UPDATE 6/25/2016: Martian Chronicles was gone, and now it's back. I had put a recommendation in to have some sort…
Exorcist II: The Heretic
It's four years later... what does she remember?
Bizarre nightmares plague Regan MacNeil four years after her possession and exorcism. Has the demon returned? And if so, can the combined faith and knowledge of a Vatican investigator and a hypnotic research specialist free her from its grasp?
As a sequel to The Exorcist? - Yes, it's a dismal failure.
Viewed as a stand-alone, loopy, mystical/sci-fi/horror hybrid dragged along by a manic Richard Burton performance? - It's actually quite fun.
Somehow I missed out on(avoided...) seeing this until very recently, but finally got my opportunity to view it on the big screen as part of the BFI's John Boorman retrospective.
Seen in a Boorman context alongside the likes of 'Excalibur' and 'Zardoz', it made a lot more sense to me than as a direct sequel to 'The Exorcist'.
I also think that my expectations had been dragged so low due to constant critical derision over the years, that anything - at least - watchable would've impressed somewhat.
What I found was a flawed, but entertaining oddity.
John Boorman makes a terrible sequel to the Exorcist but an excellent 'Italian' horror.
Satan has become an embarrassment to our progressive views.
Holy shit... what the hell is going on here? You get the feeling that director John Boorman and screenwriter William Goodhart never actually watched The Exorcist... or read the book... or the screenplay. Maybe someone told them what happens in the film, who heard it from someone else.
The film is stuck in this 1970s new age psychology which flies in the face of the original film that managed to feel steeped in old world mythology. I usually like it when a sequel or remake tries to do something different, but right from the start when Regan gets hypnotized and synced to her doctor... so they can share memories...…
Sometimes a movie is so nonsensical, so embarrassingly diving off deep ends of logic that I am won back entirely by the nature of its existence as a mangled mutation, a sprawling massacre of potential mythology. In there are still some inspired visual flourishes. The guy falling off the cliff in off-putting slow motion is one of my favorite moments in anything. The movie is just so wrong on so many levels that I consume it as the true guiltiest of pleasures. I mean it, I truly feel guilty for enjoying it as much as I do. A good train wreck turns your head in the right way.
Finally got around to seeing this much-maligned sequel to the Friedkin classic. Expectations were set to their lowest so this damp squib of a film could not anger me but its unfocused approach certainly was an effort to stay awake during.
It certainly makes me glad of all the good to great horror sequels we are getting now.
Ce film-là est sincèrement, merveilleusement batshit crazy. En tant que suite à The Exorcist, c'est un peu beaucoup n'importe quoi; mais en tant que film d'horreur complètement unique et délirant, ça frôle le chef-d'oeuvre. J'aimerais ça voyager dans le temps pour pouvoir filmer la face des gens qui sortaient de la projection après avoir été voir le film en espérant une suite « normale » à The Exorcist.
Four years after Regan MacNeil's body was a host for evil she is seeing a therapist to help her deal with her past. At the same time a collegue of Father Merrin is sent by the church to investigate Merrin's death.
John Boorman's sequel to one of the most loved horror movies of all time is one of the most hated sequels in horror movie history. Calling Exorcist II: The Heretic the worst sequel ever is harsh, it's not, far from it. Sure it can't match the original but it's really quite entertaining and good looking too (especially on blu-ray). It's maybe a half hour too long (the rough cut of the film was three hours!) but I can't say…
This movie is about ghosts, but it is not scary, not spine chilling and has got nothing to do with horror it is just in my opinion a Sci-fi movie and that is what it is, which makes it a bad sequel but a good independent movie.
It took me 5 separate occasions to completely watch Exorcist II. That's not to say that I didn't really like some elements of it. It's just so tedious in points and I'm still not really sure what, if any, point there is to the narrative beyond justification for a sequel to cash in on the success of the first film.
The effects in the final scene though...
The only good thing I can say about this ridiculous movie is that it asks a mildly interesting question: Does great goodness bring upon itself great evil? Otherwise the story is clunky and all but makes a joke of the original. Also, Pazuzu is one annoyingly sing-songy demon.
There's like 10 seconds where you think a priest is about to have sex with Linda Blair, but besides that and getting to see James Earl Jones for a few minutes, this is useless.
Too much going on
The perfect example of a rushed sequel, made with the sole purpose of making fast money.
It is a pity that the film was so boring because there were some interesting points within but the focus of the film is too simplistic and lacks of a true narrative and most importantly, lacking in scares and genuine horror.
This is an unranked list of my most high holiest of favorite movies. It is something continually tinkered with, and…