The theatrical cut is in my opinion better. But I think it's a matter of taste. It doesn't matter which version you like, they are both great. But I think the theatrical cut is a little better.
15 Reviews
A inferior cut but still great
anton_carlsson19 September 2020
Reviewing Legion
hellholehorror9 November 2023
I am going to rate the director's cut of Legion differently to the theatrical, which is my preferred version. This review covers the Legion version which I honestly think is interesting and very entertaining but fails to be as good as the version with an actual exorcism. What this film does well is the story progression and the characters. It also has one of the best jump scares in cinematic history. How the story is told is a true highlight. I would also argue that the theatrical version is actually better than the original film, the definitive of the perfect sequel. This version isn't as good though in my opinion. For starters the quality of the new footage is pretty terrible and jars greatly with the main part of the film. It also doesn't really add anything or do anything differently for the first hour so the extra moments are really quite pointless. Now in the final half there are more changes and these are the ones that are interesting for fans of the theatrical version. But that is all this version is, a curiosity for fans. It removes the climatic exorcism and removes Father Karras to focus more on the gemini killer. So it's different and what makes the original so engrossing is still all there but the low quality of the inserted scenes are sometimes distracting but nevertheless interesting for fans.
Not a legion
kosmasp18 February 2024
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) ...
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) ...
Partial Re-Creaton of the Original Cut
Michael_Elliott30 November 2016
Legion (2016)
When William Peter Blatty's novel Legion was turned into THE EXORCIST III, the director and studio battled over a lot of things including the title. Things got much worse for the director when the studio was unhappy with the film he turned in because it didn't feature any sort of exorcism. With the two sides battling the cast and crew were called back in to make an alternate ending, which not only featured an exorcism but also had Jason Miller returning so that they could have a better connection to someone from the original movie.
Sadly, Blatty's original cut has been lost but Shout Factory! did try to assemble something close to it on their latest Blu-ray release. LEGION has been presented on Blu-ray with a ninety-minute documentary on the film as well as a reconstruction of the original director's cut. The only problem is that the majority of the footage has been lost so the studio was forced to use a VHS workprint, which is shown full screen while the rest of the movie is the original 1.85:1. The quality on the new footage is fairly decent for a VHS rip but it is also quite distracting from the rest of the picture. It should also be noted that the opening credits are that of the theatrical version because credits for the original cut weren't done.
So, is the director's cut better? Honestly, I don't think so. This film is hard to judge because it doesn't contain all the original footage and it also suffers from some poor quality but on the whole I don't think this version was better. There's added dialogue sequences between George C. Scott and the Brad Dourif character. There's an additional scene of Scott investigating at the church as well as another scene by Father Karras' grave. The ending is also completely different since there's no exorcism stuff.
The new dialogue sequences certainly help expand on the Dourif character but I'm really not sure this version is any better. The exorcism sequence in the theatrical cut certainly stuck out like a sore thumb but commercially it's easy to see why it was added. I've never felt it hurt the film too bad and I liked the way Miller was used for a connection to the original. I'd also argue that the added scenes here really don't add any suspense and the final showdown between Scott and Dourif doesn't pack that much of a punch.
Still, fans of THE EXORCIST III has screamed for a director's cut for over twenty-five years. This here is the best it's going to get so fans will still want to check this out.
When William Peter Blatty's novel Legion was turned into THE EXORCIST III, the director and studio battled over a lot of things including the title. Things got much worse for the director when the studio was unhappy with the film he turned in because it didn't feature any sort of exorcism. With the two sides battling the cast and crew were called back in to make an alternate ending, which not only featured an exorcism but also had Jason Miller returning so that they could have a better connection to someone from the original movie.
Sadly, Blatty's original cut has been lost but Shout Factory! did try to assemble something close to it on their latest Blu-ray release. LEGION has been presented on Blu-ray with a ninety-minute documentary on the film as well as a reconstruction of the original director's cut. The only problem is that the majority of the footage has been lost so the studio was forced to use a VHS workprint, which is shown full screen while the rest of the movie is the original 1.85:1. The quality on the new footage is fairly decent for a VHS rip but it is also quite distracting from the rest of the picture. It should also be noted that the opening credits are that of the theatrical version because credits for the original cut weren't done.
