as they pleased. What they gave us was something that remains a mixed result for many fans. Personally, I really love Jason Goes To Hell. I believe it to be a great, original storyline that dared to do something drastically different with the franchise. The filmmakers populated it with a very solid and impressive cast, and put together an inventive script.
An FBI sting operation at Crystal Lake succeeds in blowing Jason Voorhees (Kane Hodder) to pieces, and all believe he is permanently dead, except for bounty hunter Creighton Duke (Steven Williams). Interviewed on the news program American Case File by Robert Campbell (Steven Culp), Duke claims that Jason is not dead, and that he is the only one who knows how to send him to hell for all time. He sets a bounty of $500,000 to paid for doing so. Meanwhile, Jason’s demonic heart takes possession of person after person on a path of death back to Crystal Lake in the effort to be fully reborn in the body of another Voorhees. Coincidentally, Robert Campbell is dating Jessica Kimble (Kari Keegan), the daughter of the woman Duke seeks out in Crystal Lake, but he doesn’t get far as he is locked up for insulting the town Sheriff. The father of Jessica’s daughter, Steven Freeman (John D. LeMay), eventually encounters Duke after Diana Kimble (Erin Gray) is accidentally killed, and he learns the truth about Jason and what it will take to destroy him forever.
Many fans are content with just leaving all the origins and explanations for Jason being whatever he is unknown. However, at a certain point, a franchise has to look back on itself, and realize that some sense has to be made of its menacing slasher juggernaut that continually comes back from the dead. In this case, I believe Dean Lorey and Jay Huguely succeeded in conjuring a story that takes itself seriously while dealing with some fantastical ideas. This film turned the franchise around from its campy decent into cheap horror, and back into a far gorier and violent direction. It lays several implications upon Jason’s undead origins such as with the Necronomicon from Army of Darkness sitting inside the Voorhees house. Granted, it was likely a prop happenstance due to the same effects company working on both films, but it’s presence alone enhances the occult and supernatural implications of the film. It certainly helped spark the idea for a Freddy vs. Jason sequel, ultimately adapted into a comic book, featuring Ash Williams fighting against both slasher foes.
The addition of the Creighton Duke character was pure brilliance. A hard edged bounty hunter with the secrets to what Jason is, and what became of his family lineage injects that air of mystery and urgency into the plot. I have become a big fan of Steven Williams from 21 Jump Street to The X-Files. He’s an incredibly talented actor capable of a wide range of characterizations. As Duke, he’s got charisma that really grips an audience. He can have an mischievous wit when he offers answers to Steven Freeman in the jail, but also has an intense, captivating energy when finally delivering those answers. Duke’s a man with a dedicated purpose, and a confident, bold attitude backed by his rugged skill set. He doesn’t offer trust easily, thus, reinforcing a sort of loner attitude. He doesn’t back down from anyone, but has the intelligence to remain focused and level headed. He’s not blindly obsessed with destroying Jason. He knows he cannot do it by himself, and must come to trust that others will do what is necessary when the time comes. Creighton Duke is one of my absolute favorite characters of the entire franchise, right up there with Tommy Jarvis. Steven Williams’ performance is immensely entertaining and compelling.
On the opposite side of the hero spectrum is John D. LeMay as Steven Freeman. He’s very much just an average guy with no special skills, but has his motivations. He desires to see and hold the child he helped father with Jessica, and wants to see both of them protected from this murderous evil out stalking them. LeMay starred in the unrelated Friday The 13th: The Series where he solidly played a similar protagonist, but Steven is even more unlikely. He’s not at all a man of action, but when forced into extraordinary circumstances, he rises to the challenge by doing whatever it takes to survive and protect those he cares about. LeMay gives the role plenty of light-hearted charm, and an audience easily feels for him when things go terribly awry.
This is undoubtedly the best cast assembled for a Friday The 13th movie. There is just a wealth of credible talent throughout the ranks, and they are all handled excellently by director Adam Marcus. For the most part, they project a grounded feeling that works towards the very serious dread and horror that is present in this film. The diner owners, Joey B. & Shelby, are kind of comical, but in a way that sells Joey’s heartless exploitative nature and Shelby’s warmer sensibilities. However, Steven Culp is probably the best of the supporting cast giving us a very sleazy, unscrupulous news anchor in Robert Campbell. This is a guy who has deceived Jessica into a romantic relationship only for the chance to exploit her family for his own personal gain. Culp puts in an excellent performance as a character you love to hate, but there’s more to it that I will touch on later.
This is undoubtedly the goriest movie of the entire franchise. The filmmaker made the blood thick and plentiful. The scene of the coroner consuming Jason’s enlarged heart is beautifully disgusting and graphic. The gooey black blood oozes and splatters all over. It’s an amazing effect, yet again provided by the masterful talents at KNB EFX Group. They really went all out for this installment creating very elaborate effects which are seen in all their glory right there on the screen, in the unrated cut, of course. New Line Cinema was the first to officially release an unrated version of a film in this franchise, and this couldn’t have been a better film to do that for. The practical effects work is absolutely spectacular, and the visual effects are also highly impressive. There is nothing at all that is just mediocre or sub-standard in this film. Everyone was fully dedicated to making a high quality feature, and I applaud each and every one of them for that commitment and hard work.
Yet, this isn’t just a mindless splatter flick. There is plenty of classic Friday The 13th style suspense. Adam Marcus shows a talent for crafting solid atmosphere and tension. The film has a dark visual tone creating a gritty feel that tells you this is going to be straight-on horror. Lighting is quite moody with rich, deep blacks that really strengthen that hardened atmosphere. It’s a hell of a great look for this film that really sets it apart from the rest of the series in a very good way.
What many fans count as a negative mark against the film is that Jason himself is barely in it. He spends most of the runtime jumping from one temporary body to another in pursuit of a permanent resurrection. However, this does allow for an unexpectedly menacing and kick ass performance by Steven Culp while possessed by Jason. He tears through the diner massacre sequence savagely. It’s absolutely awesome. Of course, there is no discounting Kane Hodder, but he does appear lethargic in this film. Possibly, this is due to the padding added to his costume to reflected a bloated and malformed Jason. It definitely adds more bulk that works well in contrast to everyone in the film, but Hodder just seemed to have a harder time throwing himself into the end fight scene. Regardless of that, he still delivers a performance up to his established standards for Jason Voorhees.
Now, Harry Manfredini’s score in this film is a split opinion for me. It is quite good, and might be one of his best of the series. Unfortunately, instead of using an orchestra, the entire score is synthesized. He takes what he regularly would have done with an orchestra and apply it to a synthesizer, and it just loses far too much in that transition. While the composition is very good, the sound of shrieking strings on a keyboard sound like the score to some cheap direct-to-video horror flick. There are times it doesn’t sound that bad, but certainly from the opening credits and elsewhere, it has always given me that feeling.
