The Exorcist III 4K 1990 Ultra HD 2160p

Story Movie

A woman cautiously, like a fly, crawls along the ceiling. More and more victims die at the hands of a killer who died years ago. Flames rise, snakes crawl, and the earth opens, revealing the writhing bodies of the damned. Evil returns.

Review 4K Movie

In fact, William Peter Blatty, the author of the literary source of the cult film The Exorcist (1973), which was brilliantly adapted by William Friedkin, personally took the director's chair for the film adaptation of his own novel Legion, published in 1983. The director's chair had previously been offered to John Carpenter ("Halloween" (1978), "The Thing" (1982)), but the writer was turned down. Unfortunately, the third film about the exorcist was only slightly more watchable than John Boorman's utterly flawed second feature - the writer turned out to be an utterly inept filmmaker. The plot only indirectly touches on the previous installments, telling the story of evil returning 13 years later to the body of a new victim, a certain patient X. Lieutenant William Kinderman (George C. Scott) must put an end to this madness, risking his and his family's lives.

Alas, "The Exorcist of the Devil III" was very bad from both perspectives, both as a stand-alone, unbiased work and as another sequel to William Friedkin's masterpiece or his own bestseller. William Peter Blatty here is reminiscent of Stephen King, who tried many times to personally adapt his own works, but nothing came of it. The writer was powerless as a director - having already had some experience in directing his own novel The Ninth Configuration (1980), he showed an inability to adequately tell the story on the screen, to work with the actors on the set, as well as an inability to build suspense, which is needed here, and in many other things that require a stronger directorial grip. The filming is extremely dull and the cameraman was far from always choosing good angles. George C. Scott, the lead actor, at times looks a bit stiff or even amused when he actively expresses his displeasure with something, sputtering. Only to his nomination for a Golden Raspberry anti-award I would add the director in particular for such a sluggish, untense, unfocused, mushy and incomprehensible narrative that, even, I'm not sure, looked better in the letter of the source book, which is the book sequel to the bestselling novel. Still, a couple of scenes in the film looked spectacular and even unexpected, which, however, had little effect on the perception of the picture as a whole. To sum it up, the writer-director's bestseller "The Exorcist" screened by W. Friedkin in 1973 absolutely did not need any sequels and prequels (and in fact we will see them in 2004 and 2005 too) and was a complete work.