A police lieutenant uncovers more than he bargained for as his investigation of a series of murders, which have all the hallmarks of the deceased Gemini serial killer, leads him to question ... Read allA police lieutenant uncovers more than he bargained for as his investigation of a series of murders, which have all the hallmarks of the deceased Gemini serial killer, leads him to question the patients of a psychiatric ward.A police lieutenant uncovers more than he bargained for as his investigation of a series of murders, which have all the hallmarks of the deceased Gemini serial killer, leads him to question the patients of a psychiatric ward.
George DiCenzo
- Stedman
- (as George Dicenzo)
- William Peter Blatty(screenplay) (novel "Legion")
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Storyline
Did you know
- TriviaWilliam Peter Blatty made the film based on his novel "Legion," which was published in 1983. Morgan Creek decided to call it "The Exorcist III: Legion" even though the screenplay and novel featured no exorcisms whatsoever. After principal photography was completed, the misleading nature of the title was noticed, and the producers determined that additional scenes needed to be written and then added into the film in order to make it a more recognizable sequel of The Exorcist (1973). The last third of the movie had to be entirely redone, with the insertion of a new character, Father Morning, and of an exorcism scene that cost nearly four million dollars.
- GoofsWhen Kinderman connects the murder victims in this film to the case in the first movie, it is revealed that one victim, the African American boy, is connected because it was his mother that determined that Reagan was speaking backward English. However, when you watch the first movie, the person that determines the language is a man that is Caucasian.
- Quotes
Kinderman: This I believe in... I believe in death. I believe in disease. I believe in injustice and inhumanity, torture and anger and hate... I believe in murder. I believe in pain. I believe in cruelty and infidelity. I believe in slime and stink and every crawling, putrid thing... every possible ugliness and corruption, you son of a bitch. I believe... in you.
- Alternate versionsSome European prints are rumored to include a scene depicting the violent killing of a priest, removed from the US version after unsuccessful sneak previews. A shot from this scene, showing the beheaded priest sitting on a bench and holding his own head in his lap, can be seen in the French publicity stills.
- ConnectionsEdited into The Exorcist III: Legion (1990)
- SoundtracksGloria
Liturgical Chant
Performed by Burleigh Seaver
Review
Featured review
Legion: Exorcist III
Exorcist III (1990) was the follow up to the classic Exorcist. Despite the number three next to the title, this was the true sequel to the first film. Writer/ Director William Peter Blatty wanted to simply call the movie "Legion" like the name of his novel. But the producers wanted to cash in on the Exorcist name so he caved into pressure. In Europe it's called Legion: Exorcist III. This wasn't going to be the first or the last conflict Blatty would have with the producers. The novel was a straight forward mystery/ thriller. The producer wanted some gore and "exorcism" thrown into the mix. Blatty wanted to make an atmospheric horror film, the producers wanted a prototypical 80's horror film. The producers wanted Jason Miller and an exorcism! Who won out?
The film follows the friendship between Father Dyer and Detective Kinderman. Meanwhile a serial killer is running around Georgetown gruesomely murdering the city's residents. Kinderman is called into duty and is puzzled by the brutal slayings. That is until he follows the clues and they lead him to a very unlikely place. Kinderman's faith in man is tested as he continues on through out this bizarre and seemingly never ending case.
George C. Scott is excellent as Kinderman. he plays the role of the detective as if he was tailored made for the part. Ed Flanders co-stars as Father Dyer. Nicol Williamson has a guest star spot as a Father Merrin type priest (his scenes seemed to have been added during post production because they don't fit in with the rest of the movie). The ending felt rushed and it has "post production" stamped on it. Word has it that the film was indeed tampered with during the post production. I think so to because the book's ending was far different than what was put out on the silver screen.
Is the movie worth watching? Yes it is because it's a worthy follow up to the Exorcist. Even though it was fiddled around with during the final phase of production, scenes seem to have been added and the ever presence of the producers looking over the director's shoulder, it's still a great film. I'm probably one of the few people who are actually satisfied with the movie. I wished Blatty could have the original version of this film restored. I enjoyed the book and the movie as well.
Highly recommended!
A majority of people hate intellectual horror films. What's wrong with having to think once in a while?
The film follows the friendship between Father Dyer and Detective Kinderman. Meanwhile a serial killer is running around Georgetown gruesomely murdering the city's residents. Kinderman is called into duty and is puzzled by the brutal slayings. That is until he follows the clues and they lead him to a very unlikely place. Kinderman's faith in man is tested as he continues on through out this bizarre and seemingly never ending case.
George C. Scott is excellent as Kinderman. he plays the role of the detective as if he was tailored made for the part. Ed Flanders co-stars as Father Dyer. Nicol Williamson has a guest star spot as a Father Merrin type priest (his scenes seemed to have been added during post production because they don't fit in with the rest of the movie). The ending felt rushed and it has "post production" stamped on it. Word has it that the film was indeed tampered with during the post production. I think so to because the book's ending was far different than what was put out on the silver screen.
Is the movie worth watching? Yes it is because it's a worthy follow up to the Exorcist. Even though it was fiddled around with during the final phase of production, scenes seem to have been added and the ever presence of the producers looking over the director's shoulder, it's still a great film. I'm probably one of the few people who are actually satisfied with the movie. I wished Blatty could have the original version of this film restored. I enjoyed the book and the movie as well.
Highly recommended!
A majority of people hate intellectual horror films. What's wrong with having to think once in a while?
helpful•11819
- Captain_Couth
- Oct 26, 2004
Details
Box office
- 1 hour 50 minutes
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content