I know I am not the only one who believes there are many places to take the Friday the 13th concept outside of its formulaic comfort zone, and to me, this film shows it can be done with the right ambition and talent. It’s certainly a concept that you will either like or won’t, and it’s understandable if you don’t. Many are happy to revisit the standard formula, and just see Jason killing innocent campers. However, I find that many franchises could use an infusion of new ideas. It’s only unfortunate that most times, those new ideas become bad ones that result in poor movies. Thankfully, the right talents were employed that did love the series, and wanted to do something more supernatural, graphic, and demonic with Jason without betraying the core of his character. Many would argue otherwise, but this is my opinion on Jason Goes To Hell.
I do hardly believe that even New Line Cinema was serious about this being The Final Friday considering they just picked up the rights to the character. The ending of this film blatantly and cleverly sets up Freddy vs. Jason, so, there were obvious plans to keep utilizing Jason however they could. Regardless of that issue, Jason Goes To Hell is one of my top favorite Friday The 13th films, and I feel it is one of the best and most successfully innovative of the series. There’s a first rate cast here that really push the film towards that more serious, convincing tone instead of one of camp, which is refreshing. The make-up effects are off the chart incredible giving us more gore than any other film in the franchise, before or after, but it has no lack of genuine suspense or terror. If you care for a return to more serious horror for this franchise, and don’t mind more fantastical ideas injected into the concept, I strongly recommend giving Jason Goes To Hell an honest chance.
After the horrendous Freddy’s Dead, New Line Cinema was willing to entertain ideas from series creator Wes Craven on a new entry to the A Nightmare on Elm Street franchise. This film is partly a return to form for the series, but also ventures into a completely and radically new direction. The entire film is set outside the realm of the franchise in our reality. Many of the main characters and cameos are people playing themselves, to a degree. Heather Langenkamp, the heroine from the first and third films in the series, plays herself. We also have appearances by Wes Craven, John Saxon, and Robert Shaye – all playing themselves with some creative licenses. Robert Englund is of course here, playing both a more eccentric version of himself and the demonic incarnation of Freddy Krueger.
Heather Langenkamp lives a content life with her husband Chase Porter (David Newsom) and son Dylan (Miko Hughes). However, her sense of safety is compromised by a series of unsettling phone calls which Heather believes are from an anonymous stalker. Coupled with this is some increasingly strange behavior from Dylan. Heather gains little comfort from her former co-stars Robert Englund or John Saxon about either her paranoia or concern for her son. While she does not allow her son to watch any of the A Nightmare on Elm Street films, with her promoting the ten year anniversary of the original, she cannot escape its looming shadow. She soon finds out that Wes Craven is planning on making the definitive Nightmare movie, and that he has been plagued by nightmares of his own. It has practically become an epidemic as the same disturbing dreams have come to Heather as well as Robert Englund himself. Craven eventually tells Heather that what is haunting them is an ancient demon that has been roaming from story-to-story since the beginning of time, but has come accustomed to Freddy. Now, it wants into our world, and Heather is the perceived gatekeeper betweens the realms of fantasy and reality since she was the first to defeat Freddy. Dylan is a key focal point of this demon’s plan to lure in Heather. As all the elements begin to converge, the world around Heather starts to transform into the twisted existence of this guised Freddy Krueger.
New Nightmare is a creatively successful film that was not a financial success in 1994. I don’t think New Line Cinema knew quite how to market this concept in a way that was concise to an audience. It’s a far more cerebral concept than had been introduced into the series prior, but even then, it still requires a good amount of exposition to get a handle on. It’s very strange that at the time of release I had never even watched any of these films, and hadn’t spawned my horror movie fandom, yet. Still, I was entirely aware of this film while no one else seemed to be. Thankfully, time has given it the respect and admiration it deserved.
Wes Craven absolutely wrote an ambitious and smart screenplay. I think this shows a maturing of his artistic sensibilities. This is very high concept employing ideas that could not be competently handled by just anyone. There have been plenty of poorly conceived and/or executed reality-bending films, but only a special few that have done it with inspiring results. While that’s mostly true of any genre, this is one that doesn’t have as high of an output, and is usually only tried when a filmmaker feels ambitious. Most fail because they don’t have the right intellect behind them to pull it off without becoming pretentious, contrived, or fall into a style over substance trap. The films that do succeed have visionary filmmakers behind them who know how to convey the concept smartly and effectively. In New Nightmare’s case, it connects you directly with the characters, and invests you in their plights while methodically building up its premise with fine dashes of foreboding tension and suspense. It treats its horror and gruesome deaths with real human emotion and grief. These are real people experiencing real terror and pain. Thus, it increases the dread and danger of their situation with a heavy weight that an audience can truly feel.
This film is exceptionally solid while it’s not so much slasher horror as supernatural, psychological horror. Craven relies more on subtle atmosphere and a series of creepy, unexplained events, much like a haunted house story, to scare an audience. There is some gore, but it is only in a few scenes. So, on a slasher film level, New Nightmare does feel very starved for gruesome bloodletting, and that does detract from the film for me. There’s not enough visceral pay-off for the building up of suspense and atmosphere. Heather is truly terrorized by what this demon does to her life, tormenting her at every turn, and claiming the lives of a few people closest to her as well as traumatically manipulating her son. Those elements are executed outstandingly well. You can feel her fear and frayed psychological state increase throughout the movie. Freddy has very restrained screentime, which is a pleasant change from his overexposure in previous sequels. Wes Craven instead uses the screentime to intelligently and clearly setup the reality transcending premise before unveiling the revamped Freddy Krueger.
This ancient demon has decked Freddy out in a generous use of leather, and a frightening new glove of razors. It’s no longer rusted, but very shiny and skeleton like showing off Krueger’s burned hand. The new make-up design is certainly fresh, but still looks like prosthetics instead of an organic piece of burned flesh. It’s certainly better than the very rubbery appearance we got in the last few films, but I’ve still seen better burned flesh effects elsewhere. Generally, the redesign does give the character a darker edge which supports the premise of the film, and that this is not actually Freddy but a demon taking on his appearance and persona.
All the actors are as great as could be imagined. Langenkamp is even more beautiful here than ever before, and her performance is very true to the situation, despite its fantastical nature. I refer mostly in regards to the parent-child relationship, and how she does whatever is necessary to protect her child. Now, while this film blurs the line between reality and fantasy, this applies to the presentation of the people. Much of the stalking elements in the story were taken from the real Heather Langenkamp’s own experiences with a stalker, and so, there’s a personal element to this story for her. Overall, she brings a great weight of maturity and strong emotion to a role that was likely challenging for her to grasp. It was bold and brave of her to put as much of her personal life on screen like this as she did, and if it wasn’t Wes Craven asking her to do so, I don’t think she would have done it. On a related note, Miko Hughes shows a wealth of talent, and is really endearing. Most kids in horror films tend to be annoying or worse, but he managed to be very likable and endearing.
