Bad Movie Logo
"A website to the detriment of good film"
Custom Search
HOMEB-MOVIE REVIEWSREADER REVIEWSFORUMINTERVIEWSUPDATESABOUT
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 04:35:52 AM
713324 Posts in 53055 Topics by 7725 Members
Latest Member: wibwao
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Movies  |  Good Movies  |  The Exorcist II & III. « previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: The Exorcist II & III.  (Read 3970 times)
Neville
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 142
Posts: 3050



« on: July 07, 2010, 05:05:44 PM »

For some reason this last week I decided to watch again, after many years, these two sequels. Here are my impressions.

The Exorcist II: The Heretic.

Alright. I can understand the hatred. John Boorman had a very difficult task in at least equaling the original and failed. Still, you have to admire the ambition and the guts it took to make such a different film as the original. Richard Burton stars as a priest that for some reason is ordered to evaluate Regan, now a perfectly healthy teenager. The investigation leads him to Africa and a quest to find out more about Pazuzu, the demon responsible of the possession.

What works: The visuals. Boorman never disappoints in this aspect. We are treated to some amazing, highly stylized visuals of Africa: an adobe village, a church on the top of a rocky mountain, numerous locust-point-of-view aerial scenes. I also found very intriguing the ideas that Pazuzu might be attacking "healers" or future healers from different faiths (after all, he's a pre-Christian entity) and that Regan may have some important role later in life, although this last thing is just hinted.

What doesn't work: Pretty much everything. Boorman isn't trying to replicate the intensity of Friedkin's movie, that I can accept, but still the whole thing isn't scary at all, and that I can't accept. Then there's the acting. Teenage Linda Blair is painful to watch. When she's not trying to hard to look sweet or cute she's just plain bad. And Burton... he's in this one just for the paycheck, but you'd think an actor of his stature would at least put a brave face and try to keep his dignity intact. Well, he doesn't. And when the script calls for him to ham it up and hold his breath, he does without flinching. Can you imagine him falling prey to teenage Regan sexual advances? Or yelling to a bus driver in posessed voice? Well, all this he does, and the results are SNL worthy.

Then there's the general idiocy of the script. The priest praying to Pazuzu to obtain vital clues in his investigation? Pazuzu playing along? James Earl Jones as a pagan priest? And the climax in the Georgetown house, a too evident nod to the first movie, is just laugh-out-loud bad.

Legion: The exorcist III.

Luckily, there's still another sequel to "The Exorcist", and one that alone grants this thread a place in the "Good movies" board. William Peter Blatty, author of the novel that spawned the series was brought on board to write and direct, and he adapts another of his novels, also a loose sequel to "The exorcist". And the first thing you notice is what a great film director he is. Everything is wonderfully photographed, and he has an eye for visual composition that makes every frame inmediatelly distinctive... and slightly off, which certainly adds to the mood. If Friedkin opted for an unrefrained hyper-realism, Blatty aims for restraint, but for a restraint that is so unnatural that you always feel there's something lurking under the surface, and indeed it is. The script is also very clever. It follows the investigation of Kinderman, a veteran Georgetown detective (a terrific George C. Scott, in what probably was one of his last film appearences), who is after a serial killer with a fixation for religion and an almost supernatural ability.   

Don't take me wrong, as I said this is a very good movie, but it's not entirely without faults. The whole investigation angle, for instance, feels rather disjointed. We follow George C. Scott from murder scenes to interviews with the witnesses and so on, but we never fully grasp what theories he might be considering or we are allowed a general view of the whole affair. And at the beginning of the movie we get a glimpse of Kinderman's friendship with a priest, and their scenes together are a joy to watch, full of terrific acting and razor sharp dialogue. But then the priest's character just disappears and we're left just with Kinderman for the remainder of the film. Damn.

Still, this is a very worthy sequel, very well directed and with some amazingly scary little bits. And the way it connects with the events of the original film at the end... that's just terrific, you must watch it to fully apreciate it.   
Logged

Due to the horrifying nature of this film, no one will be admitted to the theatre.
Flick James
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 489
Posts: 4642


Honorary Bastard of Arts


« Reply #1 on: July 07, 2010, 06:17:02 PM »

For some reason this last week I decided to watch again, after many years, these two sequels. Here are my impressions.

