You won't be disappointed!

Tied for the best movie I have ever seen

Crappy film

It's hard to see any effort in the film. There's no comedy to speak of, no real drama and, worst of all.

The preamble to this review, has to be, that this movie, is my favourite psychological horror of the last 30 years. If you are going into to watch this movie with expectations of gore dripping grotesquely from the screen, then don't expect a lurid bloodbath. This celluloid masterpiece, hits you deep with the cerebral grey matter. The acoustic's are scything and scathing, the acting is visceral and precise, the atmosphere and tension is palpably tangible. I could go and on and on into infinitum with superaltives... ... But I don't want to spoil this orgy of the senses for potential first timers taking in this psychologically, horrifying spectacle. The director clearly had a vision to deliver onto the screen, and this was executed with gusto and aplomb. The scenes are set with immaculate precision, guiding us gently through each frame, shepparding us until the director sends us spiralling headlong out of control, bathing our brains in tension and revulsion. The screenplay is simply superb. Along with the acoustics and direction, the narrative fiercely fuels our inner fears. Some of the psychiatric ward scenes are delivered in odious and undulating spades of nightmarish debauchery. I wanted to give a magisterial mention to the nurse station scene. All of the above, is constellated into a cocktail of suspenseful, petrifying horror. If you aren't flung out of your skin into the stratosphere by the climax of this scene, give yourself a hearty pat on the back! The only exiguous quibbles with this movie and the reason it hasn't scored a resounding 10/10, is the films duration(a tad short) , and a certain actor being struck from the proceedings all to abruptly. In surmation, watch this malevolent scare fest of gut wrenching terror . It's woven together into a beguiling, mesmerising tapestry of masterful movie making.

This movie gives off another meaning of being possessed, where a mental patient is possessed by the evil spirit of a serial killer. He mysteriously beings a reign of terror, and a police lieutenant tries desperately to solve the murders and crack the mystery.This is quite a good piece of horror cinema with a lot of tension and thrills, from the doom and gloom atmosphere surrounding the downtrodden, murders, and rage to the demon action. The latter, though, was limited throughout the movie. Much of the film is about solving the crimes, in a gloomy-type atmosphere that makes this movie look like a film-noir type setting.There's some good and intense acting and some devilish frightening scenes, including the "creature-in-the-white-robe" scene. Not a bad horror sequel overall.Grade B

I don't know if it's because I hadn't seen this film in a few years, or that it took the Director's Cut to make me see that it is a very bad movie. Bad "TV" acting, bad dialogue, and a very convoluted story line. And I'm finding myself seeing for the first time that a really good story was missed that should have been told: Kinderman's daughter gets possessed by the demon. Nice and simple. No Gemini Killer crap, no "Damian is back from the dead" crap. And, also, upon seeing the Director's Cut, I find it infuriating that so many others that have seen it miss that Blatty had originally cast Brad Dourif to play Damien Karris, not just the Gemini Killer. Thank god that Morgan Creek forced him to re-write and re-film large chunks of the movie and bring in Jason Miller. But, sadly, I see that even that the theatrical version is a bad movie that hasn't aged well.I am very familiar with the book "Legion", and also very familiar with everything about the film. I bought and read the book when it came out in 1983, and first saw the movie when it hit theaters back in 1990, and have watched it several times over the years. Matter of fact, there was a time in the mid 80's when I was interested in trying to adapt the book into a screenplay, but never really did anything with it other than doing some cover art and a small two or three page treatment. And as I said, watching the film again (especially after watching the Director's Cut), I now realize what a bad, dated, convoluted film it is. The acting is pedestrian, TV movie material, ugh. George C. Scott is way too over the top in so many scenes. The dream sequence is atrocious, and looks like something made-for-TV quality. Plus, I've always thought that the dream sequence was in the wrong spot, and would have been better suited if it had been at the end of the film after Kinderman shot Karris and the scene cuts to the sun, then it could have cut to the dream sequence, then end. But, it still wouldn't have saved what is in my opinion a very convoluted mess of a screenplay. The whole "let's bring Damien Karris back from the dead, and he is possessed by the Gemini Killer who happened to have been put to death as Damien flung himself out the window at the end of 'The Exorcist' and has inhabited his body for 15 years" is beyond ridiculous. H*ll, it almost makes Boorman's sequel a classic in comparison, lol. And, yes, having Kinderman's daughter being possessed would kind of be a retread of "The Exorcist", but all these years later, I just think that would have made for the better story for Blatty to have pursued. And, no, I didn't find it to be confusing, I am just now realizing how convoluted it all is. And, I probably sounded too harsh about the film initially, because honestly I do still like it a lot, and am glad it was made (even though I've always wished the title would have been "Exorcist III: Legion"). Some of the comments I made about the pedestrian acting (especially in the dream sequence) has always been a complaint of mine, and am noticing it even more on recent viewings. But, I guess not everyone can get such top drawer realistic portrayals from their cast like Freidkin can. I'm also really just now noticing for the first time how the music and demonic sounds are also so over-the-top and really unnecessary. And don't get me started on some of the cheap jump scares that lead to nothing (I saw in other reviews people talking about this, and people would try to defend it by saying that "The Exorcist" also had those, but no that movie did not - yes, it had some "false scares", but they were not cheaply done at all). And, again, thank god that Morgan Creek stepped in and made Blatty re-shoot some scenes, including the ending, because his original ending sucked loud!And the whole casting Brad Dourif as Damien Karris was a horrendous decision that was rightfully rectified, as I already mentioned. After all these years, I can only rate this as a mediocre five-star (out of ten) sequel to "The Exorcist", one of the greatest horror films of all time, but I still highly recommend purchasing the Special Edition Scream Factory blu-ray, because it is filled with special features that make it well worth the purchase!Again, it is definitely worth the investment to get the Scream Factory blu-ray! Thank you!

I have a cast iron rule, any movie with a number after it, I simply don't bother. I give you Exorcist 2, Die Hard 2,3,4,whatever, Alien,3.But, Exorcist III? Here we go.I was alone, I read a review of this in the newspaper, it was on late that night. As good as the first, the review said.It starts as a sort of murder mystery, slow, well paced, nothing to worry about.But then....I was alone, late at night, I was "smoking", if you get what I mean. This film really, really freaked me out. So much so, I thought about it for a very long time afterwards. It really affected me.I never thought the first one was all that scary, and to be honest not many movies really, properly scare me. Maybe The Omen, perhaps The Conjuring.This one is scary. Get it, watch it on your own, enjoy a legal, herbal smoke if you like.I am giving it 10 stars.