Robert Englund, as always, clocks in with all he has. This time, his Freddy performance is intimidating and fearsome. There’s not a wisecrack to be had, and he still remains engaging as a dark villain. His screentime is quite limited until the final act of the film, but enough is done throughout the picture to increase his menace and power. I know for a fact that Englund did prefer portraying Freddy as darker, but most directors preferred the comical approach. Thankfully, Craven brought the character back to where he works best, and Englund did a great job there.
John Saxon also returns in a supporting role, and I’ve always had a fondness for him. He’s just such a captivating and marvelous actor with a very fatherly or commanding aura about him. He always inspires confidence, and consistently does solid work. I thoroughly enjoy every bit of work I have seen of him. Tracy Middendorf stars as Julie, Dylan’s babysitter, and really comes off as sweet and caring. She’s definitely the ideal babysitter. I could easily go on and on about the cameos and solid acting, but to sum it up, the acting in this movie is wholly satisfying and exceedingly far above slasher genre standards, as is everything with New Nightmare.
This is definitely one of Wes Craven’s best and most modern looking films. Director of Photography Mark Irwin gave the film a lot of visual integrity, firmly grounding it in a dramatic reality. There’s a nice use of blue tones that add to the atmosphere that Craven nicely crafted. This looks like a serious, intelligent film for a more mature audience, contrasting the more juvenile sensibilities of previous Elm Street sequels. Mark Irwin really showed a great ability to artistically shoot a suspenseful film, and it’s great that Wes Craven used him again on Scream. It’s only a shame that most of Irwin’s filmography after this were comedies, many of them rather stupid comedies.
The story behind the inception of New Nightmare is also interesting. The concept was spawned from a meeting between Wes Craven and New Line executive Robert Shaye. He wanted to know, from Wes, what he thought was done wrong with the series, and if the company had offended Wes in anyway. Craven made a number of valid points about Freddy becoming a comical buffoon, and Bob offered Wes the chance to rectify these errors. I’ve always liked that cordial mentality from Mr. Shaye who never cared for burning bridges, only building a better company built on professional integrity and respect. With that, New Nightmare came into being.
Even without comparison to the wreckage that was Freddy’s Dead, this film shines and soars high as one of the best of the series right behind the original film. The only major drawback of the film, I feel, is that this demon-as-Freddy is not dispatched in a very clever way. There’s really no fantastical element to it, as one would expect from such a fantastical concept. It is more of a physical method of defeating him instead of a supernatural, metaphysical, or psychological one. And even though I’ve never taken much note of J. Peter Robinson’s score, it is widely recognized as one of the best horror film scores around. Ultimately, this is still one to highly recommend alongside the 1984 original and A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors. Those are the definitive classics of the franchise, and those reputations are rightly earned.
Good werewolf movies are very hard to come by. That was until I came across Wolf a few years ago. Fronted by two amazingly electric actors in Jack Nicholson and James Spader along with a very tantalizing Michelle Pfeiffer, I couldn’t love this film more. It’s a different approach that is far more modern and character driven with these supernatural aspect slowly weaved into the plot.
Worn down and out of luck, aging publisher Will Randall (Jack Nicholson) is at the end of his rope when his co-worker and protégé, Stewart Swinton (James Spader), snatches both his job and wife out from under his nose. However, after being bit by a wolf on a snowy road, Will suddenly finds himself energized, more competitive than ever, and possessed with amazingly heightened senses. Meanwhile, Laura Alden (Michelle Pfeiffer), the beautiful daughter of his shrewd boss, begins to fall for him – without realizing that the man she’s begun to love is gradually turning into the creature by which he was bit.
As should go without saying, Jack Nicholson is excellent in this movie. He gives us a performance that is mostly low key with modest manner and sense of heart. He’s a man living a less than stellar life, and that downtrodden feeling seeps into the cracks of the performance. There’s also the increasing worry about his wolf bite that truly begins to affect Will adversely. However, of course, Nicholson is able to turn on his mojo and even delve into a feral side that is fierce and primal.
It’s slightly humorous how the enhanced senses manifest in Will Randall. There’s a few funny moments, like being able to smell the tequila on a co-worker early in the morning, or how he doesn’t even realize that he can read perfectly without his reading glasses. However, it takes a more unsettling turn when he can start hearing far away voices throughout his office complex. Still, the film is able to maintain an occasional sense of levity mostly from the charisma of Nicholson and Spader. I love how the wolf instincts make Will more aggressive, able to take stand against his co-workers and boss. He becomes a man of bravado and cutthroat actions instead of a weaker willed pushover that he was. So, at first, this is all a good change in his character, but gradually, the wolf bite effects begin to take a more ferocious and bloodletting turn.
James Spader is wonderfully sleazy, as appears to be his regular strength, as Will’s apprentice / rival. Stewart is conniving and deceitful with no ethical or moral compass. He’s a real snake in the grass that will smile to your face while stabbing you in the back, and Spader makes it a richly enjoyable performance. He really excels in these kinds of roles, portraying them pitch perfect to make the character detestable while still being wholly entertaining. Awesomely, he gets the chance to just go full boar with it by the end with a very fearsome performance. This really is all the vile, juicy Spader you could ever want.
It’s surprising how good the chemistry is between Nicholson and Michelle Pfeiffer. There’s a nineteen year age difference between them, but that seems to work better for these characters. Will Randall is a more worn out, tired career man while Laura Alden is young, vibrant, and intriguing. Pfeiffer certainly has a seductive aura about her that creates a dangerous air to the relationship. There’s plenty of sexual charisma to spare with both her and Nicholson. Overall, she does a tremendous job with this character who does have a harder, jaded exterior with a more approachable, comforting core.
The supporting cast of Wolf is also stellar. Most notably is Christopher Plummer’s gracefully egotistical, but also authoritative Raymond Alden, the owner of the publishing house. He carries a substantial weight as this slightly ruthless boss who insincerely sugar coats things. He has a great presence and a subtle way of acting that results in a lot of dimension coming out on screen.
The mystical ideas of the demon wolf are beautifully conveyed. There’s a grounded sensibility from Dr. Alezais when he tells Will of the lore. It’s not the ravings of some wild witch doctor, but of a man of science and research. He believes in the possibility that this mystical lore is true, and he sells the dreaded reality of it very convincingly. It comes at the right point in the film where both Will and the audience have experienced enough to believe that something supernatural is taking a hold of him. So, we are all ripe to fully believe what he has to say.
I love the make-up effects from Rick Baker, a go-to master for werewolves from his work on The Howling and An American Werewolf in London. While it is just some added facial hair, fangs, and yellow contact lenses, the visual of Nicholson in this make-up is frightening. He looks like a wild animal that would stop your heart at the real life sight of. Yet, he’s not the only one. Although, I do not wish to spoil anything, but the make-up is extremely creepy upon the face of another actor.
