Boobirt Stylish but barely mediocre overall

Skunkyrate Gripping story with well-crafted characters

Micransix Crappy film

HeadlinesExotic Boring

Filipe Neto After the disaster of "The Exorcist 2", it seems that William Peter Blatty, writer of the novel that originated the first film, decided to defend his creation and to direct this sequel himself, under a script written by himself, adapting another of his novels. So, its almost a work of just one person. It revolves around a mysterious murderer wanted by the police. However, the plot lost itself and, from the middle, is absolutely confusing, annoying and makes the public sleep more quickly than a sleeping pill. We simply don't understand what we're watching anymore. Decidedly, Blatty does not have talent for director, much less for writer. Jason Miller makes a brief cameo but its very empty of meaning and is not enough to establish a link with previous films, of which it inherits little more than the title. Thus, this attempt of sequel ends up very lost and disconnected of the previous films, thanks to an incompetent script and an absent direction.

JP_Shay William Peter Blatty's "The Exorcist III" is one of the best horror films ever made. Not only is it a worthy successor to one of the scariest and most influential films in all of cinema, but it manages to be great as a standalone mystery film as well. It was written for the screen and directed by William Blatty, who wrote the novel that the original film was based on as well as the sequel, titled "Legion". He set out to direct EXIII himself as he was not pleased with the changes made by William Friedkin, director of the original Exorcist film. "Legion" is Blatty's hypnotic tale of what takes place exactly 15 years after the events of the first film. We follow a familiar character, Lt. Bill Kinderman (George C. Scott) as he investigates murders that seem to resemble killings of the infamous "Gemini Killer", who died in the electric chair 15 years earlier. We are brought into a world where evil looms over and mortality is questioned. This review is for the newly released Directors Cut. The Theatrical version gave us great performances and memorable scenes. There were, however, many changes imposed by the studio, making the end product less faithful to the source than Blatty had intended. It was long thought that the remaining footage of "The Exorcist III" - the unseen, original footage - had been lost forever, but thanks to Scream Factory, the video label responsible for the release of many Collectors Editions of horror and sci-fi cult films, some of that original footage was found and restored into the movie...including the original ending.In the theatrical version, there were last minute parts added that should have never been there. Important scenes were cut from the film and even an unnecessary exorcism was forced in to make the studio happy. In the end, Blatty had to sacrifice a lot to get EXIII made, and it didn't help that the first sequel bombed badly. The theatrical cut is still a great film despite the changes that were made. William Blatty created a nightmarish atmosphere while remaining subtle and not relying solely on shock. George C. Scott as Kinderman brings a certain charm to the picture and his chemistry with the rest of the cast is brilliant. I actually happen to like the exorcism scene at the end, which has intense visuals and a great speech from Lt. Kinderman. The Directors Cut brings new life into the movie, giving it a sense of fulfillment while retaining - and adding to - the charm and dreadful atmosphere of the theatrical version.The additional scenes and clips in the Director's Cut originate from old VHS tapes containing the original footage. Some very short snippets, such as Kinderman and Father Dyer (Ed Flanders) conversing in a restaurant about James Stewart, and other longer, more important plot points make up the Directors Cut. The change in quality is highly noticeable as the footage is unpolished and grainy compared to the rest of the movie, however, it is added in a way that is almost artistic. For example, all the scenes in the cell with the Gemini Killer are from the VHS footage, which gives off an otherworldly feeling. Had they decided to downgrade the quality of the theatrical cut to match the footage, we would not get that effect, so I am not complaining. Completely gone are the scenes of Jason Miller as Father Karras. As you may remember, the Gemini Killer is played by both Jason Miller and Brad Dourif switching back and forth to signify Father Karras' possession. Yet in the Director's Cut, it is all Brad, who was mesmerizing in the role. Dourif has stated that he believes his best takes were captured on the earlier footage which was presumed to be lost. We get to see those earlier takes in the Directors Cut since much of the added footage is of his encounters with Lt. Kinderman in the cell. Also, many of the scares, such as the notorious hospital hallway scene, are kept intact. The most notable difference is in the end. There is no random priest coming out of nowhere and there is no exorcism. Instead, we are finally given the true - and abrupt - ending that die-hard fans of the film deserve. Despite the changes in quality, "The Exorcist III" Director's Cut turned out fine. I am very pleased with the result. This is the version that fans have been waiting for. This is the version that William Peter Blatty wanted us to see!

