Rating: 
Summary: Worth A Look, For Those Who Want A Good Laugh!
Review: Probably about a year ago, I blindly bought this "horror" flick not expecting much but purchasing it merely because of my fondness of the original 1974 classic. Prior to my purchase I watched the first 20 minutes on TNT's MONSTERVISION, so I had some idea of what I was in for, but I assumed that it would improve somewhat by the end and maybe blossom into a metaphoric, moderately satisfying, sequel. Though, the locust cr#p and Joe Bob Brigg's imput should have been an early clue to the cheesy reality of this mess. Well, this is one of the few films you will EVER see in your LIFETIME that is so bizarre that it actually requires at least a second viewing to figure it out and/or to reinforce the unreal bizarreness of the whole thing. Maybe I'm just a complete idiot but it actually took me 3 viewings to comprehend the storyline to an extent. By the end of the film it doesn't even feel as though it has any connection whatsoever to the original. The plot is so far fetched and so unbelievable it is really hard to take it seriously. I have to admit though, when watching this movie it doesn't really feel like your watching your everyday bag of shredded Kraft cheese, because of the effectiveness of some of the dark and somewhat disturbing photography and the complexity of the plot. BUT it's VERY DIFFICULT to get past the endless repetitive close-up shots of a flying locust/s and warped stock footage from the discovery channel. The first few times I watched it I really tried to get past the weirdness of it and look at the possible genius of it all, but if you take a closer look there is no "genius" to be found. As far as the flying Pazuzu cr*p goes, well at first I just figured it was a pathetic/artsy attempt to capture the essence of an ancient evil but I quickly got past that and jumped back to reality. The Pazuzu that William Peter Blatty referred to in the novel was an ancient Mesopotamian demon, one of Satan's minions that was the personification of the trade winds, which brought diseases to the mainlands. It had a deformed head, wings of a bat, tail of a scorpion and legs of a bull, NOT an African locust/demon king of the evil spirits of the air. The original focused on the old Christian beliefs of evil, I'm still trying to figure out what in hell John Boorman was going for. This film is such a mess it is impossible to take it on a serious level. The acting is "okay" but the dialogue is horrendously corny in some parts, notably in Richard Burton's roll. The fact that really talented actors like James Earl Jones, Max Von Sydow, and Louise Fletcher participated in this movie is a little "scary" too. For those of you who never saw this film I would have to recommend that you rent the original Exorcist and the sequel, some night when you have nothing else planned and just compare it. Your jaw will be hanging wide open by the end of the credits of the sequel. It's very hard to believe this movie was even put in theaters. But then again, look at what happened upon its release. LOL!
Rating:
Summary: BURN IT ALONG WITH # 3!!!
Review: I just hate to see Linda in a bad movie. EXORCIST 2 is very BAD.Linda in THE EXORCIST and LINDA at her best in ROLLER BOOGIE!!!
Rating:
Summary: Diabolically dreadful
Review: Since other "one star" reviewers have given many details with which I would agree, suffice it to say that this flick is on a par with what a class of ten-year-olds might produce had they decided to spend a rainy Friday afternoon writing a sequel to the Exorcist. The very beginning of the film implies that background about those involved in "The Exorcist" will be developed - but all that is ahead are ludicrous, inexplicable scenes; Richard Burton soaring through the air to ... nothing; a trip to Georgetown that leads to sudden fire and death which has no explanation; and an unintentionally hilarious ending where the horrid head of "Pazuzu" tops a seductive girl's figure. Having been possessed by a devil apparently gives Regan extraordinary healing powers, and a priest's devilish action of calling on a demon rather than Christ somehow leads to the innocent Sharon Spencer's gruesome demise. Were Dante to re-write the Inferno, the spot next to Judas would not be low enough a spot for this dreadful film to be consigned.