So, is the director's cut better? Honestly, I don't think so. This film is hard to judge because it doesn't contain all the original footage and it also suffers from some poor quality but on the whole I don't think this version was better. There's added dialogue sequences between George C. Scott and the Brad Dourif character. There's an additional scene of Scott investigating at the church as well as another scene by Father Karras' grave. The ending is also completely different since there's no exorcism stuff.
The new dialogue sequences certainly help expand on the Dourif character but I'm really not sure this version is any better. The exorcism sequence in the theatrical cut certainly stuck out like a sore thumb but commercially it's easy to see why it was added. I've never felt it hurt the film too bad and I liked the way Miller was used for a connection to the original. I'd also argue that the added scenes here really don't add any suspense and the final showdown between Scott and Dourif doesn't pack that much of a punch.
Still, fans of THE EXORCIST III has screamed for a director's cut for over twenty-five years. This here is the best it's going to get so fans will still want to check this out.
Brilliant! The version that should have been!
christopherbirk-ny25 January 2017
Oddly enough this comes out literally just as William Peter Blatty dies. Maybe it is a fitting end to his brilliant writing and filmmaking.
Yes you have to look past the fact that much of the "new" footage is old, bad quality and looks like it was ripped from an old VHS tape but that just leaves so much more to the imagination - much like the first version of the film did. Also a brilliant movie.
Gone are some sub-plots and even people from the original film and this version has definitely been de-Hollywootized and instead been Twin Peaksed.... stripped of many of the more elaborate sets and special effects - but it still works.
The part that was so amazing in the first film was the mood, the moments, the small things - and it's carried on into this version. I don't want to do any spoilers so I'll leave it at that. But if you loved the original you don't want to miss this one. Great acting, great lines and moments that get under your skin in a way few (if any) movies manages to do today.
Yes you have to look past the fact that much of the "new" footage is old, bad quality and looks like it was ripped from an old VHS tape but that just leaves so much more to the imagination - much like the first version of the film did. Also a brilliant movie.
Gone are some sub-plots and even people from the original film and this version has definitely been de-Hollywootized and instead been Twin Peaksed.... stripped of many of the more elaborate sets and special effects - but it still works.
The part that was so amazing in the first film was the mood, the moments, the small things - and it's carried on into this version. I don't want to do any spoilers so I'll leave it at that. But if you loved the original you don't want to miss this one. Great acting, great lines and moments that get under your skin in a way few (if any) movies manages to do today.
It's a wonderfull life
DanTheMan2150AD28 February 2023
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.
A compelling , scary sequel rivaling the classic original.
dsullery27 May 2023
Warning: Spoilers
Legion: The Exorcist III
1990
Starring George C. Scott, Brad Dourif, Ed Flanders, Jason Miller, Nicol Williamson.
Written and Directed by William Peter Blatty, based on his novel Legion.
I have a list I've compiled over the years consisting of movies I feel were grotesquely underappreciated in their initial release. Not too long ago, readers read an earlier piece I wrote about one such title - the late Tobe Hooper's fantastic science fiction horror opus Lifeforce.
The film I'm discussing today isn't merely on that list, it holds the top spot. The Exorcist III (originally titled Legion: The Exorcist III after the novel it's based on, but shortened to just The Exorcist III on screen and in later promotional materials) is the definitive example of a sequel hampered by both the poor reputation of an immediate predecessor (which this film thankfully ignores entirely) and a cinematic climate that didn't really have much room for this sort of film at the time. In a bit, I'll break down some of the specific reasons why I regard this film not only as an equal to the original but a masterpiece in its own right.
First, a brief synopsis: Some seventeen years have elapsed since Father Damian Karras tumbled to his death down the unforgiving concrete steps behind the McNeil home at the climax of The Exorcist. As the story opens, it's the anniversary of his passing. Damian's surviving friends Detective Kinderman (George C. Scott, inheriting the role from the late J. Lee Cobb and making it entirely his own) and Father Dyer (Ed Flanders, taking over from William O' Malley, the sad eyed priest who we last saw watching the McNeil's drive away before taking a look look down those fateful steps in the final moments of 1973 film) mark the occasion by meeting for their annual tradition of seeing a movie and cheering one another up.
