There are two types of horror movies: one in which ghosts are part of the universe and their existence is taken for granted; the other in which ghosts are part of the universe, and much time and effort is exhausted in proving their existence. Having dedicated Part I to the latter and having conveniently forgotten about the existence of Part II, The Exorcist III finds itself on the much bigger, broader and sunnier playing field of the first kind of horror movie. In this case, however, one cannot help but observe that it loses its energy before covering even half the field at its disposal.
This is not to take away the high notes from the film, and it is anything but flat. Much like the first Exorcist movie, this one hardly has any tedious moments or repetitions, or even gimmicky scares. This is a noble effort from a literary artist-turned-filmmaker.
William Peter Blatty, leading this time from the director’s chair provides a curious spectacle, as the author who has kept his pen down, put his pants and work-jacket on at inhumanely early hours of the morning to translate the words he so ecstatically wrote on page on the big screen. Here he does not disappoint, and does as well as a debutant does. One of the most masterful moments involves a static, ultra-wide shot of the hospital corridors, without any cuts. This is a director who is confident of his screenplay, of his characters and knows what he wants.
Much of the film is informed and pushed with dialogue, the tools of cinema used frugally to the service of atmosphere, dreams of the cop Kinderman and the broader ‘The Exorcist’ universe. The decision to hold back on portraying any explicit blood or gore and rely instead on the actors and camera work does it’s work quite well, and is a good welcome exercise for new horror-directors.
This restrained approach works so much better compared to the ambitious new-comer Hollywood or amateur horror directors who think they have mastered visual grammar, and in their excitement make the viewer dizzy and agitated.
Comments