 | |
List Price: $14.98 | | Label: Warner Home Video
Salesrank: 156379
Released: November 3, 2009 |
| Our Price: $8.67 |
| Used Price: $12.14 |
|
MPAA Rating: R (Restricted)
Media: DVD |
|
Editorial Review:
Studio: Warner Home Video Release Date: 11/03/2009 Run time: 112 minutes Rating: R
Description of Exorcist II: The Heretic (Keepcase):
This sequel to the Oscar-winning horror film based on the novel by William Peter Blatty was virtually laughed off the screen when it came out in 1977. It was an unintentionally hilarious mishmash and received such terrible reviews that director John Boorman yanked it out of theaters. He reedited it, cutting eight minutes in hopes of getting the story (written by William Goodhart) to the point of coherency, to no avail. The film remains a kind of reverse gold standard for sequels. It's still a ridiculously overacted, although at times visually haunting, movie. Richard Burton stars as a troubled priest (something of a specialty of his) who is brought in to follow up on the case of Linda Blair, who is institutionalized, still troubled by her encounter with the devil (who wouldn't be?). By the time they confront Satan's minion in the final struggle, you'll be rooting for evil to win. --Marshall Fine
Exorcist II: The Heretic (Keepcase) Reviews:
New DVD 
2009-11-30 - The DVD was received in a timely manner and just as ordered, new and unopened.
Somewhere In This Mess Is A Good Film Wanting To Get Out 
2009-11-04 - Essentially, your viewpoint on this film will boil down to one overriding factor: if you liked the first film, then you'll hate this. Consequently, if you hated the first film, you'll probably prefer its sequel. In my honest opinion, somewhere in this convuluted mess of a film is a good film trying desperately to escape. Unfortunately, since it's billed as the sequel to one of the most critically and commercially successful horror films of all time, this film has a lot to live up to and it manages to simultaneously intrigue and disappoint at the same time. While the film earns points for not simply trying to rehash the original (as is the fate of most film sequels), it's muddy mix of spiritual and metaphysical mumbo jumbo make it a bit of a chore to sit through.
The problem is that this film must have read fantastically on paper yet somehow got lost in translation. The director of this film (John Boorman) deters from William Friedkin's matter-of-fact sense of direction in the first film to create an eerie, dreamlike atmosphere for this film. This results in a film that seems less focused on telling a coherent story and more focused on immersing the filmgoer in a feeling or emotion. While Friedkin's film can feel like a documentary at times, Boorman definitely lets you know that you're in a movie and revels in camera tricks that seem to take you out of the movie. Now, while most people will point the finger at Boorman for creating an inferior film, the blame actually extends all across the board on this one. Richard Burton (as Fr. Lamont) hams it up throughout the film and relentlessly chews through each bit of scenery in which he appears, James Earl Jones pops up and spits a tomato out of his mouth at one point (no, seriously), Louise Fletcher manages to somehow not crack up when she is being simultaneously groped by both Linda Blair and Linda Blair's body double and poor, poor Linda Blair herself constantly looks as though she knows she's in a bad movie and is asking the audience for help in getting out. Not that the sometimes ridiculous lines of dialogue help matters any...
The script appears to have some genuinely interesting ideas with what it's trying to say, but gets bogged down in trying to convey metaphysical ideas to an audience that's expecting a few scares. Probably one of the most unfortunate aspects of the film is when it flashes back to moments in the original. These flashbacks hold none of the impact of the original film and serves only to remind us of how much better the first film was. Max von Sydow shows up in these flashbacks (reprising his role as Fr. Merrin) as he battles the demon Pazuzu in a very fiberglass-looking Africa (which dramatizes a reference made in the original Exorcist about Merrin's first encounter with the demon). Unfortunately, these scenes serve only to confuse this film a little further about what it's trying to be exactly.
Also deserving a mention at this point is Ennio Morricone's bizarre score for the film which manages to remind us constantly that this film was made in the 70's. The original film got a lot of mileage out of using mostly atonal music from contemporary composers, but this film goes for the full-on original score and gets a quintessential Morricone score that seems out of place for a horror film.