The Exorcist II: The Heretic.

Alright. I can understand the hatred. John Boorman had a very difficult task in at least equaling the original and failed. Still, you have to admire the ambition and the guts it took to make such a different film as the original. Richard Burton stars as a priest that for some reason is ordered to evaluate Regan, now a perfectly healthy teenager. The investigation leads him to Africa and a quest to find out more about Pazuzu, the demon responsible of the possession.

What works: The visuals. Boorman never disappoints in this aspect. We are treated to some amazing, highly stylized visuals of Africa: an adobe village, a church on the top of a rocky mountain, numerous locust-point-of-view aerial scenes. I also found very intriguing the ideas that Pazuzu might be attacking "healers" or future healers from different faiths (after all, he's a pre-Christian entity) and that Regan may have some important role later in life, although this last thing is just hinted.

What doesn't work: Pretty much everything. Boorman isn't trying to replicate the intensity of Friedkin's movie, that I can accept, but still the whole thing isn't scary at all, and that I can't accept. Then there's the acting. Teenage Linda Blair is painful to watch. When she's not trying to hard to look sweet or cute she's just plain bad. And Burton... he's in this one just for the paycheck, but you'd think an actor of his stature would at least put a brave face and try to keep his dignity intact. Well, he doesn't. And when the script calls for him to ham it up and hold his breath, he does without flinching. Can you imagine him falling prey to teenage Regan sexual advances? Or yelling to a bus driver in posessed voice? Well, all this he does, and the results are SNL worthy.

Then there's the general idiocy of the script. The priest praying to Pazuzu to obtain vital clues in his investigation? Pazuzu playing along? James Earl Jones as a pagan priest? And the climax in the Georgetown house, a too evident nod to the first movie, is just laugh-out-loud bad.

Legion: The exorcist III.

Luckily, there's still another sequel to "The Exorcist", and one that alone grants this thread a place in the "Good movies" board. William Peter Blatty, author of the novel that spawned the series was brought on board to write and direct, and he adapts another of his novels, also a loose sequel to "The exorcist". And the first thing you notice is what a great film director he is. Everything is wonderfully photographed, and he has an eye for visual composition that makes every frame inmediatelly distinctive... and slightly off, which certainly adds to the mood. If Friedkin opted for an unrefrained hyper-realism, Blatty aims for restraint, but for a restraint that is so unnatural that you always feel there's something lurking under the surface, and indeed it is. The script is also very clever. It follows the investigation of Kinderman, a veteran Georgetown detective (a terrific George C. Scott, in what probably was one of his last film appearences), who is after a serial killer with a fixation for religion and an almost supernatural ability.  

Don't take me wrong, as I said this is a very good movie, but it's not entirely without faults. The whole investigation angle, for instance, feels rather disjointed. We follow George C. Scott from murder scenes to interviews with the witnesses and so on, but we never fully grasp what theories he might be considering or we are allowed a general view of the whole affair. And at the beginning of the movie we get a glimpse of Kinderman's friendship with a priest, and their scenes together are a joy to watch, full of terrific acting and razor sharp dialogue. But then the priest's character just disappears and we're left just with Kinderman for the remainder of the film. Damn.

Still, this is a very worthy sequel, very well directed and with some amazingly scary little bits. And the way it connects with the events of the original film at the end... that's just terrific, you must watch it to fully apreciate it.    


I like your write-up on Exorcist III. Well done. The last time I saw it was when it was released in the theatre and your review pretty much matches my memory. You mentioned that we get to see elements of investigation but don't get to see any possible theories or a general view. Actually, that is probably closer to what real police work is. Detectives don't just jumpt to theories so quickly in real life like they do in the movies. But, then, they have to do that to make it a good movie. Real police work would usually make a very dull film.

As for Exorcist II, I have't seen it since I was a pubescent boy, so I remember liking it because I thought teenage Linda Blair was hot. I have no doubt it was as bad as you say.
Logged

I don't always talk about bad movies, but when I do, I prefer badmovies.org
The Burgomaster
Aggravating People Worldwide Since 1964
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 773
Posts: 9036



« Reply #2 on: July 08, 2010, 05:39:32 AM »

I hate EXORCIST II.  Every 3 or 4 years I dig out the DVD and watch it again.  I want to like it, but it's such a disappointment. 