While the plot thread about the friendship between the detective and priest is introduced, we also learn a series of gruesome, ritualistic slayings are occurring in Georgetown. Kinderman recognizes the style of the killings as the work of a long-since executed psychopath known as the Gemini Killer, a case he personally worked on. Even more baffling, fingerprints at the crime scenes reveal different people committed each murder.
After Father Dyer falls ill and is hospitalized, he is targeted by the killer(s). This leads a devastated Kinderman to investigate the hospital. While there, he is approached by one of the doctors, who explains to the detective an unidentified patient -who was found wandering in a catatonic state seventeen years earlier- has recently awoken from his stupor, reacting violently and claiming to be the Gemini Killer.
Kinderman meets with the man (referred to only as "Patient X") and makes a horrifying discovery: By all outward appearances, the stranger is the presumably dead Damian Karras.
As if all of that weren't enough plot for at least two films, there's yet another sub-plot involving another priest with the same diocese as Karras and Dyer (Nicol Williamson), who receives a series of supernatural warnings indicating he will soon be tasked with battling the forces of evil.
This sounds like the film is overstuffed and, on paper, one can see where Legion would appear to be biting off more than it can chew. Except it doesn't. Blatty does a terrific job crafting a tightly wound, measured screenplay that's equal parts dramatic tension and terrifying supernatural horror. The same goes for his direction, which is on a par with the work William Friedkin put in behind the camera on the first movie. Every one of those plot points come together, delivering a conclusion that's as intellectually satisfying as it is emotionally rewarding.
The cast is sensational from top to bottom, with everyone treating the material with respect, allowing their performances to carry a necessary degree of gravitas. Scott and Flanders in particular do a fine job of conveying a sense that these are indeed the same men, only with seventeen more years of life experience since we last saw them. Jason Miller - who reprises his role as Karras- does a tremendous job of investing his character with a sense of anguish while avoiding an overstep into caricature.
That's important, because Legion isn't some teen-oriented slasher flick or an exploitation piece splashed with gore. I suspect that's part of why it initially received mixed reviews and only performed modestly at the box office. In 1990, horror was coming off the slasher boom and, in many circles, was regarded as something of an embarrassment. Movies like Silence of the Lambs (which, let's be honest, is clearly a horror film) were released with marketing that presented them more as psychological thrillers. Horror had become disreputable. Late entry horror sequels - particularly one following the dumpster fire that was the awful Exorcist II: The Heretic - were seen as a particular waste of time.
And therein lies the problem. Legion is so much more than that, but most moviegoers of the time didn't give it a chance and dismissive critics sank it before it could find a broader audience. The truth is, this is a perceptive, deliberately paced, absolutely terrifying adult horror film exploring the concepts of God, the devil, faith and human nature. It's both a clever detective thriller (as Kinderman uncovers the motivation behind the murders, the direct connection to the events of the original film becomes much more obvious and it is thoroughly chilling) and a top notch fright flick.
Blatty had been involved with several film productions by the time this was made (other film credits he boasted were screenwriting work on A Shot in the Dark and The Ninth Configuration) and his understanding of how to cultivate atmosphere is evident in every scene. There's an eerie, ominous quality to much of this film. In one brilliant sequence (which has in the years since been singled out as as setting up one of the greatest scares in horror film history), Blatty uses the general unease most people feel towards hospitals combined with an extended scene shot in almost complete silence to put the audience on edge. This is a lot more sophisticated than that III in the title suggests.
Not everything in the movie is a bulls-eye. The sub plot with Father Morning (the aforementioned priest receiving the dire visions of the evil to come) seems thrown together to fulfill the exorcism promise of the title (indeed, this is precisely what Blatty claimed the studio did when discussing the film years later). Although Nicol Williamson does the best he can, he really isn't given much to do besides walk through fairly standard exorcism flick cliches. I didn't find his story line nearly as absorbing as those of Kinderman and Patient X/Karras.
