#1
Posted: 11/5/07 at 10:29am
As a huge fan of the original "Exorcist" film and book, I am very fascinated by it's subsequent sequels. The most controversial sequel seems to be "The Exorcist II: The Heretic" which bombed in the theaters and had people throwing popcorn at the screen. However beneath all the mess I think there's a decent film in there. Here's my take on it.
Pros:
-The music is simply beautiful and really fits with the story that's being told.
-Visually the film to gorgeous to look at. The art direction is superb and the special effects are pretty great considering when it was made.
-James Earl Jones is great in his limited role.
-The film provides some unanswered questions to the first, such as why the demon Pazuzu chose to posses Reagan.
-Some interesting moral/ethical questions are raised concerning good vs. evil.
Cons
-The plot, most of which comes off as silly and nonsensical. Using a flashing light to enter someone else's subconcious, Reagan fighting with her doppleganger, and James Earl Jones in animal skins comes off as way too cheesy for such an intelligent franchise.
-The performances are incredibly uneven. Linda Blair's only genuine moments come when she's tap dancing. Louise Fletcher and Richard Burton seem to be acting in two different films and Kitty Winn is laughable (especially her "I...chose....EVIL!).
-Where the hell is Reagan's mother in this movie. As a woman who was so concerned about her daughter's health and well-being in the first film, she is surprisingly absent in the second. Chris Mcneil just isn't the kind of woman to dump her possessed daughter on the nanny.
-A possession scene from the first film is recreated, only the actress playing possessed Reagan is clearly NOT Linda Blair. The new possessed Reagan has the voice of an eighty year old and the body of a twenty-something soft porn star. If they were going for laughs they should have just hired Catherine O'Hara.
I think that with better direction and a tighter script this could have been a wonderful sequel, however it just fails on so many levels. Anyone else have any thoughts on it?
Pros:
-The music is simply beautiful and really fits with the story that's being told.
-Visually the film to gorgeous to look at. The art direction is superb and the special effects are pretty great considering when it was made.
-James Earl Jones is great in his limited role.
-The film provides some unanswered questions to the first, such as why the demon Pazuzu chose to posses Reagan.
-Some interesting moral/ethical questions are raised concerning good vs. evil.
Cons
-The plot, most of which comes off as silly and nonsensical. Using a flashing light to enter someone else's subconcious, Reagan fighting with her doppleganger, and James Earl Jones in animal skins comes off as way too cheesy for such an intelligent franchise.
-The performances are incredibly uneven. Linda Blair's only genuine moments come when she's tap dancing. Louise Fletcher and Richard Burton seem to be acting in two different films and Kitty Winn is laughable (especially her "I...chose....EVIL!).
-Where the hell is Reagan's mother in this movie. As a woman who was so concerned about her daughter's health and well-being in the first film, she is surprisingly absent in the second. Chris Mcneil just isn't the kind of woman to dump her possessed daughter on the nanny.
-A possession scene from the first film is recreated, only the actress playing possessed Reagan is clearly NOT Linda Blair. The new possessed Reagan has the voice of an eighty year old and the body of a twenty-something soft porn star. If they were going for laughs they should have just hired Catherine O'Hara.
I think that with better direction and a tighter script this could have been a wonderful sequel, however it just fails on so many levels. Anyone else have any thoughts on it?
.jpg?format=auto&width=365)
