I don't get it. All these rave reviews for this rambling flop? Supposed to be about a serial killer? Who? The "radio lady"? Brad Dorif? Who is it? Who is doing the killing? What's the deal with the giant pruning shears? When the nut-case nurse attacks Linderman's daughter, did she die? Get hurt? Why didn't Linderman shoot her while she was attacking? WHO WAS THE KILLER? The nut-case shrink who has to read his lines from papers in his desk drawer? Was that intentional to show his cheat sheet? What was the point of him having to read his lines? Bad actor? Why does Father Karras' character jump back and forth? How come Linderman got away with murder at the end? How did his limbs get re-attached? Too many unanswered questions. The only thing that kept me watching it was the award winning George Scott. Man, he must have been hard up for bucks to partake in this jumbo flop. Plot? Where? It seemed to jump around all over the place with no connection. Scary? Not to me. More comical than anything. Folks, if you are looking for something as riveting and scary as the original, go elsewhere. This movie is a waste of time. Look for a Gilligans Island marathon and watch that. You will thank me later. Like I said, I don't get it. What's up? Excorcist II was bad enough. Why couldn't they have done any better? All on a bad acid trip while making it..? Anybody who raves this movie, for God's sake, stay out of Hollywood!
Review of The Exorcist III