Director Mike Nichols had this film shot in a way that was rather uncommon for the time it was made. In many cases, it feels like a classic monster movie in its cinematography. Preferring some dramatic camera zoom-ins over dolly shot push-ins, using rear screen projection during the driving scenes, and employing conservative editing resulting in some beautifully long takes, it partially feels like something from the black and white era. Yet, it is such a brilliantly shot, composed, and executed film that it undeniably has a modern edge and beauty to it. There’s a great sense of artistic horror and suspense to appeal to modern audiences. There’s not much gore here, but there is a wealth of ferocious veracity that will satiate your desire for intense, horrific, primal violence.
The climax is absolutely wild. Everything really converges in an animalistic confrontation that delivers in a hugely dramatic and savage high point. How it all ultimately ends is tragically heartbreaking and powerful. Yet, it still has a nice quirky and mesmerizing punch right at the end, too. Mike Nichols’ ability to pull off these complex tones which mesh unsettling tension with a dash of quirky humor is really marvelous. How this film progresses from a light drama about Will Randall’s inter-office politics and his developing romantic relationship with Laura to a full-on werewolf horror film is amazing. That’s actually why this film works. It builds these characters up into a realistic setting with convincing relationships and conflicts. They are charismatic and entertaining characters that really invest your interest. Then, the film gradually builds up the supernatural wolf element as it begins to affect Will’s behavior from a re-invigorated, confident man to a frightening metamorphosis that he deathly fears. It’s a wonderful twisting arc that never loses credibility or its grounded sensibilities. The conflicts it establishes, and the relationships it grows remain an integral part of the story all the way through. It really is a stellar work of screenwriting by Jim Harrison and Wesley Strick, and a brilliant directing job by Mike Nichols.
Add in an excellent score by the legendary Ennio Morricone, and you’ve got one hell of a great film that I dearly love. It’s a real gem I only discovered a few Octobers ago, and have really wanted to share my admiration for it for a long time. Wolf was actually delayed into release by several months to completely re-shoot the entire third act of the movie. Whatever they did is entirely seamless. I cannot see any deviation in quality or story to hint at what was changed. There was no novelization, and no script available online to find out what the original third act was. I’m certainly intrigued, but the film that was released is entirely amazing and I wouldn’t change a thing. As I said, good werewolf movies are hard to come by, and I think Wolf is a surprising pleasure. There was no shortage of remarkable talent behind this film, and that talent shines through in every moment. I think it’s a great and original horror films with a lot of entertainment value to offer any audience.
This used to be the scariest movie I had ever seen. When it was theatrically re-released in 2000, I was paralyzed with fear in my theatre seat. When I saw it theatrically in 2010, the film barely did anything for me. I’m not entirely sure why this is, but I have theories. Possibly a decade of exposure to numerous hardcore horror movies have hardened me as a movie-goer, thickening my skin and threshold for terror. By comparison, The Exorcist III has been a consistently effective film that I have gained more respect for with each viewing. This review is surely not a negative one in the least, but it’s important to know my experience with The Exorcist over the years.
Taking up temporary residence in Georgetown, Maryland is movie actress Chris MacNeil (Ellen Burstyn) who is having her troubles. The script for the movie she’s filming seems inadequate, her ex, who is also the father of her adolescent daughter Regan (Linda Blair), neglects to call the girl on her birthday, and the attic has rats. Meanwhile, Father Damian Karras (Jason Miller), a priest and a psychiatrist, is losing his faith while dealing with a terminally ill mother who needs medical care he hasn’t the money to provide. Meanwhile, the sweet and innocent Regan has undergone a slow, brutal change in both the way she looks and the way she acts, with violent outbursts on everyone who comes in contact with her. Medical professionals prove to have no cure for her condition, and thus, her worried mother meets with Father Karras with the belief that her daughter is demonically possessed. She requests an exorcism, which Karras and the church are hesitant to grant on a whim. Another priest, the old and ailing Father Lancaster Merrin (Max von Sydow), has just returned from an archeology expedition in Iraq with forebodings of evil. He has faced this unholy evil before, and soon, will have to face it again.
I believe the main aspect of the film that made it so effective was its realistic quality. William Friedkin shot this in a very textured way. Lighting is very natural and subdued. It never looks staged or stylized. Friedkin intended to take a documentary approach to the film to give it sense of grim realism. The scenes in Iraq are very gritty with an unsettling and harsh quality that is striking. The scenes in Georgetown have a slightly gloomy autumn quality that boosts the foreboding and grim nature of the movie. Yet, there is still eerie beauty at times such as the moment where “Tubular Bells” creeps into the score. Friedkin simply instills a lot of subtle atmosphere with the lighting, camera work, and the score that gets in under your skin. He uses the music very sparsely allowing that ambient reality to seep into your nerves. That realistic tone in the visuals and the performances solidly grounded the film, and thus, when these horrific changes begin to surface in Regan, they are all the more unsettling and chilling. The sound design is profoundly effective. These disturbing auditory elements are mixed in together at a high volume to truly jump out at you in an almost unnaturally loud way. It’s an example of using sound effects and design to establish an unnerving mood without resorting to a musical score, which supports the documentary feel Friedkin was going for, and it succeeds in spades.
Now, William Friedkin has been known to be quite the bastard of a filmmaker. Him firing guns on set, and throwing his actors into hard stunts to get a visceral reaction out of them are just a few reasons why. Personally, as a filmmaker myself, I don’t believe someone has to get hurt for the sake of art. There’s always another way to achieve the results you want. Still, regardless of how you view his methods, his results are very intense. He always casts great actors, and does some challenging work with them. With these actors, we are given a breadth of deep, hard hitting emotion that penetrates the characters’ souls. The struggles of faith with Damien Karras are portrayed with deep heartache and weariness by Jason Miller. You can empathize with his pain and fear as you see the dour aspects of his life. It is a powerful performance that Miller poured deeply into his soul to achieve. Ellen Burstyn put in a very warm portrayal that gradually morphs into something very raw and painfully emotional. The grief she expresses as Chris MacNeil is heart wrenching and soul tearing. It hits harder than anything in the film, and sells the terrible reality of the horrific situation she faces.
There is a fine, understated performance by Lee J. Cobb as Lieutenant William Kinderman. He investigates the mysterious death of Burke Dennings, the drunken director of the film Chris MacNeil was involved with. Cobb walks a fine line between earnest, probing investigator and kind-hearted soul. He surely makes assertive inquiries about this unusual death, but treads cautiously amongst these people. He questions as much as he observes them trying to decipher the deeper reality of what’s happening. This made the character very intriguing and just endearing enough to connect nicely with an audience. Cobb passed away less than three years after the film’s release, and was succeeded in the role in The Exorcist III by the acclaimed, powerhouse actor George C. Scott. Cobb laid a solid foundation that Scott strongly built upon in that excellent film.