And that leads me to the greatest joy this movie delivers. Some of you reading this are already fans of this movie and I'm guessing you've been waiting for me to address the performance of one actor in particular. Of course I'm referring to Brad Dourif.
Yes, that Brad Dourif. The voice of Chucky. He delivers a terrifying, utterly mesmerizing turn as The Gemini Killer, who - we're told - Kinderman can see in his true form instead of Karras if he looks with the eyes of belief. This leads to the most compelling moments of the film, a series of emotionally charged conversations between the men where the Gemini- now graced with a young Dourif's face- confronts Kinderman and taunts the detective in regards to his disbelief.
I consider it to be one of the most egregious oversights in the movie industry that Dourif received no award recognition of any kind for this role (though Blatty did win a Saturn award for his work on the film). His presence works in the same capacity as Anthony Hopkins in the Silence of the Lambs - with limited screen time, Dourif manages to create the most memorable character in the movie. His acting in these scenes operates on such a higher tier than anyone could reasonably have expected that I'm willing to point at his complete lack of specific recognition as proof there has been a long-simmering bias toward horror on the part of mainstream Hollywood. In a fair and equitable industry, Dourif would at the very least have been awarded a Golden Globe. No, that isn't hyperbole because, yes, he really is that damned good in the part.
Don't take my word for it. Rent or buy a copy of the film and see for yourself. I recommend the terrific Scream Factory Blu Ray release from a few years back. That includes an alternate extended directors cut as well (for the record, I prefer the theatrical version).
Legion had a long and difficult road to the big screen. It went through several potential directors (at one point both William Friedkin and John Carpenter were considered for directorial duties) before Blatty stepped in. Conceived by the author early in the 1980's first as a screenplay, then developed by him into a novel which he again adapted into a screenplay, it was sadly met with relative indifference at the time of its initial release.
The film has developed a strong and well-deserved fan base in the years since. This is not some cash grab, lackluster, throwaway sequel. What we have here is a smart, scary movie honoring the legacy of the original while carving out its own identity. Of all the films to carry the name, this is the one that operates as a true equal to the 1973 classic. Horror fans in search of a frightening experience in solid cinematic storytelling should make it a priority to check this one out.
****1/2 stars out of *****
Written and Directed by William Peter Blatty, based on his novel Legion.
I have a list I've compiled over the years consisting of movies I feel were grotesquely underappreciated in their initial release. Not too long ago, readers read an earlier piece I wrote about one such title - the late Tobe Hooper's fantastic science fiction horror opus Lifeforce.
The film I'm discussing today isn't merely on that list, it holds the top spot. The Exorcist III (originally titled Legion: The Exorcist III after the novel it's based on, but shortened to just The Exorcist III on screen and in later promotional materials) is the definitive example of a sequel hampered by both the poor reputation of an immediate predecessor (which this film thankfully ignores entirely) and a cinematic climate that didn't really have much room for this sort of film at the time. In a bit, I'll break down some of the specific reasons why I regard this film not only as an equal to the original but a masterpiece in its own right.
First, a brief synopsis: Some seventeen years have elapsed since Father Damian Karras tumbled to his death down the unforgiving concrete steps behind the McNeil home at the climax of The Exorcist. As the story opens, it's the anniversary of his passing. Damian's surviving friends Detective Kinderman (George C. Scott, inheriting the role from the late J. Lee Cobb and making it entirely his own) and Father Dyer (Ed Flanders, taking over from William O' Malley, the sad eyed priest who we last saw watching the McNeil's drive away before taking a look look down those fateful steps in the final moments of 1973 film) mark the occasion by meeting for their annual tradition of seeing a movie and cheering one another up.
While the plot thread about the friendship between the detective and priest is introduced, we also learn a series of gruesome, ritualistic slayings are occurring in Georgetown. Kinderman recognizes the style of the killings as the work of a long-since executed psychopath known as the Gemini Killer, a case he personally worked on. Even more baffling, fingerprints at the crime scenes reveal different people committed each murder.
