L'Exorciste III : La légion

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) ...

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!

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.

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.

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.