However, the most understated, yet immensely captivating performance comes from Max von Sydow. While I feel the film could have benefitted from more time spent delving into Father Merrin, what von Sydow brings is substantially strong on its own. Merrin himself is a few decades older than von Sydow was at the time, and his acting as a frail elderly man is pitch perfect. He has a cautious grace in his movements and a sophisticated sensibility that comes with wisdom. The calmness and power he brings forth in the final act tell much about Lancaster Merrin’s soul. While he has his battle scars from a previous exorcism, his weathered soul still holds his faith and will solidly.
It’s also shocking and amazing what Linda Blair did in this role. She easily endears herself to an audience with her innocence and playful nature. She worked beautifully with Ellen Burstyn as a very natural mother-daughter relationship. Of course, it’s easy to overlook the performance after the possession since all her lines were overdubbed by the grizzled voice of Mercedes McCambridge, but what she physically does is immensely impressive. She was put through a lot of long hours in pain and deep cold to achieve what she needed to. Even the make-up prosthetics were a challenge that she would not subject herself to for the sequel. For being so young, only fourteen at the time of filming, she dedicated herself with a strong stability that should be highly admirable to any actor. The overall performance is quite amazing, and in the darker areas of the film, rather disturbing.
I find the make-up effects work to be very effective. As the possession gets worse, Regan’s flesh becomes cracked with open sores and discoloration. It looks like she’s almost rotting away due this demonic evil within her. The visuals of this can be disturbing to many viewers. While times certainly have changed greatly since the early 1970s where this had people fainting and throwing up during screenings of this film, it can still hold chilling weight today. It was a startling motion picture that blindsided audiences, and much of that is due to both those grotesque make-up effects and the style of editing. Quick flashes of the demon face are what frightened me for the longest time. It’s a face that sends chills all over me still. It’s something that nightmares are made of, and a haunting vision that would be terrifying to see peering out of the darkness at you, which is exactly what it does. It’s immensely effective, near subliminal trickery.
The Exorcist does give us a few sequences that establish something sinister or malevolent looming over these characters. Father Karras has an ominous dream sequence about his ailing mother that does haunt him. Also, Father Merrin staring down the stone statute of Pazuzu in Iraq has a fierce, raw unnerving quality which sets a foreboding tone early on. It’s also your preference whether to watch the original theatrical or extended edition. However, the extended cut does add in a couple of editing effects that throw that demon face into a few unsettling scenes. Lights are flickering in the MacNeil house, hinting that a powerful force is at work, and that fearsome visage does make a small appearance. Regardless of which cut you choose, the film truly is ripe with chilling moments that demonstrate the skillful quality of William Friedkin.
I will say straight out that I have no religious beliefs. However, I can still perceive and appreciate how deeply this film’s subject matter penetrates into an audience with them. In the least, it’s a film that explores a pure embodiment of evil that is able to corrupt even the most innocent among us. If this timeless, demonic evil could possess this pure of heart young girl in the context of such a grounded, hardened reality, many audiences easily could be rattled to their core. The Exorcist is just as much of a film that frightens with its visuals and sound as it does with its ideas. William Peter Blatty truly constructed a deeply detailed screenplay built off a novel written with the help of a real life priest. Everything was well researched and discussed where the church is concerned to understand exactly who these men of faith were, and the depth of knowledge with demonic possession and exorcism. All of that detail comes through in Friedkin’s film who even cast several real life priests in key roles. That casting was smart as they carry a certain weight and aura about themselves that is very natural. They truly added to the realistic strength of character through the picture.
I suppose my only criticisms upon the film are that I do feel that Lancaster Merrin could’ve been fleshed out more for us to have a better context and perspective on the man himself. He’s given a perceived poignancy in the film, but he ultimately has little poignancy to the story. I also believe that the ending feels a little shorted. With the grueling battle that Merrin and Karras were waging in that room during the exorcism, the conclusion did feel a little lacking in substantive pay-off. The ending to William Peter Blatty’s The Exorcist III would end up being very grandiose, almost seeming a bit too over-the-top, but still, it had enough direct, dramatic pay-off to feel like a satisfying conclusion. With this film, there almost seems to be a lack of dramatic build-up to the very final moments. It surely doesn’t end how one would expect it to, which is a good thing, but let’s just say that the Merrin character again seems to be slighted. I can surely understand the idea that the film is more about Damian Karras, but Merrin is surely meant to be the climactic difference maker in this plot, yet he is dispatched with most unceremoniously. He is supposed to be the title character of the movie after all. Max von Sydow gave the character such immense depth with little to no dialogue that I felt he should’ve been a more purposeful element in the overall film, and given a proper story arc. He’s given enough setup and build up to support that idea, but ultimately, he’s not given that weight of relevancy. It’s just something that has regularly nagged at me with the movie. A little more time spent with Merrin could’ve helped create a more gradual transition into the third act, and perhaps, motivated Blatty and Friedkin to actually conclude his story on-screen. As it is, Father Merrin is more of a plot facilitator than a character with his own story to tell, and I believe that to be a negative mark against the screenplay and film.
While I supposed my skin has thickened over the years where horror films are concerned, I cannot discount the strength and quality of this film. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the horror elements here in the least. However, it can be difficult to judge if people still call this “the scariest movie of all time” due to just blind reputation, or because they truly, personally feel that way. Since the effectiveness of this film has lessened with me over time, and I have found new horror films that scare me more profoundly than this, I would have to question whether current audiences genuinely believe The Exorcist to be the scariest of all time. So, I suppose this makes for an unusual review. The Exorcist surely is an exceptionally well made film with intelligent themes and deeply frightening elements that have immense impact on a visual and auditory level. Yet, it doesn’t affect me remotely as much as it once did. Regardless, I cannot deny that it once did have a powerful effect on me, and likely still does on countless others.
I truly like and enjoy the original Warlock from director Steve Miner. While the low budget restricted its overall production quality, the good script and high caliber acting talents of Julian Sands and Richard E. Grant really made it something worthwhile. It’s one of those films which showed a lot of potential, and that with a larger budget and stronger production values, it really could’ve been amazing. The rights for the film eventually ended up at Trimark Pictures which came to specialize in some decent genre and B-movie successes, mostly direct-to-video releases, but were ultimately absorbed by Artisan Entertainment and subsequently Lionsgate Films. With the rights to the first film, Trimark decided to make a sequel with those better production values. Warlock: The Armageddon brings the Warlock back from oblivion, but this sequel would’ve been better off staying in oblivion. The golden-maned Julian Sands portrays the Warlock far more devilishly in this one with a darker charm, but has no worthy or even respectable adversary this time around. Sands essentially carries the entire movie, and any scene without him is rather uninteresting. His charisma and charm on screen is so electric that you simply crave more of it when he leaves the screen. The plot doesn’t offer anything all that engaging or particularly special.
The Warlock is brought back to recover a collection of gems that, together, can destroy all of creation (yes, again) by bringing his father, Satan, into our world. Meanwhile, in some rural town two teenagers are chosen by some most unimpressive Druids to be trained and fight the Warlock. Chris Young and Paula Marshall, respectively, portray these two youths, Kenny and Samantha, who aren’t too fond of their parents having to kill them first before being imbued with these new special powers. As the Warlock dispatches of several non-formidable obstacles to obtain these gems, these two teenagers in love try to come to grips with what they have been tasked with, and fear for the evil that is coming for them.