After Father Dyer falls ill and is hospitalized, he is targeted by the killer(s). This leads a devastated Kinderman to investigate the hospital. While there, he is approached by one of the doctors, who explains to the detective an unidentified patient -who was found wandering in a catatonic state seventeen years earlier- has recently awoken from his stupor, reacting violently and claiming to be the Gemini Killer.
Kinderman meets with the man (referred to only as "Patient X") and makes a horrifying discovery: By all outward appearances, the stranger is the presumably dead Damian Karras.
As if all of that weren't enough plot for at least two films, there's yet another sub-plot involving another priest with the same diocese as Karras and Dyer (Nicol Williamson), who receives a series of supernatural warnings indicating he will soon be tasked with battling the forces of evil.
This sounds like the film is overstuffed and, on paper, one can see where Legion would appear to be biting off more than it can chew. Except it doesn't. Blatty does a terrific job crafting a tightly wound, measured screenplay that's equal parts dramatic tension and terrifying supernatural horror. The same goes for his direction, which is on a par with the work William Friedkin put in behind the camera on the first movie. Every one of those plot points come together, delivering a conclusion that's as intellectually satisfying as it is emotionally rewarding.
The cast is sensational from top to bottom, with everyone treating the material with respect, allowing their performances to carry a necessary degree of gravitas. Scott and Flanders in particular do a fine job of conveying a sense that these are indeed the same men, only with seventeen more years of life experience since we last saw them. Jason Miller - who reprises his role as Karras- does a tremendous job of investing his character with a sense of anguish while avoiding an overstep into caricature.
That's important, because Legion isn't some teen-oriented slasher flick or an exploitation piece splashed with gore. I suspect that's part of why it initially received mixed reviews and only performed modestly at the box office. In 1990, horror was coming off the slasher boom and, in many circles, was regarded as something of an embarrassment. Movies like Silence of the Lambs (which, let's be honest, is clearly a horror film) were released with marketing that presented them more as psychological thrillers. Horror had become disreputable. Late entry horror sequels - particularly one following the dumpster fire that was the awful Exorcist II: The Heretic - were seen as a particular waste of time.
And therein lies the problem. Legion is so much more than that, but most moviegoers of the time didn't give it a chance and dismissive critics sank it before it could find a broader audience. The truth is, this is a perceptive, deliberately paced, absolutely terrifying adult horror film exploring the concepts of God, the devil, faith and human nature. It's both a clever detective thriller (as Kinderman uncovers the motivation behind the murders, the direct connection to the events of the original film becomes much more obvious and it is thoroughly chilling) and a top notch fright flick.
Blatty had been involved with several film productions by the time this was made (other film credits he boasted were screenwriting work on A Shot in the Dark and The Ninth Configuration) and his understanding of how to cultivate atmosphere is evident in every scene. There's an eerie, ominous quality to much of this film. In one brilliant sequence (which has in the years since been singled out as as setting up one of the greatest scares in horror film history), Blatty uses the general unease most people feel towards hospitals combined with an extended scene shot in almost complete silence to put the audience on edge. This is a lot more sophisticated than that III in the title suggests.
Not everything in the movie is a bulls-eye. The sub plot with Father Morning (the aforementioned priest receiving the dire visions of the evil to come) seems thrown together to fulfill the exorcism promise of the title (indeed, this is precisely what Blatty claimed the studio did when discussing the film years later). Although Nicol Williamson does the best he can, he really isn't given much to do besides walk through fairly standard exorcism flick cliches. I didn't find his story line nearly as absorbing as those of Kinderman and Patient X/Karras.
And that leads me to the greatest joy this movie delivers. Some of you reading this are already fans of this movie and I'm guessing you've been waiting for me to address the performance of one actor in particular. Of course I'm referring to Brad Dourif.
Yes, that Brad Dourif. The voice of Chucky. He delivers a terrifying, utterly mesmerizing turn as The Gemini Killer, who - we're told - Kinderman can see in his true form instead of Karras if he looks with the eyes of belief. This leads to the most compelling moments of the film, a series of emotionally charged conversations between the men where the Gemini- now graced with a young Dourif's face- confronts Kinderman and taunts the detective in regards to his disbelief.
