|
Title: Exorcist 2 Post by: Alan Smithee on March 05, 2005, 04:59:43 PM I've been dying to see this s**tty movie for years now, but never wanted to rent it at the video store. Surprisingly, the local library had it and I didn't lose any money.
But I have to admit, it was worth a good laugh. I mean, the opening credits with that obnoxious wailing nearly had me fall out of the chair with laughter. Sometimes bad movies are fun as hell and worth a good laugh. In fact, I probably laughed more with this movie than I did with some genuine comedies. Title: Re: Exorcist 2 Post by: Chopper on March 06, 2005, 01:12:22 PM haha, yeah didn't John Boorman direct this? i've heard it's the biggest embaressment in his career.
Title: Re: Exorcist 2 Post by: Selk- on March 06, 2005, 02:15:53 PM Exorcist 2 was such a pathetic attempt at milking a cash cow it ought to have come with utters!! What's worse than a bad movie is a loooong bad movie. This thing seemed to go on for EVER!!! What was Richard Burton thinking? What was John Boorman thinking? What was I thinking? This movie stole 2 and a half hours out of my life and I wannum back!!!
http://www.jerrydroberts.com/brokedowncinema/index.htm Title: Re: Exorcist 2 Post by: blkrider on March 06, 2005, 03:56:43 PM I managed to catch one of the alternate versions on TV several years ago but haven't seen it since. I think the one that is commonly available is the third version.
I guess that the original theatrical version is lost forever--it was pulled back for recutting after the first week. The first recut version has a summary of the first film at the beginning--that's the one I saw on TV about 10 years ago. I believe that one was also pulled and tampered with, and we got the version that they play all the time now. As far as Richard Burton goes, EXORCIST II was just one of many, many bad movies he did. Title: Re: Exorcist 2 Post by: kriegerg69 on March 07, 2005, 12:11:59 AM blkrider wrote:
> I managed to catch one of the alternate versions on TV several > years ago but haven't seen it since. I think the one that is > commonly available is the third version. > > I guess that the original theatrical version is lost > forever--it was pulled back for recutting after the first week. > The first recut version has a summary of the first film at the > beginning--that's the one I saw on TV about 10 years ago. I > believe that one was also pulled and tampered with, and we got > the version that they play all the time now. You're quite wrong....The version that's been on VHS for years, and the same one that came out last year on DVD, IS the original theatrical version...director John Boorman's original cut. THAT'S the one which is commonly available now. The other version (which you saw on tv years ago, and which was the first version released on video) WAS the recut version done by WB a week or two after it originally hit theaters, with the opening narration by Burton. Title: Re: Exorcist 2 Post by: Gerry on March 08, 2005, 11:14:11 AM I like EXORCIST II. It's a totally different creature than THE EXORCIST, but it really is quite ambitious in some of the things it tries to do. I can see how a lot of people hate it, but count me as one who likes it.
Title: Re: Exorcist 2 Post by: blkrider on March 08, 2005, 02:57:13 PM Well, that's good to know. I think I might have been misinformed by the Medved Brothers--don't have the original golden turkey book anymore. I think they might have recut the film a second time for foreign markets, but who knows....
I think the recut version may have had more Morricone music. I know the version I saw on television had his song "Magic and Ecstasy" over the credits [it's the same song used in some of the trailers for the film] but the original theatrical version I don't believe has the song at all. |