Leofwine_draca This second sequel to the horror classic doesn't, for once, obey the law of horror sequels, in that it manages to be BETTER than the first sequel. I'm not sure why a lot of people seem to be down on this movie. Maybe because the plot is a lot different from THE EXORCIST but surely any change - or originality - can only be a good thing? It's certainly one of the most expensive-looking and well-made horror movies of the '90s that I've seen, with every scene having that big-budget and crisply realistic gloss that makes it stand out from the crowd. The photography brings to life the atmosphere of the dark sets well and this is a most technically accomplished, polished-looking film.Although most of the action and incident is packed into the second half, this is nonetheless enthralling stuff, with sterling performances from an experienced cast keeping the viewer watching throughout. It does get confusing at times but the main thrust of the plot is easy to follow right through until the ending. One surprising thing about this film is its subtlety. For once the graphic murders are off screen, but their descriptions are enough to make you wince and make your imagination work overtime. It's definitely a case of less is more with this film, which contains some of the most horrible and sick-sounding murders ever.There's plenty of horror here, from physical jumpy shocks (the celebrated hallway murder, in which a white-sheeted figure emerges suddenly from a closed doorway, is brilliant and could show the producers of WHAT LIES BENEATH something) to pieces of sustained tension and the subtle elements of weirdly flickering lights and whispering voices on the soundtrack. The music is suspenseful, the script intelligent for once and not underestimating the intelligence of the viewer.George C. Scott (looking very old but still more than with it) is well-cast as the investigating policeman Kinderman; he makes his character a very human one who is moved to grief on more than one occasion yet still commands the authority and respect that a police lieutenant should. Ed Flanders is very good also in a sympathetic role as a priest, while Nancy Fish retains an air of mystery about her at all times, making her a character to watch when she's on screen (she turns out to be a red herring in the end, though). Also appearing briefly are Nicol Williamson as an exorcist and Jason Miller, who's soul is now trapped inside the body of another man (Miller puts in a frequently upsetting and startling turn). Best of all is the manic Brad Dourif as the Gemini Killer, who is in touch with the underworld. His ranting villain spends all of his screen-time in a padded cell yet, with his words and expression alone, he gives one of the most chilling performances in a long time.The special effects are pretty good, from the "possessed" make-up to the standout, unexpected shot of an old lady crawling about on a ceiling - certainly one of the most risky effects shots I've seen, but it pays off superbly. Events climax in a mini-exorcism with lots of special effects which don't disappoint. Blessed with a strong leading man, fine supporting turns, plenty of shocks and scares, and oodles of atmosphere, THE EXORCIST III is a worthy successor to the crown in this humble reviewer's opinion.

skybrick736 The Exorcist III is simply one of those underrated gyms that get overlooked because of the abundant amount of sequels pumped out from money grabbing movie makers. So what is the primary reason why the Exorcist III surpassed the second installment by far? It's all because William Peter Blatty wrote and directed a film sequel to his original novel made into a screenplay. The film brought back the hard hitting grotesque dialogue and most importantly the scare factor. Blatty shot the film to tend towards the psychological horror aspects but he added a scare factor that brought tense, jumpy scenes. The film is often accredited to having one of the scariest movie moments that absolutely no one saw coming.Along with the phenomenal writing, direction and filmmaking there were some great characters portrayed with adequate acting. George C. Scott as the main protagonist did a good job and Brad Dourif was a nice touch, however parts of the supporting cast weren't all that great. The cameo list is impressive and very odd, I won't spoil a couple of them but to show how strange some are to the film, an example is Patrick Ewing as The Angel of Death. There are some other curious, questionable aspects about Exorcist III but it stands out to being a formidable entry the possession genre and an excellent crime thriller.