We're about half way through the Underrated Series and have finally reached one of the big genres. I'm expecting lots…
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?
Part of the birthday movie marathon! Movie #5
I don't know what kind of drugs they were taking when they filmed this fiasco but I sure could have used some to numb the sharp pain of disappointment that came over me while viewing it!
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.
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...…
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.
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.
John Boorman makes a terrible sequel to the Exorcist but an excellent 'Italian' horror.
sequência totalmente desnecessária
As a continuation of The Exorcist story, this movies is a huge pile of dreck. As an absolutely bonkers bunch of nonsense about Africa, Locusts, posession, a kinda cute Linda Blair with scary contacts, a kinda cute Linda Blair undergoing some sorta bizarro therapy, and James Earl Jones, this is a pretty entertaining somewhat fever dreamish good time. If you go in expecting a serious classic like the original, you will be disappointed, if you go in expecting a late 70's shit storm, you will be rewarded.
Dumbfounded by how badly this sequel turned out. It really strains to build a follow up story for the original, and bases it on some ridiculous mumbo jumbo about synchronised hypnosis, which let's the film's characters peer into each other's memories, including those of the demon that possessed Regan in the original film. By the end one is not too sure what the point of it all was, but it seems Regan belongs to a special subset of people who can turn evil to good. The film, then, is far too rooted on fantasy, which really contrasts the realistic tone of the original - not to mention it was intensely scary. But as for this, sleep inducing stuff with no scares or tension whatsoever. The main positive going for it are the good visuals. Morricone's score also is noteworthy, as a very creatively strange element.
I hadn't seen this film in about 12 years and I remembered hating it. After listening to GGTMC cover it, I decided to give it another shot. It's actually a pretty decent flick! Still not nearly as great as 1 and 3, but I really enjoyed it!
I'm not a reviewer prone to exaggeration, but I have to say Exorcist II: The Heretic might be the worst sequel ever made (yes, even worse than Troll 2). There is simply nothing redeemable about this celluloid atrocity. I've watched it numerous times (What can I say? I'm a glutton for punishment) looking for something, anything positive I can take away from the film and I simply can't. Fifty percent absurd science fiction movie, fifty percent ludicrous horror film. One hundred percent failure.
The movie centers on the young adult Reagan McNeil (she looks about 17 or 18 years old in the film) who is now a psychiatric patient under the supervision of a doctor played by Louise Fletcher (Nurse…
Not fantastic, but nothing like the disaster I'd been expecting. I guess if you think "The Exorcist" is the best horror film ever then this is going to be a pretty big disappointment. But frankly I prefer something creative like this to the bizarrely popular and wholly derivative "The Conjuring".
It was a pleasant surprise when the tribal figure turns out to actually be a well-dressed scientist, carrying on the contrast of faith and reason from the first movie. Prior to that point things looked a little racially insensitive.
Initially I was confused as to how Regan's mother had managed to become an expert in psychiatry when, last we saw, she was an actress. Turns out Louise…
First time watch. I found myself quite fascinated by it, I really like everything in Africa and all the stuff with father Merrin. It's certainly not scary but there are still some cool visuals, like the locust attacking. Also, seeing a young Max von Sydow just proves how awesome the old man make up is in the first movie.
What’s most striking about the film now, decades after its release, is how staggeringly dull it is; Boorman is a fine director, but it’s at though no one bothered to tell him he was making a horror movie. Instead, it’s 118 minutes of endless flashy-light hypnotism, staggeringly terrible locust effects, and Richard Burton wandering around what appears to be Tatooine.
I feel sorry for anyone dull enough to think this is one of the worst movies ever made. Boorman's "mistake" is that he didn't remake the first movie -- this isn't a horror film, it's a psychic dream piece.
- Whistle and I'll Come to You
- The Woman in Black
- The House with Laughing Windows
- Who Can Kill a Child?
- A Nightmare on Elm Street
- A Nightmare on Elm Street Part 2: Freddy's…
- A Nightmare on Elm Street 5: The Dream…
USA Up All Night (also known as Up All Night and Up All Night with Rhonda Shear) is an American…
- After Last Season
- Robo Vampire
- Star Wars: Holiday Special
- Samurai Cop