Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Willie Oleson" data-source="post: 404447" data-attributes="member: 8">THE EXORCIST III (1990)[ATTACH=full]53757[/ATTACH]Although I&#039;m not sure if it was &quot;III&quot; or &quot; LEGION&quot;, the restored director&#039;s cut that is now considered a different release.I saw this film a long, long time ago so I wouldn&#039;t be able to tell the difference anyway, the only thing I remember is that it looked like a proper horror film.Several decades later it still manages to disturb me but what surprises me the most is how beautiful and timeless it looks.I could easily believe it was made at the same time they made The Exorcist&#039;s spin-off THE NINTH CONFIGURATION (1980).Editing, special effects and sound are impeccable therefore it&#039;s not surprising that this film has found a new cult following.That being said, it still feels like a sequel that doesn&#039;t really complement the original. It doesn&#039;t trash it like the first sequel did but there are a few things I struggled with, especially the resurrection of Father Damien Karras, albeit with a different personality.Apparently, his dramatic and emotional death in the original story coincided with the execution of a most evil serial killer, and the forces that first possessed Regan and now Karras felt cheated and decided to slip the spirit of the serial killer in Karras&#039; dying&nbsp; body (he looked pretty dead to me).This plot twist screams CHUCKY which cheapens the overall narrative somewhat.Furthermore, it seems odd that the supernatural forces would &quot;think&quot; in such an earthly way. The possession of Regan looked like a raw existence rather than a conniving scheme.Incidentally, the serial killer in CHILD&#039;S PLAY was voiced by actor Brad Dourif who now plays the Gemini Killer inside Karras&#039; body in EXORCIST III.(!)Brad Dourif has popped up several times in my recent film watches and I think he&#039;s consistently great. His role in this sequel is certainly no exeption and that makes it a little easier to overlook this so-so plot twist.Then there&#039;s our lead man played by George C. Scott, an actor who seems to have a knack for playing very distressed&nbsp; characters.[ATTACH=full]53763[/ATTACH]Thankfully he stays on the right side of &quot;ham&quot; in EXORCIST III, but there are a few moments when I felt I had to brace myself.So, how should I call an unwanted sequel (even if it&#039;s based on a novel) that looks like a terrific horror film? A paradox?When I started renting videos in the early eighties I often watched those videos twice, not because I wanted to but because I could.Such was the time that &quot;the motion picture&quot; was still considered a very precious thing.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Willie Oleson, post: 404447, member: 8"] THE EXORCIST III (1990) [ATTACH type="full"]53757[/ATTACH] Although I'm not sure if it was "III" or " LEGION", the restored director's cut that is now considered a different release. I saw this film a long, long time ago so I wouldn't be able to tell the difference anyway, the only thing I remember is that it looked like a proper horror film. Several decades later it still manages to disturb me but what surprises me the most is how beautiful and timeless it looks. I could easily believe it was made at the same time they made The Exorcist's spin-off THE NINTH CONFIGURATION (1980). Editing, special effects and sound are impeccable therefore it's not surprising that this film has found a new cult following. That being said, it still feels like a sequel that doesn't really complement the original. It doesn't trash it like the first sequel did but there are a few things I struggled with, especially the resurrection of Father Damien Karras, albeit with a different personality. Apparently, his dramatic and emotional death in the original story coincided with the execution of a most evil serial killer, and the forces that first possessed Regan and now Karras felt cheated and decided to slip the spirit of the serial killer in Karras' [I]dying[/I] body (he looked pretty dead to me). This plot twist screams CHUCKY which cheapens the overall narrative somewhat. Furthermore, it seems odd that the supernatural forces would "think" in such an earthly way. The possession of Regan looked like a raw existence rather than a conniving scheme. Incidentally, the serial killer in CHILD'S PLAY was voiced by actor Brad Dourif who now plays the Gemini Killer inside Karras' body in EXORCIST III. (!) Brad Dourif has popped up several times in my recent film watches and I think he's consistently great. His role in this sequel is certainly no exeption and that makes it a little easier to overlook this so-so plot twist. Then there's our lead man played by George C. Scott, an actor who seems to have a knack for playing [I]very distressed[/I] characters. [ATTACH type="full"]53763[/ATTACH] Thankfully he stays on the right side of "ham" in EXORCIST III, but there are a few moments when I felt I had to brace myself. So, how should I call an unwanted sequel (even if it's based on a novel) that looks like a terrific horror film? A paradox? When I started renting videos in the early eighties I often watched those videos twice, not because I wanted to but because I [I]could[/I]. Such was the time that "the motion picture" was still considered a very precious thing. [/QUOTE]

Verification

Who played JR Ewing?