Fiction vs. Fiction: The Exorcist III (aka Legion)

At long last, I read another Book!

In all seriousness, that is basically the gist of this.  I kept forgetting to get around to read many of the Books that I have that were later turned into Films.  I got the Book you see below many months ago.

Hell, I watched the Film first in 2011!

So how do the two stack up?
What is different?  What is the same?

To find, let's (slowly, but surely) read on...

 ***VS***

What's the same?: 
Both Films use the same basic Plot and beats.

A mysterious person is killing Priests (and one black kid) off-camera/page.
He or she does really bad stuff to us that is only described (and not shown in the Film).
Detective Kinderman suspects that it has to do with the Gemini Killer and...Father Karras.

Fun Fact: the Zodiac Killer (whom Gemini inspired) was a 'fan' of the original Exorcist.  He said so himself.

What's different?:
The Film is much tighter in terms of Pacing.

For instance, when Kinderman sees Father Dyer in the Book, it takes about 10 pages.  They banter about key stuff, but also nonsense.

In the Film, the Scene is much more brief.

Also, this is a random change: in the Book, he brings Dyer a toy bear with a funny shirt, but he brings him a stuffed penguin in the Film.

Why bother?!?

In the Film, Kinderman eventually sees Patient X (called Mr. Sunshine in the Book) and he can morph between appearing like Gemini and Karras.

In the Book, there is nothing that overt.

This is part of a larger feel of adding more mysticism.

A more minor, but curious change is that Kinderman's Partner (and other Cops in general) get way more page-time. 
Granted- they are always just sounding boards for Blatty's curious prose as the Detective.

Even so, it's a shame that they give Kinderman a 'token black partner' and stripped away all of his identity (and most of his lines).

Is that called The Winston?

Interestingly enough (to me) is the fact that Film's arguably most famous bit is implied much more than actually happens in the Book.

We hear that a Nurse was killed and about what happened to her.

In the Film, well, you know...

On top of *that,* the follow-up attack in the Detective's House doesn't happen in the Book- at all!

Now here, of course, is the biggest change from the Book to the Film...

The Exorcism!

Father Morning is made up specifically for the Film and serves as a very literal Deux Ex Machina (by proxy).  He stops the possessed woman from killing Kinderman at his home and tries to exorcise the Gemini from Karras.

Again- all of the more explicit supernatural stuff is in this Version.

In the Film, Karras lets himself be killed to end the whole thing.
In the Book, Gemini's Father dies of a stroke (not caused by him) and the spirit chooses to leave when 'its work was done.'

Yep, no random Priest to add in just to die in the Book.

Final Thoughts:
The Book is deep and cerebral.  There's lots of discussions about fate, humanity and all of that.

In other words, it is pretentious as hell!

Don't get me wrong- it's quite good.  It's just not the Horror story that the Film became.
It feels like a continuation of events that took place after 'The Exorcist.'
The Film is clearly a Sequel (and the only one that counts).

If you like the Film (the official or unofficial Cut), the Book is a nice companion piece that definitely has less 'pizazz' (or Pazuzu) than it.

If you like the Book, the Film is a more streamlined, but also expanded take on the source material.  There's plenty of stuff missing- including a bit where Temple argues with a double- that could have been in the Film.

Both are good, but the Film is perhaps a more brisk experience that gets you to the same place.  No, not Hell.

A few minor points off from the Book- it doesn't include the Cameos of Fabio, Alonzo Mourning or Samuel L. Jackson.  

Darn?

Forgotten Three-quels: The Exorcist 3

One last hurrah for William Peter Blatty, Director!  It's a little-known fact that Blatty Directed movies- two of them to be exact.  

As I mentioned in my review of The Ninth Configuration, it all goes back to The Exorcist 2, which annoyed a lot of people with its interpretation.  

While I can't say that it's terrible, a lot of people have said it for me!  Ten years after that film came and went, he decided to Direct a sequel to Exorcist 2, figuring that he can make it more accurate to his own vision.  

Needless to say, the studio was nervous about a one-time Director handling a major franchise, even if his only film won a Golden Globe and he did write the book!

  

After a lot of hassle, the film got made.  Were the results good?  Let's find out.  

Prepare for the random cameos of...

A series of murders is taking place in the city.  A police detective (George C. Scott) is on the case.  It's also been fifteen years since the death of his friend during an exorcism.  Of course, this does not become important until about an hour in.

Do the crimes relate to a crazy person that's been in a Sanitarium for 15 years?  Maybe.  

Does he sound like Chucky?  Yes.

Let's ignore the plot for a five-minute dream sequence.

Does it matter at all to the plot?  Nope.  It does, however, feature a cameo by Fabio.  No, really.  

In addition to that, there's this familiar face...

Samuel L. Jackson- motherf#(!^er!  That's just so amazingly random.  

Never mind that he shares a scene with some midgets carrying a clock.

When we finally return to the plot, Detective Scott realizes that the crazy man is possessed by the demon exorcised in the first film.  

