Rating: 
Summary: GOOD FOR A SEQUEL...
Review: THIS IS GOOD FOR A PART 2 MOVIE. IT STARTS WITH REGAN OLDER AND SEEING A THERAPIST, SHE STARTS TO HAVE SOME FLASHBACKS ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED TO HER YEARS BEFORE. RICHARD BURTON IS GOOD AS SOMEONE WHO IS TRYING TO HELP HER GET THRU THIS AND FIND THE ANSWERS FOR HER TO FINALLY BE FREE OF HER DEMONS. SOME PARTS REALLY DRAG BUT HAVE TO BE TOLD TO GET A BETTER PICTURE OF THE STORY. NOT AS GOOD AS EXORCIST, BUT PICKS UP YEARS LATER, AND IS VERY WELL DONE. SPECIAL EFFECTS ARE WELL DONE, FAR FROM THE FIRST ONE, BUT STILL WELL DONE. THE ENDING IS VERY GOOD. AND BRINGS REGAN BACK TO THE HOUSE WHERE IT ALL STARTED, AS SHE FIGHTS HER INNER DEMONS TO BE FREE AGAIN.
Rating: 
Summary: Its not that bad.
Review: I've seen the Exorcist 2 The Herectic and its not bad at all. Believe me I've seen a lot worse. At first I didn't like it but when I watched it twice I understood it and I think it's a bit good. Not as good as the first Exorcist of course but its not bad.I still can't understand why people say such bad things about this movie.
Rating:
Summary: Really not that bad
Review: I don't understand why people slam this sequel so much. It is no more campy or preposterous than the original, to be perfectly frank. In fact, the passage of time has actually been kinder to "Exorcist II" than to the original, ironically because its reputation as "one of the worst sequels of all time" lends itself to more positive reassessments than the original's reputation as "the scariest movie of all time." I watched both movies recently and felt that while "Exorcist II" certainly has its flaws (among them the fact that it isn't even remotely scary), all in all it really isn't that bad, and it's worth a look.
Rating:
Summary: Misunderstood
Review: Very likely the most misunderstood film in history. Unlike a film by Stanley Kubrick, where a brilliant and symbolic establishment is to be expected, Exorcist II was on a wavelength where such things would not be expected or accepted. The first film's brilliance was in the way it could so shockingly and realistically enthrall us, as if we were experiencing, and being horrified by, the blatant, cold evil ourselves. This is a sequel with only similarity of its characters. Whereas, themes and ideals are conveyed through production design, complex dialogue, and visual composure, in a more artful manor. William Goodhart was clearly attempting to produce such an entity with his screenplay. He was trying to employ the themes relevant to this possession, such as Scientific vs. Spiritualist Idealism. Represented by a psychiatrist (Dr. Tuskin) and a priest (Father Lamont). It is simply a completely dissimilar, almost opposite approach to the theme of Regan's possession. And because it's not simply a continuation of its predecessor, which was so expected, it can not be appreciated.
Rating: 
Summary: Very complecated movie with a twist
Review: This film is so funny that instead of screams you get laughs. The humor gets boring after the first 10 minutes so you are already bored. Richard Burton takes a look at father marrin [max von sydow] 's history. While he's in africa Linda Blair is meeting with a doctor [lousie flecher]. The film is horrid but has it's moments
Rating: 
Summary: It could have been a contender...
Review: It was possible for the greatest supernatural thriller of all time to spawn equally haunting and horrifying sequels, but all hopes were crushed with the release of this film. There are many problems with "The Heretic", most of which can be found in its cheesy screenplay. The actors make up a good cast with great potential, but the acting flops due to the film's lame dialogue and story. Evermore apparent is the subliminal theme of a priest's temptation with lust. Notice how Richard Burton looks at Linda Blair in some scenes and judge for yourself! (But really, could you blame him?) The only decent elements of this film are the few drops of backstory concerning Father Merrin (the Exorcist himself!) as a younger man performing exorcisms in Africa... The soundtrack music is nice, but inappropriate for an Exorcist film. Linda Blair foreshadows her rise to power as a C-Movie Queen with this performance, although she's refreshingly attractive (no blood or vomit this time!)and "more grown up"(if you get my drift; Burton sure did)... They should have brainstormed on a fresh story, but insisted on reverting back to "the house in Washington"... subsequently reducing the eerie persona of the demon (now referred to as Pazuzu) to a pathetic joke. I hate it when THEY ruin a good thing! The Heretic is not scary at all, and certainly not believable. W.P. Blatty tried to save the franchise with "Exorcist III", which was a major improvement from 2, but still fell short from being on the same level as the original. I recommend one viewing of this film to set in motion the imaginative possibilities of what should have been, and what could have been. With regards to the Exorcist series, let us heed the wise words of Father Merrin : "There is only one."