EXORCIST III isn't very good either, but it's much better than Part II.  Too bad Lee J. Cobb died . . . I thought he was perfect as Kinderman.  George C. Scott was pretty good in the role, but Cobb was better.
Logged

"Do not walk behind me, for I may not lead. Do not walk ahead of me, for I may not follow. Do not walk beside me either. Just pretty much leave me the hell alone."
Hammock Rider
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 255
Posts: 1916



« Reply #3 on: July 08, 2010, 03:38:26 PM »

   Part 2 seemed confused and confusing and I have to admit I lost interest at some point. Plus, how scary is a monster named Pazoozoo? Not very terrifying.
  The best thing about part 3, in addition to ol George C., was the old lady doing the spider walk. That freaked me out.
Logged

Jumping Kings and Making Haste Ain't my Cup of Meat
Monster Jungle X-Ray
Bad Movie Lover
***

Karma: 40
Posts: 334


Just Another Pretty Face


« Reply #4 on: July 10, 2010, 02:40:18 PM »

Part III has one of the best scares I have ever seen. Of course I am talking about the hospital scene. When I saw it in the theater that one brief scene made the entire place jump.
Logged

" Society doesn't accept us because of what we are, so we're an enemy of society. " - Pa Mooney, THE RATS ARE COMING! THE WEREWOLVES ARE HERE!
Neville
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 142
Posts: 3050



« Reply #5 on: July 10, 2010, 02:45:47 PM »

Not surprisingly. A nice static shot following for like looked like minutes a nurse walking around, and then...  Buggedout

It's my favourite scare from this movie.
Logged

Due to the horrifying nature of this film, no one will be admitted to the theatre.
metalmonster
Bad Movie Lover
***

Karma: 28
Posts: 457


« Reply #6 on: July 10, 2010, 06:40:14 PM »

I Actually Like THE EXORCIST II , But I Never Got Around To Seeing THE EXORCIST III
Logged
akiratubo
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 480
Posts: 3801



« Reply #7 on: July 10, 2010, 07:18:01 PM »

Exorcist II is a bad, bad movie.  To me, it seems like Boorman signed on to the project and then, suddenly, realized he had absolutely no idea how to make the movie.  So, he fell back on what helped make his career in the first place: "art".  Boorman's cluelessness about making a supernatural horror movie, plus the absolute travesty of a script (I'll eat my hat if that was anything but a first draft) equaled one of the all-time great cinema disasters.  It really is THAT bad.

Although I do love the part in the background of one scene where a little kid is rolling around in a hexagonal thing.  It just comes out of nowhere, it's so bizarre, and it completely upstages the foreground action to such an extent that I had to pause the movie I was laughing so hard.  I can't imagine what that must have been like to see in a theater.

I tried to watch Exorcist III a couple of times and I just can't get through it.  Whereas II was bad in that trainwreck sort of way, III is just ... boring.
Logged

Kneel before Dr. Hell, the ruler of this world!
The Burgomaster
Aggravating People Worldwide Since 1964
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 773
Posts: 9036



« Reply #8 on: July 13, 2010, 10:24:13 AM »

Exorcist II is a bad, bad movie. 

For me, this is one of the top 10 worst (mainstream) movies of all time.  It's right up there with stuff like DUNE and WIRED.

Logged

"Do not walk behind me, for I may not lead. Do not walk ahead of me, for I may not follow. Do not walk beside me either. Just pretty much leave me the hell alone."
Neville
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 142
Posts: 3050



« Reply #9 on: July 13, 2010, 10:34:37 AM »

(Cough, cough) I like "Dune", although I admit it doesn't make much sense unless you've read the book first. And that almost every introductory scene has a voiceover explaining what we just saw. Or that the acting is not exactly memorable, despite the big names. And that those people riding what suspiciously looks like giant cocks, pointing at their enemies and yelling random syllables in the big finale look very silly.

But if you ignore all those things, it's a pretty good movie.  Lookingup
Logged

Due to the horrifying nature of this film, no one will be admitted to the theatre.
akiratubo
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 480
Posts: 3801



« Reply #10 on: July 13, 2010, 12:05:18 PM »

It's right up there with stuff like DUNE and WIRED.

