Rating: 
Summary: DISAPPOINTING..
Review: THIS MOVIE JUST ISNT AS GOOD AS THE ORIGINAL, PERIOD. I WISH PRODUCERS OF FILM WOULD SEE THAT IF YOU CANT MAKE THE SEQUEL BETTER, ATLEAST MAKE IT AS GOOD..THIS WAS NOT THE CASE HERE..AND RARELY IS IN MOST INSTANCES. I FELT LET DOWN, AND THE ONLY SEQUEL THAT RANKED WORSE THAN THIS, WAS THE 3RD VERSION UGH!..I GUESS, THEY COULDNT TOP THE ORIGINAL..AND I DONT KNOW IF IT IS POSSIBLE TO BEGIN WITH..BUT DONT HAVE GREAT EXPECTATIONS HERE WITH THIS ONE..
Rating: 
Summary: Gave sequels a bad name
Review: Sequels have always had a poor reputation, and Exorcist II is a strong candidate paving that highway. Lacks everything that made the first film so good. Director John Boorman even admits he didn't even like the original movie. That alone should wean you off this film. No scares or shocks, which left audiences around the world leaving the theater cussing under their breath.
Rating: 
Summary: A Beautiful Masterpiece.
Review: The Exorcist is one of the most succesful movies of all time. It was praised by critics and caused a shock to everyone at the time. The sequel has gone down in history as a complete turkey.... a complete failure that everyone hated. Everyone except me. Truth be told, I liked this movie better than the first. Why? Well, they're both very different films. I'm sure when people headed out to see this in 1977, they were expecting another possesion flick. It was so different, that they couldn't get into it (so they thought it was appropriate to throw stuff at the screen and boo). The original Exorcist was filmed like a documentary, and it suited the style of the story that that movie told. This movie is much more visual. There are plenty of stunning shots. We swoop over landscapes and into Africa, riding on the 'wings of a demon.' Regan perches herself on her balcony, looking out into the sky while a beautiful theme plays. This movie was much more artsy than the first, and that's what I preferred. I like and respect the original for what it was, which was a raw excersion of chaos and terror. It was a psychological film with extraordinary acting and fabulous special effects (ever for today). This film is much stranger. You have to think a bit about what's happening to fully undertsand the goings-on (which many people didn't). One thing I liked about this film was that it explained why the demon possessed Regan and also showed flashbacks to an earlier possession in Africa which was only talked about in the first one. The Linda Blair character was apparently some sort of an angel in this movie, and that was perfect for Linda Blair. With her cute face and lovely smile, she was great at portraying an enormous force of good. Richard Burton was a little shaky at the beginning but quickly turned excellent. Kitty Winn returned from the original and did an excellent job as her character was much more developed here than in the first. Louise Fletcher was like an Ellen Burstyn clone and I'm surprised they didn't just get her to play the mom. The music in the film was haunting and stays in my mind long after I watch the film. The Regan Theme was absoloutly beautiful. I highly recommend this film, but a stupid person may not see into it as much as I did. Trivia Note: Joey Lauren Adams, of Big Daddy, Mallrats, Chasing Amy and Dazed and Confused makes her first film appearance here as Louise Fletcher's daughter. She's only in opne scene and you can't recognize her, but she would grow into the beautiful girl who portrayed an academy-worthy performance in Chasing Amy, so that's pretty cool.
Rating:
Summary: John Boorman: the heretic.
Review: Presumably, this is what happened. The execs at Warner Bros. back in 1977 decided that they had a "can't-miss" on their hands: a sequel to the blockbuster *The Exorcist*, featuring the return of Linda Blair (now all grown-up and exceedingly buxom), to be directed by a director of note, John Boorman. Thus, the execs just sort of let things develop on their own, figuring that such a sure-fire hit didn't require any looking-after. Basically, they let Boorman go crazy. My question is: why were they surprised at the result? Hadn't any of them seen his *Zardoz*, for Pete's sake? Instead of the expected rehash of the possessed girl throwing up on everybody, Boorman unleashed an art-film on an unsuspecting public . . . and the rest is history. Regularly cited on any "Worst Movies of All Time" list, *The Exorcist II: The Heretic* has, in the meantime, garnered a devoted fan-club (check the other reviews here if you doubt me), of which I'm proud to belong. First of all, let it be said that this movie is a true sequel to the first. Time has passed, and the main character has grown up. Correspondingly, different set of issues now confronts her. In other words, it's not the "rehash" that I cited earlier, which all too often plagues movies that call themselves "sequels". This progression is undeniably refreshing. Even more refreshing is the inventiveness, bordering on sheer insanity, that Boorman and screenwriter William Goodhart bring to the hackneyed material set forth by the first film. Boorman gives us surreal landscapes pieced out of location shots and back-lots surrounded by trippy mattes; Goodhart eschews pretty much the entire Christian theology, going instead for a cosmic war between an ethereal, unknowable Good and Evil. Unknowable, but not unnamed: the demon in question that has been pestering Regan all this time is called "Pazuzu". Pazuzu, no longer Satan's henchman as in the first film, is here just one of possibly dozens of powerful, nasty spirit-gods. Manifesting himself as a locust, his plan is basically to infect the whole world, much as a bad grasshopper can infect a whole colony. Therefore, he makes a point of picking on those who seem particularly resistant to his evil strain: people like Regan, and another African boy who will later grow up to become a half-naked James Earl Jones dressed in a Mardi Gras locust costume. But this is a hint to stop. One either accepts the film's imaginative logic, or one demands the conventional entertainment provided by films like the first *Exorcist*. Knowing which camp you belong to will help you in your decision whether or not to bother with this film. Over and beyond its dizzy intellectualism, the movie also dares to make fun of the fans of the first movie. Perfect example: when asked why she sees a psychiatrist, Regan explains that "I was possessed by a demon, but I'm okay now." And having a clearly hungover Richard Burton walk around stiffly, calling out for "Pazuzu", reminds us of how silly ALL tales of the supernatural can be. If nothing else, the movie is a bracing tonic for those who take this genre too seriously. And -- sorry, Faithful -- but the plot particulars in this movie are no more ridiculous than those in the first *Exorcist*: possessed by a minion of Satan; possessed by a big grasshopper . . . what's the diff?