Be that as it may, back to the script: Regan (Linda Blair) is having trouble dealing with life after possession and is attending to some psychiatric care under the direction of Dr. Gene Tuskin (Louise Fletcher). Regan seems to remember none of the events of the first film with much clarity and only seems to have some strange dreams every now and again. Meanwhile, Fr. Lamont (Richard Burton) is having all kinds of a crisis of faith from his own failed exorcism and the Vatican understandably (?) assigns him the task of investigating Fr. Merrin's death during Regan's exorcism, as Fr. Merrin is facing posthumous charges of heresy. Of course, this brings Fr. Lamont to Regan and, with the help of Dr. Tuskin's "synchronizer" he's able to dredge up dormant memories within Regan about her own posession. The "sychronizer" is never fully explained and seems to be able to share the memories of the hypnotized patient with fancy strobe lights and pulsing low-watt bass sounds. Through these dormant memories, we find out that the demon who possessed Regan was actually named Pazuzu and the demon has a habit of finding extremely good people and perverting them. Fr. Lamont and Regan both get wrapped up in taking mind-bending flights of fancy with Pazuzu and we witness Fr. Merrin's original exorcism, which was only mentioned in the first film, but not explored. Pazuzu makes the classic villain mistake of overexplaining himself and Fr. Lamont and Regan realize they have to do a little more to get rid of him completely. Throughout all of this are several subplots that has James Earl Jones explaining locusts, Dr. Tuskin constantly refuting religious help in favor of scientific/psychiatric help and some claptrap about Regan being some sort of healer (she even manages to help cure an autistic child at one point in the movie).
All of this comes together in bits and pieces to bring us to a mystifying climax that has a lot to do about more locusts, but not much else. For some reason or another, Burton and Blair find themselves back at the old Georgetown residence of the original film and they fight off an infestation of locusts, a succubus version of Linda Blair and a very clearly freaking-out Sharon (Kitty Wynn, also reprising her role from the original film). What this ending has to do with the preceding hour and a half is anybody's guess... Apparently, Pazuzu is really into Georgetown real estate and refuses to back down from a place that he really likes.
While the notion that extreme evil is almost magnetically attracted to extreme good is an interesting concept, it takes far too long to get to the point only to ultimately wind up in an unsatisfying, budget-blowing finale that's extremely noisy and out of place for a film that spent most of its time building a dream-like atmosphere.
Ultimately, this film might have benefitted more if it was not directly related to the first Exorcist film. On its own, there's enough going for it to make it mildly interesting, but when taken into account as being a part of the overall world of The Exorcist, the film fails to live up to its potential. The film remains an enigma and a bizarre follow-up to the original. While the film certainly stretches credibility at times and has some laugh-out-loud moments, most filmgoers will realize that there's definitely... something... going on underneath the surface that's struggling to take center stage, but as I said, it's ultimately lost in translation and that results in this film generally being regarded as a huge disappointment. It's worth watching at least once just to see what the film was trying to accomplish, but from there (as in: would you watch it more than once?), it really depends on how you feel about the original.
Pretty Bad
2009-11-01 - As far as sequels go, this IS one of the worst. Although it is watchable (especially if you enjoy bad movies). The writing is bad, the acting is pretty non-existent, and the dialogue is horrendous. A previous reviewer claims that Exorcist 3 had nothing to do with the first. WRONG. Exorcist 2 was an attempt to cash in on the huge success of the first film. It is a waste of a great cast, a lot of money, and the audience's time. Exorcist 3, however, brings the return of William Peter Blatty who wrote the novel and the screenplay for the first film. Exorcist 3 incorporates many scenes from the novel (which were not used in the first film), along with the storyline from Legion, (another novel by Blatty). Anyway, I digress. In closing, this movie plain old sucks. I do recommend buying the complete Anthology set. You get both versions of the first film, 2, 3, and both versions of 4. At least you can see this movie without wasting money on it directly.
Hey Pazuzu Exists
2009-10-30 - Fun because it is dated. Not scary, but interesting as far as stone age psychology exists. Cool to see James Earl Jones and Richard Burton in the flick. Yes Pazuzu exists, as their are Babylonian Relics on display at the Museum at Emory University in Atlanta GA. They are small icons, but demonologists, and creepy movie people should give it a gander. Linda Blair gets really groovy, and even cures autism in a child. Psychic enthusiasts will be interested in it. And those who like ancient antiquities related to superstition or the demonic will like this.
Very Poor Sequel.... 
2009-10-26 - The Exorcist, the greatest horror film of all history, cannot be compared to this garbage. Exorcist 3 is more of a reputable sequel than this stupidity. James Earl Jones can screw-up even the best of films, but this didn't start as a 'best of films'. It's a bad movie from the get-go. Poor Linda Blair was straining to recapture what she had started in the original classic. Advice of this reviewer: Skip this and get Exorcist 3 if you already have the original Exorcist. If you don't, start with the classic Exorcist. It is the 'gold standard' of horror films, bringing religion, Satan, GOD, horror and actuality all in tune with a great story that is based on a true situation.
