Rating: 
Summary: Blatty gets it right.
Review: After the hideous "Exorcist 2," there just weren't too many people who were looking forward to this sequel. Happily, writer/director William Peter Blatty tosses out the bizarre metaphysics of the previous film in favor of a more understated approach. The film proceeds slowly, allowing only glimpses and hints of the evil at hand to be observed. Viewers will definitely benefit from watching this film multiple times. Little things will pop out at you(diabolical echoes and a wicked sense of humor). The cast, particularly George C. Scott, Ed Flanders(whose chemistry together is both hilarious and heart-felt) and Brad Dourif as the devilish Patient X, is excellent. Though the ending breaks with the the film's quiet spirit and is a bit under-done, it works well and brings the series full-circle. Hats off to William Peter Blatty for restoring honor to his creation.
Rating:
Summary: On it's own, a very good film
Review: First, do not think that when you buy this you will get simply another 'Exorcist'. It is in a class of its own. This movie draws you into the characters more. Based on the novel 'Legion' by Blatty, it is more subtle than the first. The evil permeates every facet of the film, in nearly every scene it can be felt. Brad Dourif is disturbing, George C. Scott is intense as Kinderman. Reading the novel gives a better understanding of the motivations of the rest of the cast, but even without that, one still gets the odd sensation that maybe not everything is as it appears. I think the best way to describe the movie was that it did not necessarily scare me, but it did disturb me.
Rating: 
Summary: ODDBALL SEQUEL
Review: Amidst all of the hoopla surrounding the original EXORCIST's theatrical re-release, a planned television production and another film sequel in the works, I checked this movie out. Though it begins with some promising touches, TUBULAR BELLS, a spooky street scene in Georgetown, and William Peter Blatty's involvement as scriptwriter once again (he won an Oscar for the original), this movie is bizarrely remote and, depsite a few cheaply won thrills, completely benign. The strange juxatposition of original characters from the original facing essentially the same evil but in a different, almost incomprehensible plot not only fails as a basic horror film, but worse, as a successor to one of the most accomplished horror stories of all time, is just plain bad. George C. Scott is always compelling, but he is in this movie for the money. And the insane-asylum scenes involving Jason Miller and Brad Dourif are endless, ridiculous and talky talky talky, with no real point in sight. It is no surprise that the original Exorcist remains more than a few revolving heads above either of its sequels, which seem possessed by bad acting, idiotic scripts and a thirst for a quick buck. Go for the original!
Rating: 
Summary: This time it's not who is possessed, it's how many!
Review: The Exorcist 3 (Legion) is a good horror film, although it's very slow in places. The scariest bit for me was the headless statue of Jesus jumping out at a girl. That was freaky.I recommend it to fans of the original. George C Scott does a good performance as Lt. Kinderman
Rating:
Summary: Greenstate Pictures
Review: William Peter Blatty adapted the script for this second sequel of the Exorcist series, as he did the first. The story is very good, continuing the life of Lieutenant Kinderman and Father Dyer, after they witnessed the death of one of the exorcists in the first film. From the beginning, when the statue of Christ opens its eyes, the film is a chilling experience. It is more frightening in an atmospheric way than the first. It gives the presence of evil spirituality, a tangibility, a feeling that it has a density and dimension and is surrounding you. This exhertion can almost grant an interaction of the audience, that compells them to feel that some invisible presence has inherited the room they watch it in. The first Exorcist compelled and frightened by using straight-forward explicit imagery. Only an avid reader of Blatty's novels could fully understand the symbolism and subtlety of the dialogue. Scott was not the original Kinderman, nevertheless portrays the roll finely. As does Brad Dourif as the venemous Gemini Killer and Jason Miller as "Patient X." The film's specifically major flaw is the use of celebrity appearances such as Fabio, in a dream sequence of Kinderman. When there are first suggestions of this, one is prepared for it to be frightening to some extent, due to the boundryless potential of terror that can be incorporated in dream sequences. Yet, it is ultimatley a tryingly humorous scenario, and all fails within. The films ending is basically a re-enactment of the exorcism in the first film, and fails to produce a plot-twist, which is decidedly necessary to conclude the saga of evil patented by the Exorsist. On a technical gripe, the sound is relentlessly awkward, even in silent scenes without any background music. Ironically the sound editors of the first film won an Oscar for their work, it's safe to assume they had nothing to do with the soundtrack of this film. Overall, The Exorcist III is a very good sequel to the most horrifying film ever made. Those who find it anything less than that are comparing it too much to the predecessor.