Rating:
Summary: Silly, but worth a look
Review: I can't dispute that the film is hopelessly silly, but it's still worth looking at, especially if you have not seen the original. Linda Blair's scenes are unusually sensitive and the musical score by Ennio Morricone (who gave us The Untouchables and The Mission) is one of the high points. Both Richard Burton and James Earl Jones are wasted, but they attempt to lend some dignity to the overall nonsense. Approach it with an open mind as a sort of "prequel" and appreciate it for the back story it provides regarding Father Merrin and his earlier battle with the demon Pazzuzu; both of which are mentioned in the original novel. Again, YES it is a shameless sequel and a hopeless mess, but it's actually a lot of fun, too.
Rating:
Summary: Intesting sequel.Should be taken as a purely visual experie-
Review: nce. Although it lacks coherency,is nowhere near as shocking as it's forerunner,and is indeed laughable at times(what is the deal with the manic chanting played over the credits?Is that supposed to scare us?)it still proved to be an enjoyable experience for me. Louise Fletcher does a good job as a Regan's phsyciatrist;Richard Burton is of course excellent in his part as the troubled Father Lamont,and Linda Blair had blossomed into a lovely,talented young actress by 1977-nothing wrong with her. The "interrogation scene" with Pazuzu,using that sci-fi dealie was intresting,although Merecdes MacCambridge is sorely missed as the voice of the demon.Only she could've provided the chills needed to make this film at least moderately scary(along with William Blatty),but alas,having been burned by Warner's,she opted out.A shame... My hat's off to screenwriter William Goodhart,who gets and A for effort,but John Boorman-you directed Deliverance for pete's sake!Surely you could've done a better job with the film! Anyway,I'm babbling-purists stay away!This is just about any lover of Blatty's orginal's worst nightmare(excepting me).Everyone else-prepare for an intruiging,if puzzling film experience.Good to watch on rainy day.
Rating: 
Summary: Bizzare and visionary.
Review: I think that most people who disliked Exorcist 2 really don't know what they are talking about. I mean the use terms like "storyline" and "good plot" when they don't even know the definitions of the terms and don't know that you don't even need either to have a five star movie. Look at Halloween, it has virtually no plot but it creates such a disturbing atmosphere that it's worthy of all the praise it gets. And Dead Man Walking doesn't have much of a plot either but it's one of the best films I've ever seen.Exorcist 2 is a very artful statement on the battle between good and evil. It suggests that consciousness exists not only within us but all around us. And it uses the subject of Father Lamont's questionable heresey to provoke questions about faith and doing what's right. This film makes evident the theme of good vs. evil that was at the core of the original without distracting you with over-the-top profanity and shocking imagery. That's not to say that the original didn't get that statement across to me it's just that most people liked the original because they used it's assaulting imagery of pure evil as a thrill ride, which just depresses me. I think why people dislike this film is because they wanted another movie with lots of scary imagery. The film does have some bad acting and melodrama but it's a creative effort nonetheless. Also both films are not horror movies they are dramas! I hear people saying it's the worst horror movie etc. but really it's not meant as another exploitation film. Is Saving Private Ryan a horror movie? It's scary. Is Titanic a horror movie? That's scary. This is not an indictment of the negative but intelligent reviews this film got. PLEASE NOTE!
Rating:
Summary: where going flying Regan
Review: I enjoyed the movie. Though it was sort of corny it was still enjoyable. That groovy music durning the creadits rocked. Hey did you check Regan out when she heard the demons calling her name and she was in that sexy nightgown with her you know whats where showing. A little brief nudity.
|
