Editorials
‘The Exorcist III’ Is as Excellent as the Original Classic [We Love ’90s Horror]
The ‘90s often get a bad rap with horror fans. After the numerous successful slashers and creature effects films of the ’80s, the ‘90s offered a different variety of horror fare. Though there were plenty of hits, hidden gems, and misunderstood classics, the ‘90s usually don’t get the kind of love that other decades get when it comes to horror. It’s time to change that.
The Exorcist III never had a chance.
As a follow-up to Exorcist II: The Heretic, it was doomed to be ignored by wide audiences thanks to its predecessor’s abysmal reception. And simply standing in the shadow of The Exorcist would cause it to endure undue criticism by comparison. This is probably one reason why writer/director William Peter Blatty decided to name his sequel novel Legion. And when Blatty was making this third entry, he was under the impression that it would be released under that title. But the studio wanted it to have the Exorcist branding and we got The Exorcist III, a movie that was mostly ignored at the box office and received mixed reviews upon release.
Years later, a cult following started to develop for The Exorcist III. This was partially due to the knowledge that Blatty’s original vision of the film had been subverted by the studio. Extensive reshoots, which included a brand new ending, left fans wondering about the version we never got to see. A few years ago, Scream Factory released The Exorcist III on Blu-ray and included a “Director’s Cut” that did its best to restore Blatty’s intended approach to the movie.
So now, we have two versions of The Exorcist III to enjoy. While the “Director’s Cut” is a fascinating look into a movie that could have been, we’re going to focus on the theatrical cut of The Exorcist III. Why? Because that movie is a masterpiece.
Taking place seventeen years after the events of The Exorcist – and more directly following the canon established in Blatty’s original novel – Lieutenant William Kinderman (George C. Scott) is investigating a series of bizarre and brutal murders that resemble the victims of a serial killer that was executed seventeen years ago. This leads him to a mysterious patient in a psychiatric ward who appears to be Father Damien Karras (Jason Miller), the priest that performed the exorcism on Regan MacNeil and died at the end of The Exorcist. It’s revealed that the Gemini Killer (Brad Dourif) has possessed Karras’s body and is also possessing the elderly catatonics of the psychiatric ward to go out and commit his murders.
There’s a lot more going on in the story but that basic synopsis should give you an idea of how unique The Exorcist III’s plot is compared to both the original film and the majority of possession stories. Blatty found a clever way to continue exploring the world and certain characters from The Exorcist without just doing another riff on what we’d seen before. Creating a detective mystery out of this is an invigorating direction to take.
But it’s not just the story that makes The Exorcist III a triumph. Blatty’s direction is phenomenal at understatement and mood. He eschews the gritty intimacy of Friedkin’s philosophies that we saw in the first film and instead opts for lots of locked-down shots that often linger for longer than we anticipate. So much of The Exorcist III emphasizes the emptiness of space surrounding our characters. Combined with Barry De Vorzon’s droning and non-melodic score, this creates the feeling that evil is a constant force that’s hovering around us at all times. Blatty uses this vacant dread to stunning effect throughout the film, including one jump scare that has become even more recognized than the film itself.
Thankfully, The Exorcist III isn’t just counting on scares and atmosphere. The assembled cast is putting in master level work. George C. Scott’s performance as the world-weary and cynical Kinderman is one of the best in the storied actor’s career. His anger, desperation, and eventual terror at what is happening are played with such conviction that it immediately sells you on the severity of the story. And the scenes between Kinderman and his friend Father Joseph Dyer (Ed Flanders) are so endearing in a way that never feels saccharine or manipulative. These two feel like true old friends. It’s also nice to see Jason Miller return as Father Karras, though Miller’s alcoholism at that point had deteriorated his ability to remember lines. Still, he brings added weight to the entire endeavor and his final moment is a powerful one.
Now, let’s talk about Brad Dourif. He’s horror royalty thanks to his ongoing role as Chucky in the Child’s Play series – he’s especially great in Child’s Play 2 – but his role in The Exorcist III is in contention for his greatest on-screen performance. In the original cut of the film, Dourif was cast as Miller’s replacement for Father Karras. When the reshoots happened, Dourif became the spirit of the Gemini Killer that’s possessing Karras. This means he’s in less of the finished version but it makes his presence even more imposing. Dourif has said that he prefers the original cut and it’s not hard to see why. However, his performance is scarier and more powerful in the theatrical cut. It’s one of the great horror villain characters and it’s a shame the Gemini Killer isn’t seen as such.
Thirty years later, The Exorcist III has finally been getting the accolades it deserves but it’s time to go a step further. The Exorcist III isn’t just a good ‘90s horror movie or a good sequel. The Exorcist III should be as revered as The Exorcist. It’s THAT good. It’s astonishingly creepy, well-constructed, superbly acted, and stands on its own merits to the point that you could watch it without having seen the first film. That’s an impressive feat for any sequel.
Part of the reason for doing this column is to negate the belief and criticism that the ‘90s didn’t bring many horror masterpieces to the table. Without a doubt, The Exorcist III is a horror masterpiece that should be touted as one of the finest examples of horror cinema.
Auteur Filmmaking is a term that gets thrown around a lot these days in reference to big name directors like Quentin Tarantino and even Wes Anderson, but the truth is that film is a collective medium, and no one person can be responsible for every single aspect of a particular production. However, the smaller a film’s budget, the bigger the individual impact of every creative decision behind it – and the easier it becomes to identify a genuine auteur.