I hope you like this shot, by the way, as it appears more than a Dutch Angle in the Batman show!

The spirit manages to put itself in many bodies.  Why it chooses an old lady to try and kill Scott's family (which is quite young, by the way) is anyone's guess!  

Watch your neck, honey.

 The film ends with a major confrontation in the Sanitarium.  

It's full of symbolism, blood and sacrilege.  

Good to know that the series is consistent.  The End.

Could you just focus a bit, guys?  The plot of this film is interesting, even if it has very little to do with the originals.  It feels like they wrote a murder mystery film, and an exorcism film separately & mixed them together.  It makes me wonder what the novel is like, considering that Blatty adapted it into the Screenplay himself (UPDATE- it's mostly the first thing).  As we know, of course, Blatty was forced to add so much of the latter to appease the Studio, who demanded, naturally, an Exorcism in an Exorcist Film.

So much of this film is just weird and random.  You learn many things about Scott and Father Dyer...none of which are really important.  On top of that, Dyer's death is not shown, merely represented by Scott's weird dream and the Priest showing up in it.  Eventually, when the plot gets more focused, the movie is better for it.  

They try to connect everything together, but it's just a little too late.  

Is The Gemini Killer a neat villain?  Yes.  

Does he have a smaller part than the guy running the Sanitarium?  Yes, actually.  

My other problem is the same one I had with The Ninth Configuration- Blatty is just not a great Director.  Many scenes are shot from a single camera angle and hold longer than they should.  You can move the camera every once in a while, Mr. Blatty!  

I would like to be able to recommend this film more, but I really recommend that you just watch the latter half.  Take us away, Fabio Angel...

Next up, the Highlander series tries to overcome the debacle of Zeist.  With that in mind, they added...magic?  Stay tuned...

Director/Author : The Ninth Configuration

Can a film live up to it's bizarre cover art?  That's the question raised by today's film: The Ninth Configuration.  Before we can really get into the film, let's get everyone's favorite thing out of the way- tedious back-story.  William Peter Blatty got famous for a little book called 'The Exorcist' in the '70s.  In the wake of that, the studio made another film in the series...and a lot of people hated it.  Apparently, Blatty was not a fan either.  This led him to Direct the next two films based on his books.  In case you doubt his reasoning, just note that the only two films that he has ever Directed are this movie and Exorcist 3.  So what is this Golden Globe Award-winning film about?  Well, a bunch of crazy ex-soldiers are left in a castle in the middle of nowhere to get better where they get a new doctor...who may have some secrets of his own.  I'll try not to spoil things too early, but the original story is called 'Twinkle Twinkle, "Killer" Kane!'  William Peter Blatty- Master of spoiling his own work!  The film has a big cast of supporting people that may catch your attention.  Get out your book of obscure terms as we try to decipher...

The film is set in a castle in the middle of nowhere.  How does the United States military own this place?  The movie never explains and doesn't expect you to ask.  This Screenplay won a Golden Globe, so who am I to question this?  They get a new doctor named Kane (Stacy Keach) and the patients don't take it well.  The first half hour to forty-five minutes of the movie is pretty much the guys acting crazy or upset.  Okay then.

We get more craziness and a cameo by both George C. Scott (as an astronaut gone nuts) and Joe Spinell as Lt. Spinell.  Again- this script won a Golden Globe.  Drama comes in when the patients hear rumors about Colonel/Doctor Kane having a dark past.  He lets the patients act out some craziness as a release, so they let it go for a while.  We also get the trippy, dream sequence that inspired the poster.  Interesting context, huh?

Finally, a man from Kane's unit shows up and the truth comes out.  As it turns out, the assisting Doctor was Kane's actual Doctor...and his brother.  That came out of left field, huh?  The lead patient flees the facility and goes to a bar, running afoul of a biker gang led by...Richard Lynch.  Random!  Kane shows up and gets pushed into a fight with the bar.  The pair return to the facility and Kane kills himself, his sacrifice pushing the patient to sanity.  Yeah, you're not a real doctor.  The End.

Who's crazy- me or you?  The plot of this movie is certainly odd, if a bit aimless.  The fact that the film is just made up of so many long, strange scenes says a lot about Blatty's experience as a Director.  Consider that he only made the film to keep the artistic integrity of it intact, that says a lot.  The film is not Directed badly or anything- just lackadaisically.  There is a merit to having impartial people in the Editing and Production process is what I'm saying, really.  The acting here is good, but what do you expect?  The problem here is the pacing is done in a way that a lot of younger moviegoers may not appreciate.  All of the people that expect instant-gratification or simple scenarios may not like this movie.  I would like to see a shortened version of the film available, which would help expand the marketability of the film.  That's nothing against the quality of the original cut, per se, just a cynical look at it.  If you like crazy and plots that don't go where you think that they will, check this one out.  It certainly does crazy right.

Next up, Mondo Bizarro keeps up with the trends and covers a popular film.  This one involves killer birds, solar panels and some of the worst pacing ever.  Stay tuned...