3 out of 5

Director: William Peter Blatty

Exorcist 3 is dripping with intent. Story and characters are a looser thing, but the intention of the film – to be taken seriously, to elevate its genre – are apparent, and writer / director William Blatty is committed to it, even through the reported studio fiddling with the film, he’s vision, in his mind, so solid that he was able to continue moving pieces into a position he was still comfortable with. I’ve seen the original Exorcist, but I was in the wrong state of mind for it to make a lasting impact. For that reason, Exorcist 3 is difficult for me to tie to the first film. Which is fine and unfine, as the link here is minimal, and doesn’t need to be a sequel except that references to the first film can make people shudder appreciatively. That’s nice, and adds to the feeling that Blatty is working on an entirely independent piece here that’s simply part of a larger world. The ‘unfine’ portion, though, is that the movie seems to want to borrow the assumed dread the first film causes, as the gloomy atmosphere thats present from scene one until the end never feels quite justified… there’s a specter of something hanging over George C. Scott’s head, and it’s explained to us through dreams and poetic dialogue, but it never really solidifies for a viewer with no emotional ties to the original film. The film is essentially dealing with an eternal killer – ultimate evil traveling through the ages and killing through other’s hands – and the cop who’s trying to suss it out. The look of the film is out-worldly – Blatty has an odd editing technique that takes you in and out of scenes, but it’s a unique mish-mash that really looks unlike anything else. His patience with some long shots and then willingness to switch that up to quicker cuts makes for some truly creepy moments. So while the plot might not connect, Exorcist is a worthwhile little horror viewing, a mature and dreamy concoction of moody moments.