Rating: 
Summary: Not To Be Ignored
Review: Why this film is laughed at is beyond me. I mean, do people take the original film so seriously that they can't appreciate this film on it's own merits. THE EXORCIST is so played-out. Besides, where is William Friedkin now? That man's career was burnt-out in no time. Now, John Boorman, that man has a fine career to look back on and is still making good films. Boorman runs Blair through the ringer with this absurd and far-fetched tale into the paranormal. From swarms of locusts to mental institutions to this strange device that syncs up people facing each other so they can get into each other's minds--this film is a blast! Don't just take my word for it, this film has many fans, including Martin Scorsese--who can appreciate the sheer craziness and absurdities. I mean, who trusts reviewers, in general? And, for a horror film? It's not altogether perfect, but it more than makes up for it with style, originality, and special effects. Sequels are generally whipped-up quick and thrown together quickly to bank on the original film's success. Boorman, instead, creates a whole new breed here and does it with flair. I'm tired of those that wave off this film over what they heard. When you're in the mood for a campy and bizarre treat late one weekend night--here you go. Enjoy!
Rating:
Summary: the gayest freekin movie
Review: this is the gayest freekin movie i have ever seen! BE SURE TO GO AND RENT IT NOW! IT HAS A BAD STORY LINE BAD ACTING WHAT CAN I SAY , THIS IS AND ALL AROUND GREAT FLICK!
Rating:
Summary: Very bad film
Review: "The Exorcist II: The Heretic" is one of the worst films of its genre, and one of the worst films I have ever seen. For starters, I knew that this film was not going to go in the right direction after I saw the first 10 seconds of the opening titles, with Ennio Morricone's schlocky, silly score with annoying, pointless chanting and screaming. I loved the original film "The Exorcist". I found it to be chilling, sad, realistic, and ultimately, highly satisfying. But this taints the orginal, with very poor special and visual effects, a silly and incomprehensible storyline, and a waste of the great Richard Burton. The film wants to make the assumption that the exorcism in the first one didn't help, and that "it made things worse". I find that laughably stupid. The dreamlike sequences to Africa are stretched and monotonous,and the sound editing is pathetic. And Richard Burton. What a great actor, and what a waste he projected in this miserable garbage. His voice, facial expression, eyes, all wasted. All in all, don't rent this film, not even expecting some sort of fun trash. It is not fun, and it isn't even trash. It is a dispicable, utterly worthless bore.
Rating:
Summary: one of a kind--a unique mixture of very bad and very good
Review: i've watched this movie so many times. the first time i saw it, i thought it was the worst movie ever. then i started watching it because i was curious what was going on in it. after 15 times, the plot is actually pretty interesting and the photography is great although the acting is atrocious for the most part and the dialogue is horrible. i wonder what john boorman was thinking. why did he let richard burton get away with those horrible takes? i guess we'll never know.
Rating: 
Summary: Watch it twice
Review: ...and it improves. Visually, this sequel isn't so bad. Get a load of all that chrome and glass in the set design and 70's psycho-babble-gadgetry stuff Ragan's psychologist aunt (Louise Fletcher) uses. And what was with the odd behavior of Kitty Winn's character? This film is visually stunning with odd-but-neat special effects. From I can gather (and believe me it wasn't easy) is that Ragan was possessed because she is the reincarnation of some african preistess who can tame the locusts? The ending is a little on the laughable side with the two Ragans but what the heck--two Linda Blairs are twice the fun.
Rating: 
Summary: okay sequel
Review: this movie had a good storyline but it could have been made better. if they would have took more time making this movie it would have been a lot better. like i said it had a good storyline to it but it was made poorly. but it is no that bad a s people say it is. but it not as good as the first one.
Rating:
Summary: This film is so underrated.
Review: This film is much better than some people would have you believe. The only thing that goes against it is, it is difficult to understand, you need to watch it several times just to get a slight idea of what it's about. The cast is excellent, the score by Ennio Morricone is amazing and it's beautifully photographed. I recommend the original cinema version if you are to enjoy this film fully.
|
