Quote:
Originally Posted by Sculpt
I saw Exorcist 3 a few months ago for the first time. I thought it was decent and fairly engaging. The last half, especially the ending, struck me as a bit hokey/goofy.
It was a little too lose in it's demonology... like the 'demon' making 'strange things' happen at the church, when the possessed man is no where near it, and not much of an association to it... just seemed like a cheap 'weird spooky' thing to throw in. And then the ending with the people blob thing sinking into the floor... didn't have coherence to me, so it came off goofy.
Superior to The Exorcist... I really don't think 3 was even close to being as sharp, coherent and viscerally scary was the original. When's the last time you saw the original? The spinal tap, psychiatrists, the Regan/Karras chats and on... I haven't seen any similar film do it better. It's still feels modern to me.
|
I will be honest, the original Exorcist never clicked with me. It dragged on too long and just did not have any tension, in my opinion. It may be technically great, but I have always considered it overrated. I do agree that the ending was not well executed in III, while it was very well executed in the original.
That aspect did not really bother me, I think that it gave the film a certain surreal feeling. Plus, it gave a feeling of unpredictability, which was really useful in terms of tension.
I disagree on that, I felt it was very coherent and the confusing nature of the film really added to the experience. I do not have an exact time, but it was not that long ago. In all honesty, I have tried several times to watch it and get what do many others have raved about, I just don't. I feel it has a technical brilliance, but I just do not see the same thing as others. As for scariness, there were many times in III that I was quite terrified, something I never felt in the original. This has nothing to do with the age of the film, by the way, as both the original House of Usher and The Haunting acheived a similar effect in me.