I can’t wrap my head around how we go from the amazing character of Redferne, portrayed by the exceptional Richard E. Grant, to a couple of teenagers who frankly care more about what they’re gonna do on Saturday night than being the saviors of all creation. These two amateurs are expected to go up against the unholy spawn of Satan and prevail? I can only suspend my disbelief so much before a premise becomes laughable. Truly, I was more involved in the Warlock and his quest to destroy humanity than caring about this rural pair of teens in love being forced into a situation they want nothing to do with. There is hardly anything endearing or engaging about their half of the movie. Honestly, I wanted this film to have nothing to do with them. It’s rather sad when you come to actually wanting the villain to destroy all of existence. At least we would have been spared more sequels. Of course, Sands was not brought back for Warlock III: The End of Innocence, which was a non-sequel casting Bruce Payne in the title role.
This sequel is much gorier than the original, but the story and characters are far weaker. It’s not a question of bad acting, it’s a question of a bad script. Whereas the original film was written by the exceptionally talented David Twohy, the screenwriters of this sequel, Kevin Rock & Sam Bernard, have nothing of special note in either of their filmographies, and nothing at all written since the late 1990s. Director Anthony Hickox had just finished Hellraiser III: Hell on Earth, and I feel this film is worse than that uneven sequel. Hickox directed some decent horror films like Waxwork & Waxwork II, but after Warlock: The Armageddon, he never directed, wrote, acted in, or produced another recognizable film. At best, he’s proven to be a B-grade director not capable of producing anything without a hefty helping of cheese and over the top sensibilities. Ultimately, looking over the credits of this film, the only notable talent involved is Julian Sands. From the screenwriters to the director of photography to the music composer, there’s nobody of note here. Charles Hallahan (The Thing) and Zach Galligan (Gremlins, Waxwork) do have roles here, but they’re essentially nothing more than inconsequential supporting roles.
On a technical level, the movie is well made with competent cinematography giving everything a fine polish and sheen. It looks a little more cinematic than the first movie, but it certainly has its limitations. Some sets are clearly more restrictive in size and style than what their real world counterparts would be such as the fashion show venue. Also, one action scene takes place in a small American southwest town which looks like the back lot for some low budget western, aside from the parking meters. The Warlock literally has a showdown with a couple of guys with shotguns dressed in bad western attire. It’s another unsatisfying thing attributed to both the screenplay and the low budget. They can’t afford to place the climax of the film in an interesting setting, so, it all happens in a forest-like environment where there are no production values to show off. While earlier sequences were mainly on sets that did the best with the budget they had, the climax just makes it look cheaper with uninventive ideas of setting or action. Of course, Anthony Hickox had the climax of Hellraiser III take place on the late night streets of Los Angeles, and showed a lot of explosions and action, but it ultimately amounted to pointless drivel that dumbed down that franchise to an achingly low level, despite the production values. I can’t say that more money would’ve fixed the creative or artistic problems with the film. It was a rather bland story to begin with, and the climax gets to the point where I’d rather prefer seeing the Warlock triumph.
I can say that the visual and makeup effects are entirely superior to the previous film, and that’s bizarre since this film’s budget was $4 million less than the first film. Perhaps, it’s simply a benefit of the evolution of digital effects replacing optical composites in the four year gap between films that gives this sequel a higher quality in that area. The powers of the Warlock are exponentially more extensive and destructive here than in the first movie, but it doesn’t matter much when the story loses the heart and the charm that the first had with Redferne. You can read my earlier review of that film for a more in-depth insight into what really gave Steve Miner’s film so much promise.
Again, Warlock: The Armageddon is really cheesy and pathetically weak in nearly every facet with Sands being the only exception. This sequel is okay if you want to see more of Julian Sands’ purely evil, sadistic, and wonderfully devilish performance, but that is all that is worth seeing in this film. The original Warlock wasn’t any major blockbuster success, and so, Trimark probably didn’t feel as if all that much effort needed to be put forth for a sequel. Again, Trimark was never known for very high quality films, but there are a few that I still heavily enjoy. However, this is not one of them. If the first movie was filmed as well as this one, and had this much gore – it would’ve kicked some real ass. Unfortunately, what really is the most important aspect with both is good story and character. This film lacks both whereas the original Warlock really had it in good amounts. It was well written with some character depth and a consistently enjoyable premise. This sequel was dumb on arrival with only Julian Sands bringing anything truly entertaining to the project. See it if you want, but you’re not missing much otherwise. At best, it’s cheesy early 90s horror schlock. I would better recommend watching the original Warlock, or if you really want some bad ass demonic vanquishing, try Constantine. This was a franchise that hardly ever got going anywhere, and with this sequel, it’s easy to see why it was not a success.
Evil is everywhere, and in everybody. That is never truer than in this film. I saw Fallen in its original theatrical run fourteen years ago. I loved it then, and I still love it today. I owned in on VHS, and later, it was one of the earliest DVDs I saw. At the time of release, I stated it was one of the best suspense thrillers I had seen. Now, even after being exposed to a wider array of films in that genre, this still holds up strongly for me. The supernatural twist surely adds to that. Fallen really is an inspired film of its genre that is gripping and engaging on multiple levels from the awesome beginning to the masterful ending.
Detective John Hobbes (Denzel Washington) has already arrested serial killer Edgar Reese (Elias Koteas). He’s been convicted, and is now awaiting his execution in the gas chamber. Although, for a man facing his inevitable and imminent death he’s remarkably upbeat. Is he psychotic or is he something else? Hobbes witnesses the execution, and sees Reese die in the chamber. The case is closed, and it’s on with life. That is until a new series of murders arise which eerily share characteristics with those of Reese’s, but Reese is dead – isn’t he? An ancient, unseen evil known as Azazel took control over the man known as Edgar Reese a long time ago, but where Reese died, it endured. Now, it’s set its sights on Hobbes to enact revenge on him. Hobbes’ partner Jonesy (John Goodman) is naturally creeped out over the apparent links between these latest murders and those Reese committed, and their commanding officer – Lieutenant Stanton (Donald Sutherland) – is very shady, eluding to knowing a lot more than he’s willing to divulge. Hobbes attempts to solve the puzzle of why there is a space between “Lyons and Spakowski” that Reese left for him – before and after his death. This clue leads Hobbes to the death of a police officer who is survived by his daughter Gretta Milano (Embeth Davidtz) who becomes Hobbes’ path to answers that he is not easily willing to accept. What this mystery drags Hobbes into is a dark and dangerous reality which may only end up in death for all those who stand between this fallen angel turn demonic spirit and John Hobbes.
