The Exorcist III: Legion

A much much better version of the film. Here the film has been tidied up a great deal so that the original concept of one character being played by one actor is restored. I also found it much slower and firstly much more of a detective story, which we only latterly come to consider might at least involve forces from the first film. The ending is also far better too. I think the director was trying to tell a slower more mediative story and in the end that vision wasn't allowed to come through. Instead they wanted a big showy elaborate finale where everything but the kitchen sink is thrown at us. Stick to this version though, it's far better, even if some scenes are still missing.

No pun intended - the movie was not supposed to be called Exorcist .. and yet it has or rather had all the ingredients an Exorcist sequel should have. Cast member(s?) from the original - and a story that while seems to have nothing to do with the movie from 1973 ... well is quite connected.

Once possessed one can not just shake it off - no I am not making a Taylor Swift pun here (unless you think it's cool, then I am definitely making one of course). This is the directors cut that came with the disc I got from the movie. Many scenes are included/had been saved for this. Unfortunately the video quality is not the best to say the least. You can immediately see and tell the difference to the other stuff.

If you don't mind that, there are interesting differences - although sometimes it seems to be just slight alterations of what was ultimately used in the movie. But this does end differently and you get to see more of Brad Dourif in this cut, instead of ... well another actor who is quite connected to his character in this movie. I delibaretely keep it vague ... so not to reveal too much. If you have seen it you'll know anyway what I am talking about ... if not, you will find out for yourself. Funnily enough this is shorter than the other version - directors cuts usually (mostly) are longer. I had never seen the second and third Exorcist movies ... they are quite different from the original ... which I consider a good thing ... you can't reach or copy what Friedkin did ... so this is as good as it gets (or the other version for all that I care) ...

Judging from the two flicks he made, William Peter Blatty was a talented director. He had vision and ambition. But that didn't make him infallible. THE EXORCIST III is a case in point. The theatrical version was flawed and we loved to blame the "suits" who demanded changes and re-shoots. But now here's LEGION, the version Blatty intended to make and I'm sad to report that it's even more flawed than the theatrical version. The theatrical version had that silly exorcism at the end, which brought an up until that point thoughtful flick down to the level of bargain basement horror. But the ending of the director's cut isn't much better, it's extremely anti-climactic and a million miles removed from the theological ending of the book. Another big difference is that in the director's cut Brad Dourif plays both the Gemini Killer/Patient X and Karras. You gotta hand it to the "suits" at Morgan Creek who insisted on re-shoots with Jason Miller, because the going back and forth between Dourif/Gemini and Miller/Karras in the theatrical version works like a charm. That part is much better in the theatrical version.

What's great about EXORCIST III remains great in the director's cut: the performances, especially the lead role by George C. Scott, the eerie atmosphere and photography and the best jump scare I have ever seen.

All in all, EXORCIST III remains flawed in both versions. But it's great that we can establish that by ourselves, thanks to the good folks who assembled the director's cut from whatever crude material they could get their hands on. In that respect, it's mostly historically interesting.

This is a fantastic bit of cinema. It hits a lot of the same home runs as the original "Exorcist" - stellar performances and cinematography, gripping plot and a strong script. But where it diverges (brilliantly) is in theme: this is a mystery movie with supernatural elements, as opposed to a horror film with Christian elements. Legion: Exorcist III uses a serial killer plot to explore overarching themes of existentialism, faith and - yes, there's a clue in the title - demonic possession.

This is a very different experience to the 1972 predecessor, and so comparisons are unfair. While not unsettling in the same ways as the first film, Exorcist 3 still provides ratcheting tension and impressive scares over the course of its generous runtime. The lasting impression we're left with is one of a riveting story, supported by outstanding performances from Scott, Dourif and Nancy Fish (whose work here isn't recognized enough - she's unsettling, and brilliant).

As before, William Peter Blatty (in my opinion, one of the finest writers. Full stop, no qualifiers.) adapts his own excellent novel into a tense, finely-drawn screenplay which runs along at a brisk pace. One could argue that the final act is more explicit, and ultimately less effective, than the rest of the movie - but that's a matter of personal taste, as opposed to an objective quality issue.

I can't recommend this enough - it treads difficult water, between an epic prequel and its own subtler self, with great success. A definite recommendation!

With William Friedkin unavailable, author and one-time director William Peter Blatty took up the job himself and... by god, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say, The Exorcist III is just as, if not more, terrifying than the original. Top-tier acting from George C. Scott and Brad Dourif, brilliant and minimalist music by Barry De Vorzon and astounding direction from Blatty with an atmosphere of unbearable dread and utter horror; also contains the single greatest (and only acceptable) jump-scare in film history. The Exorcist III is bloody horrifying in the best way possible and a worthy successor to the already frightening original.