Does anybody else feel that this film would have been more appreciated and successful had it not had exorcist in it's title? I found this film to be slow, but the acting and atmosphere of the film made up for the parts that dragged on. Does anybody else agree with me on this matter?
shareDisagree. However, had the studio not tampered with Blatty's original story, there would have been no returning character of Damien Karras; no exorcism scene; and no exorcist, Fr. Morning. Without those "Exorcist" elements, the film could have gotten away with some other title, such as Legion, the title of Blatty's book, on which it is partially based.
However, with all those exorcistic, ritual elements - plus the return of Karras himself as a demon-trapped soul imprisoned in his own body (along with the Gemini's soul) - and hence in need of an "exorcism" himself - the film plays as an Exorcist sequel, and so the title is appropriate.
It became a story of liberating the heroic Damien Karras from the grasp of the vengeful demon of the original novel and film, and the means of liberation was exorcism-cum-direct divine intervention (i.e., the divine light that shines into the cell, freeing Morning to help the imprisoned Damien). By tranferring these heavily "Exorcist" elements into a story that originally had relatively few of them, "Legion" did - for better or worse - honestly earn the Exorcist III title.
It needed to be called The Exorcist, but perhaps leave off the "3" part since everyone hated part 2.
- - - - - - -
I am not a fan. I just happen to enjoy movies. Fans are embarrassing.