Denzel Washington – as always – delivers a powerful and solid performance. His character of John Hobbes is very human with a wide range of emotions, but most importantly, he’s loyal and dedicated to those he trusts and cares for. In the start of the film, Hobbes is depicted as a solid professional and a confident detective. He’s no glory hound with the media – he’s just a cop with a job to be done, and is glad that Reese has been brought to justice. As the story becomes stranger and more unreal, Hobbes slowly unravels the mystery with great skill. Denzel carries the film with ease. He handles the subject matter in a very grounded way making it all relatable through his usual charm, heart, and humanity.
This brings us to Elias Koteas who, despite his relatively short screentime, retains the biggest impact of the entire film. He makes every second of his time on screen count. Elias put a lot of hard, hard work into this performance so that it would stay with an audience throughout the length of the film. I’ve seen Elias in many different roles, the first of which was as the crime-fighting Casey Jones in the original Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles live-action movie, and later, among the powerhouse cast in The Prophecy. No matter the film, whatever role he takes on, he makes it memorable. This one is no exception. Reese comes off as a very haunting and disturbing individual without rolling into Hannibal Lecter territory. Koteas brings an intelligence to the role that is hidden under layers of charisma, riddles, and supposed psychotic behavior. He entirely grasped the intent of the character in the story, and the depth of this evil entity.
Next, you’ve got John Goodman as the warm-hearted and emotionally supportive Jonesy. Goodman always amazes me with his natural talent. He can go from comedic and humorous to intense and dramatic at a moment’s notice. I thoroughly enjoyed his work on Roseanne as well as other movie roles, and in this film, he really puts it all out there. I don’t want to drop any major spoilers, but his performance at the film’s end is just everything he could ever pour into a performance and then some. Donald Sutherland does fine work – as always. His Lieutenant Stanton really offers a stricter and secretive counterweight to the more open relationship between Hobbes and Jonesy. He puts Hobbes at unease as he delves into this unsettling mystery. There’s also a smaller supporting role with James Gandolfini as a fellow Detective with a unique personae and attitude. Of course, he pulls it off with much charisma and energy that adds to the colorful nature of the cast.
How the supernatural aspects are handled add to the class and sophistication of this film. Fallen angles who were deprived of form that have lived on through the centuries possessing humans could have faltered if presented in the wrong way. Embeth Davidtz was given the task of conveying this exposition, and she hit it perfectly on target. As Gretta Milano, she offers up a strong, yet compassionate performance with a confident core set of beliefs that keep the film grounded, but allow for Hobbes and the audience to believe in there being something more out there. Something beyond what we can see that is still a very powerful threat. The film is set in Hobbes’ world of procedural police work where there is a simple explanation and tangible evidence. Gretta slowly convinces Hobbes to look beyond the obvious and open up his mind to the supernatural truth. Davidtz strikes up a good chemistry with Denzel that allows for a sense of trust to build between their characters. This, along with Davidtz’s strength of character, allows Hobbes and the audience to embrace the reality of Azazel.
Newton Thomas Sigel’s cinematography on this film is filled with fantastic depth and color temperature contrast. I still remember when I first watched this on DVD, and was highly captivated by the vibrant visual quality of the film. It is beautiful while remaining moody. The autumn setting is captured with gorgeous artistry. It is my favorite season of the year much due to how wonderfully colorful it becomes. They don’t just have it there because that’s the time of year they shot film, they make it an overall part of the film’s tone and color scheme. The “demon vision” look is effectively creepy and otherworldly. The score further adds to the haunting, mysterious atmosphere of the film. Of course, the use of the Rolling Stones’ “Time is On My Side” was terrific and inspired. A great choice that fits the manic and peculiar sense of humor of Edgar Reese. The song is constantly sung by those possessed by Azazel throughout the film as a sort of playful tease from the demon to Hobbes. Of course, John Goodman puts in the best performance while mimicking some moves of Mick Jagger.
This all adds up to an exceptionally effective thriller. The suspense of the feature is very taut creating a haunting sense where, eventually, John Hobbes becomes deeply unsettled by. Being stalked by a supernatural killer that is generally intangible who can transfer itself from one person to another with a simple touch was brilliant. There is a chase scene with Gretta Milano which uses this one concept to great effect. The misdirection of the film is also ingenious, and the bookend scenes happen to be a storytelling method I’ve come to use in many of own independent films. This story is all told from a certain perspective that you will not put into alignment until the end. Denzel’s voice overs are excellently handled to be both ambiguous as to the truth the first time around, but also, be entirely perfect on repeat viewings fitting into what you already know. This is mainly a testament to the screenplay of Nicholas Kazan, and the direction of Gregory Hoblit. Voice overs can tend to be a little dry without the proper direction and context given to the actor. Denzel gives them the right tone which feeds into the detective noir investigative aspect of the story, and ultimately, as something much more.
Kazan’s screenplay alone seems excellent. The concepts and how they are handled are done with a fine depth of intelligence and emotional poignancy. The philosophical discussions amongst these characters show exceptional attention to well developed characters, relationships, and storytelling detail. The actors inhabit those roles, along with all their beliefs and attitudes, perfectly. These are essential elements to explore for John Hobbes to develop through the film. He doesn’t give into wild paranoia, but more of a cautious, weary mindset that drives him to a very clear perspective. Azazel’s actions throughout the film makes Hobbes a man with his back against the wall, but he doesn’t flinch or become desperate. He gets smart, and decides upon a course of action that is quite cunning and smart. That’s very telling of the film. There’s nothing cheap or dumb about it. Everyone involved works towards creating a very smart film that maintains a sense of humanity.
Checking wikipedia for some credits on the film, I see there were many mixed reviews of Fallen upon its initial release. There were critics describing it with words like “convoluted,” “far-fetched,” “recycled,” and “not very engaging.” As a friend of mine consistently remarks, what good are critics anyway? I can hardly understand where they come from myself most times. I personally believe too many have forgotten how to simply enjoy a film as a piece of art or entertainment instead of analyzing it like a science experiment. How they could not see the rich depth of this movie is beyond me. I find it entertaining on many levels with dimensional, enjoyable characters, incredible tension and suspense, a fine interwoven mystery, excellent performances all around, and clever storytelling. Again, I felt this way in 1998, and I feel the same now in 2012. I’m sure I will continue to feel that way forever. This partially follows in the mentality of 1990s crime films post-Se7en, but there’s so much more self-identity and humanity within this story that is not often found as much in this genre. Fallen is a definite must-see for anyone who enjoys suspenseful thrillers with supernatural elements. This is a highly satisfying, sophisticated thriller which receives my strongest endorsement!
The Exorcist franchise is like a roller-coaster – lots of ups and downs. The original film is an eternal, bona-fide classic. The Exorcist II, while I have never seen it, is generally revered as a terrible mess of a film. Things swing upward with William Peter Blatty’s The Exorcist III. Blatty adapts his novel Legion into this theatrical outing with him directing as well. While this film is very much in a far better direction, there was studio interference which mostly complicated and muddled the film’s ending. Still, there’s a surprisingly creepy piece of horror cinema to behold that has gradually become one of my favorite horror films of all time.