Rating: 
Summary: Worthy Successor to the original
Review: Exorcist 3 is a great scary movie. Forget about the horrible part 2. This one is a worthy successor to the original. Outstanding performances lead by George C. Scott make this a must see. If you liked the original you will definitely like this.
Rating:
Summary: Better Story Then The Original
Review: The first time I saw this was on TV. Needless to say, it was edited for content. Even with it being censored, I was drawn into the story. The best scenes are the interviews between Scott and Dourif. Dourif's performance as the Gemini Killer brings out the same uncomfortable laughter that Jack Nicholson causes in Batman. A great job of writing and directing by William Peter Blatty. I hope the book comes back into press, so I can read it.
Rating:
Summary: A brilliant, truly intelligent thriller
Review: Nine years after its release, "Exorcist 3" remains one of the most unfairly maligned films ever made. After the disastrous "Exorcist 2: The Heretic" (which involved neither "Exorcist" director William Friedkin nor writer William Peter Blatty), Blatty created a true sequel to the original masterpiece. Brilliant, thoughtful, and character-driven, "Exorcist 3" will disappoint only those who do not have the patience to listen to beautifully-crafted dialogue and allow the film to steadily weave its web. Why did the film perform poorly at the box office? In our modern canon of horror films, we've grown accustomed to horror sequels avoiding all rational reason for existing (character development, unanswered questions, etc.) and instead being conceived from the beginning as tired re-treads designed only to make money. There's even a camp value here, and many horror sequels are considered sussesses for this: more of the same; strong opening weekend; end of story. "Exorcist 3" avoids these traps, and was ultimately punished for it. First of all, the film's original title -- "Legion" -- is the proper introduction to the film's themes. Unfortunately, the choice was made that since the more intriguing and appropriate "Legion" didn't have immediate title-recognition and probably wouldn't effectively draw audiences, the more recognizable "Exorcist 3" was chosen...against Blatty's wishes, and in spite of the fact that "Exorcist 3" wisely ignores the very existence of "The Heretic" and begins where the original ended. (One does have to wonder why the producers didn't compromise with a title like "The Exorcist: Legion.") Structurally, "Exorcist 3" also attacks our senses in a much subtler (but equally unnerving) way than seen in the furious conclusion to "The Exorcist." Don't get me wrong -- "The Exorcist" is one of my favorite films, and embodies flawless film-making from beginning to end. The fact that "Exorcist 3" is much quieter and more character-driven, however, meant that many members of the original's core audience didn't know what to make of it; in addition, the plot of "Exorcist 3" requires a working knowledge of the events surrounding the original, meaning that younger viewers who hadn't even seen the original were doomed to be lost in the film's complex plot. Again, all of this is a shame. "Exorcist 3" is not only one of the smartest horror films ever made, its considerations of the nature of faith (and the imagery which surrounds these questions) make it one of the most thoughtful. Blatty has always dealt with issues of faith in his writing, and the meditations on the subject in "Exorcist 3" are among the most profound I've seen in film. Consider the question asked of Lt. Kinderman (George C. Scott) in the film's conclusion: "Have I helped your unbelief?" In the power of the moment, we expect a certain response from Kinderman. We hear a quite different one, however, and we're momentarily puzzled -- until we consider the deeper issues of faith behind the monologue and the spiritual journey Kinderman has been on. The response then makes perfect sense, and the film would work no other way. This is great writing, given even more power by Scott's performance. Because this is a thriller, the film's thrills need to be addressed. As I said, the film is much more quietly intense than the original -- but I challenge you not to leap from your chair during the payoff of the hospital hallway scene (one shot with no edits...just slowly, steadily building tension). The craftsmanship of this scene is a wonder to behold, and has deservedly received comparisons to the scene-structure of Hitchcock.Regardless of all that I've said, I can acknowledge that the film won't be for everyone. Things don't jump out at the audience every five minutes (with the requisite music stinger to make absolutely sure we jump), and I understand that many look for that and that alone. But "Exorcist 3" is so much more, and represents the work of people who cared about where their story was headed...and why. It is a genuine classic.
Rating:
Summary: a mindblowing experience - the best yet
Review: A truly amazing production for a some what underated film.
Rating:
Summary: Not bad, but not good
Review: This film really has absoultly nothing to do with the first 2. But this film does have a few good scenes.
|
