The Exorcist III: Legion

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) ...

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.

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.

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.

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.