Set fifteen years after the events of the first film, we mainly follow Lieutenant Bill Kinderman (now portrayed by George C. Scott) who has formed a friendship with Father Dyer (Ed Flanders), friend and confidante of the late Damien Karras. It’s an odd friendship built on a love of movies and the memory of Karras. The Lieutenant is investigating an eerie string of disturbing murders that harkens back to those of the Gemini Killer (Brad Dourif), who was executed fifteen years earlier. There’s a religious subtext to some of the murders, but none of the forensic evidence pieces together from one death to the next. Things become stranger when investigating at the hospital Kinderman discovers an isolated mental patient who claims to be James Venamun, the Gemini Killer, but bares a striking resemblance to Father Damien Karras (Jason Miller). He is clearly insane, but knows everything about the original Gemini killings. He also refers constantly to “the master” who slipped him into this body as Karras was slipping out after his fateful fall down the steps fighting Pazuzu. Kinderman can’t see the evil within, but he feels it and knows the death and dismemberment it has caused. As Kinderman comes closer to deciphering this demonic mystery, his own soul and life could easily be in danger as well as others’.
This is a positive review, but I’m going to start out with the bad first, just to change up the template. The ending to this film was changed because after the studio renamed the film from the novel’s title of Legion to The Exorcist III, they realized there wasn’t a single exorcism in the script. To accommodate this, an extra plot line was introduced which bought Jason Miller back, and a line about seeing through “the eyes of faith” to accommodate having footage of both Dourif and Miller portraying the same general character. None of that is really a problem in terms of storytelling or the quality of the film. It’s all handled and balanced beautifully through clever editing and storytelling. Where the problem lies is the climax and conclusion of the film. What we’re inevitably left with is an overly grandiose exorcism with a breadth of fantastical, biblical, and blasphemous imagery which seems a little out of place and over-the-top. Granted, there is a heavenly dream sequence with a wealth of respective imagery. Also, there are supernatural elements throughout the film, but they’re more subtle. This ending breaks the restraints and lets loose the floodgates. In one perspective, it might seem appropriate like the gates of hell have been breached, and everything is being unleashed. However, to my perspective, it doesn’t seem to mesh all that well with the rest of the film’s style, and twists the story into an odd direction which isn’t as satisfying or coherent as it probably could’ve been. There’s also the dictated addition of Father Paul Morning (Nicol Williamson) to the film who is not given any character building scenes to integrate him into the story. This addition causes some storytelling problems, and seems like an irrelevant diversion from the plot until the finale justifies it. All of this doesn’t kill the movie, but I would’ve been interested to see what Blatty originally had in mind. Apparently, the novel does not have a happy ending.
Onto the good stuff. George C. Scott commands this movie. From the guy who won an Academy Award for his powerhouse portrayal of General George S. Patton (though, declined the award), that’s to be expected. He offers up a dry sense of humor, some degree of grief, but overall, he provides conviction and intensity to Bill Kinderman. The highly acclaimed character actor Lee J. Cobb originated the role in the 1973 film, but the actor passed away from a heart attack three years later. Ed Flanders takes over the role of Father Dyer from the real-life priest, Father William O’Malley. Jason Miller is the only returning cast member from the original film, and does a very subdued and creepy performance as the brain damaged ‘Patient X.’ However, where the acting really soars is Brad Dourif. Whatever roll he was on going into this film, it made his performance enveloping. You just can’t turn away. With the monologues he had to deliver, the role and performance could’ve killed the film, dragging it down into boredom. Fortunately, Dourif has a magnetism that just reels you in hook, line, and sinker. His charisma eats up the scene, and the sparks that fly between him and Scott are the meat of the piece.
This was only the second film directed by William Peter Blatty. The first being The Ninth Configuration from 1980 which Blatty once considered the real sequel to The Exorcist despite it’s connection being one briefly seen, unnamed character from 1973 film. Despite such a brief directing résumé, Blatty shows a lot of skill and competency here. This film oozes with creepiness, making it one that’ll twitch your nerves, and keep you jumping. There is one particular sequence featuring a white gown and a killer musical stinger that’ll freak you out. Just thinking about it gives me the chills. No matter your own opinion of the film, this sequence will get you every time.
The musical score by Barry De Vorzon is quite fitting, and immensely effective. I was previously familiar with his haunting and intense score on the cult urban action film The Warriors, which was very much of its time in the late 70s. The Exorcist III score is much more traditional, but still haunting as well as chilling. It makes itself essential to building the atmosphere of the picture.
The director of photography, Gerry Fisher, gives this picture great composition and an amazing look in certain scenes. Every time the film ventures into the isolation chamber, the lighting is so beautiful in an exceptionally dark and eerie fashion. Fisher previously lensed the fantasy adventure classic Highlander with amazing artistic talent, and wonderful composition. The Exorcist III doesn’t call for anything as epic as Highlander, but the artistry is still beautifully evident. He definitely gives the film a visual impact that lasts.
There are some discrepancies between the original 1973 film and this sequel. Likely, these are due to Blatty focusing more on his original novel source material instead of Freidkin’s feature. The primary issue is that, in The Exorcist, Kinderman and Karras barely knew each other. They meet for one conversation for their first meeting ever, and are never seen together again. Here, it is heavily referenced that the two men were best friends, and knew each other quite well. It’s that friendship which drives Kinderman’s intense investigation, and motivates the plotlines along. I have not read Blatty’s novels, and so, I cannot confirm or speak to any of this speculation. However, considering he is the author, screenwriter, and director, it’s easy to conclude that these are character connections he always intended in some form or another. Other issues are easily resolved. The year of when the events of the first film occurred has been altered to 1975, but there’s nothing in the first film to conflict with this. Just the fact that it was released in 1973 is all that causes any issue at all.
Overall, I feel The Exorcist III is an amazingly well done film, and only the interference of Morgan Creek executives diminished and hindered Bill Blatty’s vision. Paul Schrader and Renny Harlin would also learn of this over a decade later when filming their respective prequels to The Exorcist, and Blatty blamed no one but Morgan Creek for both versions’ failures. A director’s cut of The Exorcist III is apparently never to surface due to Morgan Creek being unable to locate the footage. Still, despite these obstacles and tampering with the film, I honestly feel an effective, original, enthralling, and exceptionally satisfying horror film shines through. Blatty showed great talent and competence in both scripting and directing, and George C. Scott’s performance is a powerful and intense as you’ve come to expect from him. Ultimately, this is a great surprise considering the more maligned entries in this franchise (save the original), and is indeed one hell of a terribly creepy film. This is a horror film I can watch just about anytime and be pulled into every time. This is what has gradually made it a strong personal favorite of mine which I would also consider one of the best horror movies ever made. If for nothing else, it’s a good watch for a dark, lonely night.