I consider it to be one of the most egregious oversights in the movie industry that Dourif received no award recognition of any kind for this role (though Blatty did win a Saturn award for his work on the film). His presence works in the same capacity as Anthony Hopkins in the Silence of the Lambs - with limited screen time, Dourif manages to create the most memorable character in the movie. His acting in these scenes operates on such a higher tier than anyone could reasonably have expected that I'm willing to point at his complete lack of specific recognition as proof there has been a long-simmering bias toward horror on the part of mainstream Hollywood. In a fair and equitable industry, Dourif would at the very least have been awarded a Golden Globe. No, that isn't hyperbole because, yes, he really is that damned good in the part.
Don't take my word for it. Rent or buy a copy of the film and see for yourself. I recommend the terrific Scream Factory Blu Ray release from a few years back. That includes an alternate extended directors cut as well (for the record, I prefer the theatrical version).
Legion had a long and difficult road to the big screen. It went through several potential directors (at one point both William Friedkin and John Carpenter were considered for directorial duties) before Blatty stepped in. Conceived by the author early in the 1980's first as a screenplay, then developed by him into a novel which he again adapted into a screenplay, it was sadly met with relative indifference at the time of its initial release.
The film has developed a strong and well-deserved fan base in the years since. This is not some cash grab, lackluster, throwaway sequel. What we have here is a smart, scary movie honoring the legacy of the original while carving out its own identity. Of all the films to carry the name, this is the one that operates as a true equal to the 1973 classic. Horror fans in search of a frightening experience in solid cinematic storytelling should make it a priority to check this one out.
****1/2 stars out of *****
A worthy companion piece, excellent in its own right
szdjpgyzk30 January 2024
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!
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!
much better
LW-0885427 December 2023
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.
Either do it properly, or not at all. A shame.
jackaius4 January 2022
I firmly believe if one is to undertake any endeavour in life, one ought either to undertake it wholeheartedly. Otherwise why even bother. Film restoration is no exception to the rule and it is therefore a shame that the lost footage of this film was never able to be recovered. Thankfully, we still have the theatrical cut in its excellent form, so all is still well.
In 'Legion', producers have opted to restore and recut what was left of source VHS tapes to revive 'lost scenes' which William Blatty originally desired to have in the final cut, in hopes of more accurately presenting on screen the events depicted in his novel of the same name. But there's just one big, glaring problem - the 'new' material, comprising raw and fossilized VHS footage, sticks out like a sore thumb and resembles more a 1970s budget British TV sitcom than it does anything to do with The Exorcist III. Naturally this is at odds with (and frankly sacrilege toward) the film's otherwise gorgeous aesthetic (much like Friedkin's The Exorcist, cinematogrophy in Exorcist III is thoroughly absorbing and influencing to the overall viewing experience).
The inclusion of this under-cooked and out of place VHS footage breaks the thick and claustrophobic atmosphere The Exorcist III is known for. The aesthetic and overall feel of the film is tarnished and subsequently the mood is killed - unacceptable in a psychological horror.
I'm sure there are many who will overlook this and still enjoy overall, but I fail to see why anyone in love with this particular vision of the story needn't skip this cut altogether and go straight to the source - the novel itself. Whilst it may be argued they add depth to the plot in the spirit of the novel, these 'recovered' scenes can't merely be overlooked due to their poor-quality on-screen production value which are cheap and disruptive.
It's a shame adequate time and investment wasn't afforded to a proper digital restoration of the VHS tapes. Perhaps Blatty should have waited longer to leave this project in the capable hands of a trustee, for a time in the future when technology allows for a better result. Had the extra material been added in more competently, it would have complemented the theatrical version and we would've been treated to a remarkable work; perhaps even a superior cut!
So how might this be problem be overcome? The solution is simple - the theatrical cut of The Exorcist III is one of the most brilliant and regrettably overlooked psychological horror flicks ever made. If you want to fully appreciate the vision of this story Blatty originally had in mind, don't watch Legion - I recommend you read the book instead. Otherwise, stick with the theatrical cut, a highly underrated gem of the genre, second only to Friedkin's original.
Director's Cut - 5/10 Theatrical Cut - 7/10.