Rating:
Summary: Exorcist II: The Heretic
Review: Linda Blair reprises her role as Regan MacNeil, who this time is staying with her former nanny, Sharon, in New York, and is seeing Dr. Jean Tuskin, the owner of a hospital for gifted children. When Tuskin begins suspecting Regan hasn't been telling all she remembers about the former trauma in Washington, Father Lamont arrives and begins investigating - and with the help of Regan, things might just get a little more interesting. Or not...for this film, including some decent special effects and photography, is just plain bad. The acting is bad, the script is lacking in any sort of feeling or realism, and the story overall is just terrible. Ennio Morricone's musical score is eerie, but that's really the only thing that stands out in this otherwise dreary, horrible film.
Rating: 
Summary: It's OK....... But Not On My Top 10
Review: Our story opens in Africa. With Father Phillip Lamont (Richard Burton), where he is performing an exorcism on a woman who is possessed by the demon Pazuzu. Now if you've seen the original Exorcist, Pazuzu is the name of the demon who posessed Regan MacNiel (Linda Blair). The woman then commits suicide by lighting herself with candles and burning herself to death. Now we are in New York City with our main character Regan. She is living with her childhood nanny Sharon Spencer (Kitty Winn). Who also was with Regan when she was first posessed when they lived in Georgetown while Regans mother was shooting a movie there. But now, Regan temporarily is living with Sharon while her mother is on location shooting another movie. Regan is also seeing a Phycologist to help her deal with her "problems." The doctor is played by Louise Fletcher. After the doctor has Regan use a Hypnosis machine to try and recall the night Father Merrin performed the exorcism on her. She never even forgot!!! Then Regan and Father Lamont (who was sent to investigate Father Merrins death) realize that still, inside Regan is a internal conflict. A conflict between good and evil. Then the next thing you know Regan and Father Lamont are going to Regans old house in Georgetown to fight Pazuzu. There was some stuff about Locusts. But I have no idea what that has to do with the movie! I hoped to see blood and Gore like in the first one. But it is still pretty good. But it could have been better. However I do recommend it to people who want to know the next chapter of the original horror hit. P.S.- The Exorcist 3 is also good. Check that movie out too. *Only Available on VHS*
Rating:
Summary: beyond boring
Review: Bring a pillow. I was so impressed with the first movie, I ran right out hearing it had a sequal and watched this, its just God awful. Not enough profanity, gore, or horror. They tried too much to explain the origin of the demon, and explain the possesion from the first movie. Who wants a 2 hour explanation of the first movie. BTW - they are making a prequal to this series this summer, and it already looks like it is doomed to fail because they said on ET "this one will try to explain the orgins of the demon in the first movie" isnt that what the second one did too? they need to give it up!
Rating:
Summary: If you love this film, avoid this version
Review: I've taken my opportunity to revise my original review now that I have actually seen this DVD: before I go any further I should say that I love the other versions of this film I've seen.
This DVD is presumably the US theatrical release: if so, no wonder it has such a bad reputation. Compared to the UK cinema release, the original UK video release this DVD is terrible in everything but picture quality.
Although it features scenes not present in any of the other 3 versions I've seen, this is a badly edited interpretation which accounts for the general critical mauling the movie gets. not only that, the divine music is remixed in parts (especially the haunting 'Reagan's Theme', which normally sends me into raptures. 'Pazuzu' is also missing from this version ...what were the editors thinking of ? After all, the music is only amongst the finest Ennio Morricone ever produced...
Finally, I should say that the coda is awful, far worse than the UK ending, where Linda Blair's 'good locust' bullroaring gesture ends the film beautifully.
If you love 'The Heretic', avoid this version and wait for a definitive directors cut: unfortunately the UK DVD release is identical to this one...in vain hope I'll keep my fingers crossed for the 3 disc box set containing all possible versions, which will probably never happen now that this current version will convinve even more people that this film is useless (come on warner brothers, have some guts and do it as a limited edition). Tragically, the UK Crypt Collection VHS has now been updated to contain this version of the film, meaning that it is now impossible to get hold of the superior version. Get me the source elements and the editing equipment and I'll cut a definitive version MYSELF !
Rating:
Summary: Boring
Review: What is this ? as a very huge fan of the first one i have to admit i wasn impress with this sequel. I slep thro the movie cuz it was that boring so i watch it again and i was slep a second time. The original and the third are cool but this one is just boring,[...] and [...]! Do not buy it
Rating:
Summary: horrible
Review: I hate to write bad reviews but this movie deserves it.I am a big fan of the original.The original scares me every time I watch it.But this movie is laughably dumb.Skip this one and forget that it ever existed.If you want more exorcist watch the third one,it is much much better.
|