This isn’t necessarily a judgement of value, as blockbuster filmmaking comes with its own challenges and a good movie remains a miracle regardless of how big the crew is, but I’ve always been more interested in soulful b-movies produced by handfuls of passionate artists than blockbusters backed by creative armies.
That’s why I love exploring low-budget franchises that never left the hands of their original creators, as you really get to know the artists involved with these flicks and can accompany their evolution over a period of time. With that in mind, I’d like to invite readers to join me in this multi-part series as we look into a vampire saga helmed by one of the most fascinating auteurs of the 1990s. Naturally, I’m referring to Ted Nicolaou’s criminally underrated Subspecies!
The Birth of an Unlikely Horror Franchise
A proud graduate of the University of Texas’ Film program, Nicolaou got his start in the industry as a sound technician working on Tobe Hooper’s original Texas Chain Saw Massacre. From there, the filmmaker would go on to work for notorious indie producer Charles Band, the founder of both Empire Pictures and Full Moon Productions. According to Nicolaou, Band would usually contact him with an offer to direct a feature after more prominent filmmakers, such as the late, great Stuart Gordon, had already refused, meaning that his projects tended to have lower budgets and more inexperienced crew members.
The plans for Subspecies began almost immediately after the fall of Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceaușescu, with screenwriter David Pabian turning in an initial draft of the film after a Romanian producer contacted Band and explained that Romanian tax incentives could cover the cost of film production there so long as Full Moon took care of the post-production process. Since Stuart Gordon was unwilling to travel to Romania, Ted Nicolaou ended up taking over the picture.
However, while the financial incentives meant that this Romanian-American co-production could look and feel much more expensive than it really was, with Nicolaou scouting for locations in advance and selecting real castle ruins to be featured in the movie, the director was soon faced with an incredibly difficult shooting process. In interviews, Nicolaou would later describe the experience as something of a nightmare, with language barriers and the generalized distrust of capitalist outsiders sabotaging many of the team’s plans for the film.
In fact, the script, which had already been altered by Band, ultimately had portions of it rewritten by both Jack Canson and Nicolaou himself in an attempt to adapt the story to their unique limitations.
Radu Is One of Horror’s Greatest Underrated Villains
In the finished film, which was released directly to video in 1991, we follow a pair of American anthropology students, Michelle (Laura Mae Tate) and Lillian (Michelle McBride), as they reunite with their Romanian colleague Mara (Irina Movila) in her native land. The group intends to study the folklore surrounding the secluded town of Prejmer, but their research is cut short by the return of Radu Vladislas (Anders Hove) – the evil son of a vampire king (Angus Scrimm) who had previously established a truce with the region’s human residents. It’s now up to Radu’s human-loving half-brother Stefan (Michael Watson) to protect the girls from a fate worse than death as the power-hungry vampire seeks to control a magical artifact known as the Bloodstone.
Right off the bat, you may have noticed that the film’s premise sounds decidedly old-fashioned when compared to other vampire movies from around the same time. While the 1990s saw the rise of cool-looking bloodsuckers with badass elements borrowed from Westerns, as well as the sexy aristocrats of Anne Rice’s stories, Subspecies has a lot more in common with Nosferatu and the Hammer Horror series than any of its contemporaries.
This is both a blessing and a curse, as the film falls victim to overly familiar genre tropes while also standing out as a rare example of a ’90s vampire flick that isn’t afraid to flex its muscles as a Creature Feature. In fact, I’d argue that the presence of age-old clichés is a small price to pay when confronted with one of the most compelling vampire antagonists in all of cinema.
Named after Vlad the Impaler’s real-life brother, Anders Hove’s Radu is such a fascinating character and the main reason why Subspecies is still worth watching 35 years later. From his animalistic mannerisms to the joy he feels in simply existing as a chaotic creature of the night, and that’s not even mentioning the iconic makeup that almost certainly inspired the undead from Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Radu is a hypnotic presence harkening back to a time when audiences didn’t mind purely evil villains that couldn’t be redeemed through tragic backstories or sex appeal.
Gothic Atmosphere on an Indie Budget
Of course, the film’s Romanian setting and authentic art direction do a lot of the heavy lifting whenever Radu isn’t around. From the masked festivals of the village to the visually interesting selection of local extras, Subspecies’ multicultural elements help it to stand out when compared to similar flicks from the ’90s.
That being said, Nicolaou’s unique eye for special effects and exciting action sequences – as well as Vlad Paunescu’s excellent cinematography – make the movie a delight for fans of expressionist cinema and old-timey gothic horror. While the crew is obviously dealing with limited resources, many of the flick’s blemishes (such as the odd stop-motion demons that serve Radu) end up feeling more like charming idiosyncrasies than actual flaws.
I’d argue that the only real issue here is pacing, as there are long stretches of film where the protagonists are simply bumbling around without realizing what’s really going on around them. Thankfully, the gorgeous visuals and surprisingly effective soundtrack usually make up for this. Besides, how can you dislike a movie where shotgun shells are loaded with rosary beads and our lead vampires duke it out in a dramatic swordfight that would feel out of place during the golden age of Hollywood?
Your overall enjoyment of Subspecies will mostly depend on whether or not you find low-budget corner-cutting and janky practical effects charming rather than distracting, but I know I’ll keep coming back to this Full Moon feature again and again in the future.
That being said, while this first movie is worth revisiting by its own merits as the birth of an indie horror icon, I’d like to invite you to join us as we look into the cult sequel Bloodstone: Subspecies II soon.
You must be logged in to post a comment.