In 'Legion', producers have opted to restore and recut what was left of source VHS tapes to revive 'lost scenes' which William Blatty originally desired to have in the final cut, in hopes of more accurately presenting on screen the events depicted in his novel of the same name. But there's just one big, glaring problem - the 'new' material, comprising raw and fossilized VHS footage, sticks out like a sore thumb and resembles more a 1970s budget British TV sitcom than it does anything to do with The Exorcist III. Naturally this is at odds with (and frankly sacrilege toward) the film's otherwise gorgeous aesthetic (much like Friedkin's The Exorcist, cinematogrophy in Exorcist III is thoroughly absorbing and influencing to the overall viewing experience).
The inclusion of this under-cooked and out of place VHS footage breaks the thick and claustrophobic atmosphere The Exorcist III is known for. The aesthetic and overall feel of the film is tarnished and subsequently the mood is killed - unacceptable in a psychological horror.
I'm sure there are many who will overlook this and still enjoy overall, but I fail to see why anyone in love with this particular vision of the story needn't skip this cut altogether and go straight to the source - the novel itself. Whilst it may be argued they add depth to the plot in the spirit of the novel, these 'recovered' scenes can't merely be overlooked due to their poor-quality on-screen production value which are cheap and disruptive.
It's a shame adequate time and investment wasn't afforded to a proper digital restoration of the VHS tapes. Perhaps Blatty should have waited longer to leave this project in the capable hands of a trustee, for a time in the future when technology allows for a better result. Had the extra material been added in more competently, it would have complemented the theatrical version and we would've been treated to a remarkable work; perhaps even a superior cut!
So how might this be problem be overcome? The solution is simple - the theatrical cut of The Exorcist III is one of the most brilliant and regrettably overlooked psychological horror flicks ever made. If you want to fully appreciate the vision of this story Blatty originally had in mind, don't watch Legion - I recommend you read the book instead. Otherwise, stick with the theatrical cut, a highly underrated gem of the genre, second only to Friedkin's original.
Director's Cut - 5/10 Theatrical Cut - 7/10.
Flawed, but historically interesting
bobcobb-8437127 May 2017
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.
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.
Total BS
housecountrywife26 May 2020
This is inferior, let me repeat, completely INFERIOR make to the thatrical. You almost feel bad for George C. Scott (RIP), his "restored" scenes with lousy lighting making him look more like a sad bloodhound who is the lost cousin of the true George C. Scott in the superior original version (The Exorcist III), but you somehow got duped into paying 30$ into watching the lost bloodhound inferior version of this film rather than just re-watching the original..... so you are an idiot for feeling bad for the sad, inferior bloodhound.
Brad Dourif's "restored" scenes are purely laughable. "Father Karras" is not in this version, and whenever the cut scenes come into play, it really throws off the flow this movie is known for, also making it less creepy. They do not mix well into the movie at all.
In conclusion, this "director's cut" is a pathetic, waste of money. You can see why this was not the original release if you bother watching it, so if you are bored enough to waste sometime or for completist' sake, download it or borrow it, do not make the same mistake I did by buying it, and the original is one of my all time favorite films and book.
Examples of of movies that had GOOD directors cuts: Natural Born Killers, Lord of Illusions, Eyes Wide Shut.
Brad Dourif's "restored" scenes are purely laughable. "Father Karras" is not in this version, and whenever the cut scenes come into play, it really throws off the flow this movie is known for, also making it less creepy. They do not mix well into the movie at all.
In conclusion, this "director's cut" is a pathetic, waste of money. You can see why this was not the original release if you bother watching it, so if you are bored enough to waste sometime or for completist' sake, download it or borrow it, do not make the same mistake I did by buying it, and the original is one of my all time favorite films and book.
Examples of of movies that had GOOD directors cuts: Natural Born Killers, Lord of Illusions, Eyes Wide Shut.
Nothing Different
hororist4 May 2022
Warning: Spoilers
There's no Father Morning sub-plot and there's no exorcism. The film ends with Lieutenant Kinderman who shots and kills the Gemini Killer. That's it, these are the only differences that matter.
