ShangLuda Admirable film.

Beystiman It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

StyleSk8r At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

Erica Derrick By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

allanwaters-86617 The preamble to this review, has to be, that this movie, is my favourite psychological horror of the last 30 years. If you are going into to watch this movie with expectations of gore dripping grotesquely from the screen, then don't expect a lurid bloodbath. This celluloid masterpiece, hits you deep with the cerebral grey matter. The acoustic's are scything and scathing, the acting is visceral and precise, the atmosphere and tension is palpably tangible. I could go and on and on into infinitum with superaltives... ... But I don't want to spoil this orgy of the senses for potential first timers taking in this psychologically, horrifying spectacle. The director clearly had a vision to deliver onto the screen, and this was executed with gusto and aplomb. The scenes are set with immaculate precision, guiding us gently through each frame, shepparding us until the director sends us spiralling headlong out of control, bathing our brains in tension and revulsion. The screenplay is simply superb. Along with the acoustics and direction, the narrative fiercely fuels our inner fears. Some of the psychiatric ward scenes are delivered in odious and undulating spades of nightmarish debauchery. I wanted to give a magisterial mention to the nurse station scene. All of the above, is constellated into a cocktail of suspenseful, petrifying horror. If you aren't flung out of your skin into the stratosphere by the climax of this scene, give yourself a hearty pat on the back! The only exiguous quibbles with this movie and the reason it hasn't scored a resounding 10/10, is the films duration(a tad short) , and a certain actor being struck from the proceedings all to abruptly. In surmation, watch this malevolent scare fest of gut wrenching terror . It's woven together into a beguiling, mesmerising tapestry of masterful movie making.

Leofwine_draca This second sequel to the horror classic doesn't, for once, obey the law of horror sequels, in that it manages to be BETTER than the first sequel. I'm not sure why a lot of people seem to be down on this movie. Maybe because the plot is a lot different from THE EXORCIST but surely any change - or originality - can only be a good thing? It's certainly one of the most expensive-looking and well-made horror movies of the '90s that I've seen, with every scene having that big-budget and crisply realistic gloss that makes it stand out from the crowd. The photography brings to life the atmosphere of the dark sets well and this is a most technically accomplished, polished-looking film.Although most of the action and incident is packed into the second half, this is nonetheless enthralling stuff, with sterling performances from an experienced cast keeping the viewer watching throughout. It does get confusing at times but the main thrust of the plot is easy to follow right through until the ending. One surprising thing about this film is its subtlety. For once the graphic murders are off screen, but their descriptions are enough to make you wince and make your imagination work overtime. It's definitely a case of less is more with this film, which contains some of the most horrible and sick-sounding murders ever.There's plenty of horror here, from physical jumpy shocks (the celebrated hallway murder, in which a white-sheeted figure emerges suddenly from a closed doorway, is brilliant and could show the producers of WHAT LIES BENEATH something) to pieces of sustained tension and the subtle elements of weirdly flickering lights and whispering voices on the soundtrack. The music is suspenseful, the script intelligent for once and not underestimating the intelligence of the viewer.George C. Scott (looking very old but still more than with it) is well-cast as the investigating policeman Kinderman; he makes his character a very human one who is moved to grief on more than one occasion yet still commands the authority and respect that a police lieutenant should. Ed Flanders is very good also in a sympathetic role as a priest, while Nancy Fish retains an air of mystery about her at all times, making her a character to watch when she's on screen (she turns out to be a red herring in the end, though). Also appearing briefly are Nicol Williamson as an exorcist and Jason Miller, who's soul is now trapped inside the body of another man (Miller puts in a frequently upsetting and startling turn). Best of all is the manic Brad Dourif as the Gemini Killer, who is in touch with the underworld. His ranting villain spends all of his screen-time in a padded cell yet, with his words and expression alone, he gives one of the most chilling performances in a long time.The special effects are pretty good, from the "possessed" make-up to the standout, unexpected shot of an old lady crawling about on a ceiling - certainly one of the most risky effects shots I've seen, but it pays off superbly. Events climax in a mini-exorcism with lots of special effects which don't disappoint. Blessed with a strong leading man, fine supporting turns, plenty of shocks and scares, and oodles of atmosphere, THE EXORCIST III is a worthy successor to the crown in this humble reviewer's opinion.

gavin6942 A police lieutenant uncovers more than he bargained for as his investigation of a series of murders, which have all the hallmarks of the deceased 'Gemini' serial killer, lead him to question the patients of a psychiatric ward.Although I actually enjoyed the second "Exorcist" film, most people consider it a stinker and like to pretend it never happened. For those people, this is the right film to watch. A great tale of possession, that follows rather directly (though belatedly) from the original.George C. Scott adds a certain weight to any film. Just as he did for "The Changeling", he makes what could be a forgettable horror film into something really worthwhile. He is a vastly underrated actor.

Sarah Carlton Nowadays, sequels are terribly frowned upon. They're infamous for being cheaply made only with the intent to grab money from people with the promise that it'll be just as good as the original. I had purposely skipped The Exorcist II because I had heard that it was laughably bad and not worth watching whatsoever. And initially, I wasn't even going to see this one. But I'm sure glad I did.George C. Scott plays the protagonist: a detective who's investigating a string of murders that are uncannily similar to the Gemini Killer case; a serial murderer who's victims are killed in grotesque and sinister ways. But there's only one problem: The Gemini killer was supposedly sentenced to death 15 years earlier, so he's left to figure out how he's able to kill again. Without giving anything away about the plot, I will tell you that the Gemini Killer is played by a phenomenal actor who I'm personally a fan of. Brad Dourif appears in only two scenes in this entire film, but damn do they stand out. He is absolutely enthralling. Dourif is able to invoke such rage, ferocity and insanity without coming off as completely over-the-top. He subtly creates a tragic yet terrifying complex of personality traits embodied into a mesmerizing performance. It was an absolute delight to watch him in the film.Thankfully there are other things to like about this film aside from Dourif's amazing performance. There are several well shot scenes that are just as disturbing as they are compelling. The last act in particular had me on the edge of my seat: it's the most tense I've ever been while watching a film in a long time. With that said, I wouldn't exactly classify it as a "horror" film so much as a suspense/crime drama. But it still has some fairly creepy moments.However, one thing that disappointed me was George C. Scott's acting in the lead role. Being such a seasoned and well experienced actor at this point in his career, you'd think that he could never give a bad performance. But unfortunately, he does in The Exorcist III. If you looked up "chewing the scenery" in the urban dictionary, I'm almost positive you would find his name there. Scott poorly delivered so many lines that I would actually find myself laughing during some scenes, but for all of the wrong reasons. Now to be fair, this may be the fault of William Peter Blatty who at best, was an amateur behind the camera. And clearly he was better at writing than he was at directing. He may have given Scott unclear or vague instructions which caused Scott to become confused and just wing it as best he could. Also, I should mention that not all of Scott's scenes are bad, but had a more experienced director been on set, things might have worked out differently. Scott's less than par acting in this film is the reason why I won't give it a higher rating than a 7.But overall, it's a great film that really exceeded my expectations, especially in the last two acts. It's as good as sequels come and I would recommend it to fans of the original film. One thing that people might find surprising is that it actually ties into the first Exorcist film rather well. I believe it's worth watching for Brad Dourif alone, but there's some additional scenes in the film that are also worth checking out. It's not everyone's cup of tea, but if you keep an open mind this film will definitely shock you.