MichaelLibinAP

The first 6/8 of "Exorcist III" are very good indeed. Please, for God's sake, skip "Exorcist II", the catastrophe that nearly killed the good name of "The Exorcist". "III" has some of the most genuinely creepy moments captured on film--some even surpass the original (particularly the "things that go bump in the night" sequence in the hospital). Noteworthy are the many moments (sometimes almost out of our view) of dissonant images or behaviors that make watching "Exorcist III" a most uncomfortable experience. And I mean that in the best possible way.

Unfortunately, something odd happens in the final moments of this film--all hell breaks loose. Literally. And then "Exorsist III" moves from psychological horror into "Devil made me do it" bedlam. Pity, because this film is really quite good. Brad Dourif does a fine job, and how nice to see Jason Miller again. And Nancy Fish as Nurse Allerton nearly steals the film. Though George C. Scott chews the scenery as the film progresses, Blatty appears to have done a fine job of reigning in the "ham factor" early on, and it's a better film for his efforts.

By all means, check this overlooked gem out. But you might need to leave the lights on while you do. And don't watch it if there's a hospital stay in your immediate future!

I love intelligent horror. I'm not a fan of torture porn/slasher flicks. I love Hitchcockian subtlety, and nerve-jangling set-ups. This film has none of the above. It begins promisingly enough with a brooding college student accepting a ride home for the holidays from a stranger who's posted an available lift on the campus ride-board. How many times did I myself catch a ride home in this manner while in school...always feeling a tiny bit chilled by the possibility of danger. Her driver, an odd young man, is full of mystery. It appears that he knows a wee bit too much about his passenger. Interesting premise. Then all hell breaks loose. The script descends into horror cliché ("Penny Dreadful" did the trapped-in-the-woods routine much better) and inarticulation. In short, it makes no sense. Oh sure, there's the dime-story theology and philosophy that's supposed to make this mess look cerebral. But, it never quite delivers--leaving viewers scratching their heads and asking "who was that?"..."what was that?" and "huh?" Pity, because Emily Blunt is terrific. Unfortunately, her character has the IQ of a grapefruit, which makes her a tough gal with whom to sympathize.

Incidentally, comparing this film to the brilliant "Rosemary's Baby" is blasphemous. Polanski's masterpiece is still the gold-standard by which fright flicks are judged--40 years after its release. Who will be discussing "Wind Chill" six months after its straight-to-video debut?

"Into The Wild" is my favorite book. I was hesitant to see this film, but felt if anyone could do this remarkable story justice, it would be Sean Penn. I was not disappointed. This is a heartbreaking story that does not wallow in pathos. It is a tribute to those among us who march to a different drum. Maybe some viewers will find Christopher McCandless' story pointless—I've heard the hubris arguments already—but for those of us who have felt the lure of absolute freedom, the love of unspoiled nature, and the need to find our souls, "Into The Wild" is awe- inspiring. Penn's screenplay is succinct and smart, his direction is flawless. The performances— Hal Holbrook, Catherine Keener, and Marcia Gay Harden chief among them—are superb and Oscar-worthy. But it is doe-eyed Emile Hirsch who is the heart and soul of this film. With so many grand performances swirling around him, he's easy to overlook. But don't. His joyous and painful portrayal of McCandless/Supertramp is a tribute to the real McCandless' innocent spirit.