Hey, Dune is great.
Logged

Kneel before Dr. Hell, the ruler of this world!
voltron
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 187
Posts: 2147



« Reply #11 on: July 13, 2010, 05:11:13 PM »

I really liked Part III. It pretty much stayed true to the Legion book on which it was based. Part II is amazingly bad. It'd be a stretch calling it a horror movie. "Lower your tone, Regan" hehe. The only redeeming factor: a HOT teenage Linda Blair.  Buggedout
Logged

"Nothin' out there but God's little creatures - more scared of you than you are of them"  - Warren, "Just Before Dawn"
The Burgomaster
Aggravating People Worldwide Since 1964
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 773
Posts: 9036



« Reply #12 on: July 14, 2010, 06:00:03 AM »

It's right up there with stuff like DUNE and WIRED.

Hey, Dune is great.

I remember seeing DUNE in the theater and thinking to myself, "This is boring, my ass is killing me, is this movie ever gonna end?????"
Logged

"Do not walk behind me, for I may not lead. Do not walk ahead of me, for I may not follow. Do not walk beside me either. Just pretty much leave me the hell alone."
Mr_Vindictive
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 129
Posts: 3702


By Sword. By Pick. By Axe. Bye Bye.


« Reply #13 on: August 10, 2010, 09:20:41 AM »

Exorcist II is trash.  Pure and absolute trash.  I have no idea what the hell John Boorman was thinking while making it.

Exorcist III is an overlooked classic.  That film is superb from beginning to end.  Its atmospheric, its haunting....and that scene with the nurse.....  I dare any of you to find a better scare than that.  Everytime I watch it, I still jump despite knowing it's coming.  Love the film, love George C Scott's acting in it, and I love the script.  One of my all time favorites.
Logged

__________________________________________________________
"The greatest medicine in the world is human laughter. And the worst medicine is zombie laughter." -- Jack Handey

A bald man named Savalas visited me last night in a dream.  I think it was a Telly vision.
Flick James
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 489
Posts: 4642


Honorary Bastard of Arts


« Reply #14 on: August 10, 2010, 11:16:06 AM »

Exorcist II is trash.  Pure and absolute trash.  I have no idea what the hell John Boorman was thinking while making it.

Exorcist III is an overlooked classic.  That film is superb from beginning to end.  Its atmospheric, its haunting....and that scene with the nurse.....  I dare any of you to find a better scare than that.  Everytime I watch it, I still jump despite knowing it's coming.  Love the film, love George C Scott's acting in it, and I love the script.  One of my all time favorites.

George C Scott is a distant cousin of mine, so I always support family.  TeddyR
Logged

I don't always talk about bad movies, but when I do, I prefer badmovies.org
Pages: [1]
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Movies  |  Good Movies  |  The Exorcist II & III. « previous next »
    Jump to:  


    RSS Feed Subscribe Subscribe by RSS
    Email Subscribe Subscribe by Email


    Popular Articles
    How To Find A Bad Movie

    The Champions of Justice

    Plan 9 from Outer Space

    Manos, The Hands of Fate

    Podcast: Todd the Convenience Store Clerk

    Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!

    Dragonball: The Magic Begins

    Cool As Ice

    The Educational Archives: Driver's Ed

    Godzilla vs. Monster Zero

    Do you have a zombie plan?

    FROM THE BADMOVIES.ORG ARCHIVES
    ImageThe Giant Claw - Slime drop

    Earth is visited by a GIANT ANTIMATTER SPACE BUZZARD! Gawk at the amazingly bad bird puppet, or chuckle over the silly dialog. This is one of the greatest b-movies ever made.

    Lesson Learned:
    • Osmosis: os·mo·sis (oz-mo'sis, os-) n., 1. When a bird eats something.

    Subscribe to Badmovies.org and get updates by email:

    HOME B-Movie Reviews Reader Reviews Forum Interviews TV Shows Advertising Information Sideshows Links Contact

    Badmovies.org is owned and operated by Andrew Borntreger. All original content is © 1998 - 2014 by its respective author(s). Image, video, and audio files are used in accordance with the Fair Use Law, and are property of the film copyright holders. You may freely link to any page (.html or .php) on this website, but reproduction in any other form must be authorized by the copyright holder.