Further viewing for those who enjoyed, or followed along with the AFS Art/Horror series. There are some obvious titles here,…
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...…
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.
Oh lordy, this movie is not as bad as people say. It's goddamn worse lol.
Completely ruins what made the first one so good, and is just boring in general.
I had a huge crush on 16-ish year old Linda Blair when I first watched it and was about her age, so I guess that's something >.>
Perhaps I'm being a bit harsh on this. After all, it is quite a funny film.
Nothing is better
Than Regan tap dancing while
She's stoned by ghost rocks
A bit weird. Not the worst movie I've seen
This review may contain spoilers. I can handle the truth.
Some movies should come with their own specialized warning label, such as "Should not be viewed before driving or operating heavy machinery" or "Recommended to be viewed in 15 minute increments only." Such viewer advisories could save many a sane brain that tries to slog through the abominable Exorcist II: The Heretic.
In a word, this sequel to the famous 1973 original is "ungodly", and not in a good way. It's so bad in so many ways that you almost feel sorry for it. Everyone involved, from stars Linda Blair, Richard Burton, Louise Fletcher, Kitty Winn, Max Von Sydow, and James Earl Jones to writer William Goodhart and director John Boorman, must have seriously been possessed by something to create…
Not as completely terrible as I'd heard, though not good either. There are some moments; they are just well hidden amidst an over reliance on cheap effects, an unfocused story and Linda Blair and Richard Burton's dodgy performances.
I hate everything about this except for the sets used during the ending and that awesome locust hat that James Earl Jones rocks.
I GUESS I get why people wouldn't like this movie but I totally do. It's scary. The shrieking that lays over the soundtrack is terrifying. The whole tone and atmosphere of this movie sucked me right in. Maybe it's a catholic thing.
Wait, this is a bad movie? Have the people who make this claim never actually seen a bad movie? The film has an eerie, dreamlike quality to it, which is only heightened by it's wonderful score. As far as I could tell, there were mostly good performances (plus Linda Blair was cute as a button), and I found the whole thing to be quite good. I'm seriously baffled as to why this gets so much hate. What am I missing?
Day 1 - A Wes Anderson film
Day 2 - An anime not directed by Hayao Miyazaki
overlong list of things i'm considering for my october 2016 horror marathon aka pooptober. recommendations are encouraged!!!!!!!!