‘The Exorcist III’ Is Even Scarier Than the Original [The Overlooked Motel]
Welcome to The Overlooked Motel, a place where under-seen and unappreciated films get their moment in the spotlight. I hope you enjoy your stay here and find the accommodations to be suitable. Now, please take a seat and make yourself comfortable. I have some misbehaving guests to ‘correct.’
Watch the latest episode:
The Exorcist is the gold standard of genre cinema. Even people who hate horror movies see the picture’s brilliance. The rest of the franchise, however, is less revered by the masses. With the series’ second installment, the lack of enthusiasm is well-warranted. But the third franchise entry is undeniably a diamond in the rough.
It’s not easy to follow a film that defines an entire genre. But The Exorcist III does a remarkable job of paying tribute to its predecessor and subsequently carving out its own path. The Exorcist III seamlessly melds horror conventions with police procedural tropes and weaves in noir elements. The end result is a terrifying film that does justice to its famous predecessor.
The setup goes like this:
The Exorcist III follows legacy character Detective Kinderman (played by George C. Scott this time around) as he sets out to get to the bottom of a series of murders that match the MO of a long-dead serial killer known as The Gemini. What perplexes Kinderman and company is the killer’s knowledge of details to which only the police and the killer himself are privy. Kinderman must work to determine if the Gemini had an accomplice who is now striking out on their own or if he has somehow figured out a way to cheat death.
The Exorcist III is a very different film from its 1973 predecessor. This threequel leans into neo-noir elements. George C. Scott fulfills the hardboiled detective archetype common to noir cinema. He is doggedly determined and won’t rest until he’s cracked the case. Like many protagonists in film noir, he has a rough exterior but occasionally lets his guard down to show a much softer, gentler side.
We get to see that side of Kinderman through his relationship with Father Dyer, another legacy character from the original, portrayed by Ed Flanders in this incarnation. Seeing a softer side of Kinderman humanizes him. The way he occasionally breaks from his crotchety demeanor to demonstrate compassion for his longtime pal is touching.
The dynamic those two characters share sometimes lends an element of dark comedy to the proceedings, endearing Kinderman, a typically stoic presence, to the audience. The sequence where Kinderman bemoans the carp swimming in his bathtub is recited with pitch-perfect deadpan delivery. You can almost see his blood boiling as he discusses his dread at the prospect of returning home to find a fish swimming in his shower enclosure.
That jump scare, though.
The moments of dark comedy peppered throughout also work to give the audience a reprieve from expertly crafted tension. Director William Peter Blatty (who wrote the Exorcist novels) delivers some truly exceptional jolts throughout this underrated threequel. Say what you will about jump scares, this film contains one of the most effectively edited and shocking jump scares I’ve ever endured. Even when you’re aware that it’s coming, the effect isn’t lessened. The sequence in question is a cinematic heart attack. I won’t say precisely when or where the scene presents. But you’ll know exactly what I mean when you watch the film.
Though not quite as compelling, the confessional scene that plays out in the first act also blew my mind. The way it’s shot and edited caught me squarely off guard. Blatty lures us in with a false sense of security and then pulls the rug out from underneath us. That scene works as a smart subversion of expectations, ensuring the impact is far greater than it might have been if there were some sort of warning. We don’t see the brutality unfold, only the aftermath. But you’re likely to come away thinking you’ve seen more than you have because it’s so effectively packaged.
Hear me out: I count this sequel as even scarier than its famous predecessor.
The entire picture is effectively packaged, for that matter. I would never go so far as to claim that The Exorcist III is the better film. The original is sacrosanct. However, I do find this threequel is scarier. Some of that has to do with the central antagonist. The demon in The Exorcist is explicitly tied to religion. Here, the monster is decidedly more human in nature. There is absolutely a supernatural element at play within The Exorcist III, but it’s not the central focus. That works to keep this sequel more grounded in reality, making it frightening even to those who don’t subscribe to a religious denomination.
The film was a moderate box office success but has never had anything close to the acclaim of its legendary predecessor. I imagine that’s because the original is without a doubt one of the greatest horror films of all time. Therefore, anything bearing the Exorcist name is sure to be subjected to a high level of scrutiny. Well, dear reader. I implore you to scrutinize the film for yourself if you haven’t seen it.
Director’s cut or theatrical version?
When you check the flick out, I recommend starting with the theatrical cut. Blatty pulled off an impressive feat with The Exorcist III, but I tend to agree with the general consensus that the theatrical version is the better of the two. However, each has its merits. So, I would advise you to start with the theatrical cut for your inaugural viewing and then scope Blatty’s director’s cut to see where you stand.
You can find the film streaming for free (with ads) on Tubi as of the publication of this post. There is a Scream Factory Blu-ray that features both cuts of the picture when you’re ready for a side-by-side comparison.
That’s all for this installment of The Overlooked Motel. If you want to chat more about under-seen and underrated films, feel free to hit me up with your thoughts on Twitter, Threads, or Instagram.
Categorized:Editorials The Overlook Motel
