BoardChiri Bad Acting and worse Bad Screenplay

Baseshment I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

InformationRap This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

Hadrina The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

dreamfactory-534-814309 The original is a masterpiece. The second is one of the worst major Hollywood film of all time, so where does the third one fit? Kinda of right n the middle, leaning more towards the bad. First, the film is dull, VERY dull. You'll with the time every 10 minutes or so wondering how come nothing has happened yet. Jut stick with the original.

Filipe Neto After the disaster of "The Exorcist 2", it seems that William Peter Blatty, writer of the novel that originated the first film, decided to defend his creation and to direct this sequel himself, under a script written by himself, adapting another of his novels. So, its almost a work of just one person. It revolves around a mysterious murderer wanted by the police. However, the plot lost itself and, from the middle, is absolutely confusing, annoying and makes the public sleep more quickly than a sleeping pill. We simply don't understand what we're watching anymore. Decidedly, Blatty does not have talent for director, much less for writer. Jason Miller makes a brief cameo but its very empty of meaning and is not enough to establish a link with previous films, of which it inherits little more than the title. Thus, this attempt of sequel ends up very lost and disconnected of the previous films, thanks to an incompetent script and an absent direction.

Mike Williams Everyone who is a hardcore fan of this film knows that the studio forced Blatty to make a lot of changes after he showed them the original cut. So apparently they are soon going to be releasing a directors cut without all the added on bullshit - the true original cut was apparently lost which is criminal but from what I've read through footage from video taped dailies they've been able to put together a version as close as possible to Blattys original vision. I don't think I've ever looked forward to a movie this much. Even though I'm quite confident Blattys version will be superior to the theatrical one I still give the theatrical cut a 10 as I have never seen a better horror film - even with all the studio post fuckery. Somehow whatever morons decided on golden raspberry nominees back in 1990 nominated George C. Scott for worst actor - did they even watch the movie?!? This movie made George C. Scott one of my all time favorite actors. A big part of what makes this movie superior to the original in my opinion is the quality of the acting - Scott, Flanders and Dourif are all amazing. The performances are so good - the dialogue is amazing. It's extremely clever, super funny in parts - especially the scenes with Scott and Flanders (The Carp Speech, the hospital visit) - and possesses several of the scariest scenes ever put on film that I'm aware of. It is way deeper than the original and admittedly more complex and more difficult to follow than the original or the average Hollywood film. We all know at least one person that can't even follow the plot of the latest spoon fed plot Hollywood blockbuster - this movie won't be for them - it is way too detailed and very subtle. A masterpiece as far as I'm concerned and I can't wait to see the new directors cut Legion. What the movie should have been called in the first place before the studio decided to go the wrong way on that too.

skybrick736 The Exorcist III is simply one of those underrated gyms that get overlooked because of the abundant amount of sequels pumped out from money grabbing movie makers. So what is the primary reason why the Exorcist III surpassed the second installment by far? It's all because William Peter Blatty wrote and directed a film sequel to his original novel made into a screenplay. The film brought back the hard hitting grotesque dialogue and most importantly the scare factor. Blatty shot the film to tend towards the psychological horror aspects but he added a scare factor that brought tense, jumpy scenes. The film is often accredited to having one of the scariest movie moments that absolutely no one saw coming.Along with the phenomenal writing, direction and filmmaking there were some great characters portrayed with adequate acting. George C. Scott as the main protagonist did a good job and Brad Dourif was a nice touch, however parts of the supporting cast weren't all that great. The cameo list is impressive and very odd, I won't spoil a couple of them but to show how strange some are to the film, an example is Patrick Ewing as The Angel of Death. There are some other curious, questionable aspects about Exorcist III but it stands out to being a formidable entry the possession genre and an excellent crime thriller.