Other than that, we have some scenes that shot differently, minor dialog changes and VHS tape effects (because deleted scenes shot on film is now considered lost). By the way, absolutely not necessary scenes with different aspect ratio adds nothing to the story.
Other than that, we have some scenes that shot differently, minor dialog changes and VHS tape effects (because deleted scenes shot on film is now considered lost). By the way, absolutely not necessary scenes with different aspect ratio adds nothing to the story.
Interesting Alternate Version
Sober-Friend18 June 2017
For years fans were wanting the the Directors Cut of "Exorcist III" and in 2016 Scream Factory released it.
"The Exorcist III" original version was destroyed or lost by the production company "Morgan Creek". However I think there is still the uncut print around somewhere. So in the Scream factory release they re-created the director's cut the best way they could by including VHS copy the director had. They cleaned up the footage and it was used "Sparingly". However the difference in quality and screen ratio is very noticeable and it might put off some viewers however this version is much better than the theatrical cut however I do prefer the ending that was used for the theatrical version.
The story is about Police Lt. Kinderman (George C. Scott) who notices similarities between his current murder investigation and the methods used by the "Gemini" killer (Brad Dourif) who was executed 15 years before. He soon discovers a hospitalized mental patient (Jason Miller) claiming to be the dead serial killer, but who looks uncannily like a priest Kinderman knew who died during an exorcism. As more bodies are found, Kinderman looks for connections between the two supposedly dead men.
Not exactly a sequel its a spin-off of the original film. To me its not an Exorcist sequel if Linda Blair is not in it.
Everyone needs to view this film not as a sequel but just a movie about a police investigation. In fact the film was originally titled "Legion". It was marketing people that called it "Exorcist III". When test audiences were told the title was "Exorcist III" they were expecting an Exorcism. When one didn't happen they gave this film a major "Thumbs Down"! This sent the film back into production and the re-shoots caused major controversy.
"The Exorcist III" original version was destroyed or lost by the production company "Morgan Creek". However I think there is still the uncut print around somewhere. So in the Scream factory release they re-created the director's cut the best way they could by including VHS copy the director had. They cleaned up the footage and it was used "Sparingly". However the difference in quality and screen ratio is very noticeable and it might put off some viewers however this version is much better than the theatrical cut however I do prefer the ending that was used for the theatrical version.
The story is about Police Lt. Kinderman (George C. Scott) who notices similarities between his current murder investigation and the methods used by the "Gemini" killer (Brad Dourif) who was executed 15 years before. He soon discovers a hospitalized mental patient (Jason Miller) claiming to be the dead serial killer, but who looks uncannily like a priest Kinderman knew who died during an exorcism. As more bodies are found, Kinderman looks for connections between the two supposedly dead men.
Not exactly a sequel its a spin-off of the original film. To me its not an Exorcist sequel if Linda Blair is not in it.
Everyone needs to view this film not as a sequel but just a movie about a police investigation. In fact the film was originally titled "Legion". It was marketing people that called it "Exorcist III". When test audiences were told the title was "Exorcist III" they were expecting an Exorcism. When one didn't happen they gave this film a major "Thumbs Down"! This sent the film back into production and the re-shoots caused major controversy.
Not as good as theatrical cut
carbonbaseunit229 July 2017
Warning: Spoilers
I waited for this cut for a long time, and now that I see it I can see why the studio wanted re-shoots. There is no reason at all for the viewer to understand why Kinderman thinks Dourif's character is Karras in this cut. Even the scenes with Dourif lack the intensity they did with the re-shoots. The only thing I can agree with is the removal of the priest and the exorcism. This character and his subsequent scenes are simply not needed and feel tacked on.... as, of course, they were. Jason Miller's scenes are amazing in the theatrical version, and much better than Dourif's performance. The directors cut is homogenized to the point that performances that originally gave me the chills now leave me empty. While the S/F laden theatrical ending was a bit over the top, it was much better than the boring ending of the director's cut. This film is my favorite horror movie, I'm a little disappointed this didn't impress me or add anything to my enjoyment of it. I'm glad they released the remastered Blu-Ray a little while back, so kudos to the studio for that, but you could have left this in the vaults. Just my opinion though. If others like it I'm happy for you.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
