This movie shouldn't be higher than 2.7. Even a score below 2 would be understandable, it's absolutely atrocious.
"Worthington, we're being attacked by giant bats!"
In what ways is it "absolutely atrocious"?
Full disclosure: I think it's a first-rate fantasy and rated it 9/10. Also, I'm John Boorman's son.
Kidding about the second part.
I beg to differ. I think it is one of the most amazing films of all time. Everything about it is great from the beautiful musical score, the great acting, the interesting story, the brilliant cinematography, the great imagery...everything. This film is unlike any other I've seen. It feels like you're in the middle of a bizarre dream when you're watching it. It doesn't even feel like you're watching a movie which makes it one of the most unique and unforgettable film experiences I've ever had. Plus, it gives a great reason as to why Regan was possessed in the first movie. She had a gift to do good for the world and Pazuzu wants to destroy every trace of anything good and pure in the world so he possessed her. Most people just want a carbon copy of the first movie but this one went a completely different route so people became angry. I am happy it wasn't the same because who wants to pay to see the same film twice? This was unlike any other film I've ever seen and I was honored to give it a 10/10.
Come, fly the teeth of the wind. Share my wings.
Wheeelp - I gave it a 10 too - and here's my long winded reason why. https://chillerpop.com/2015/11/04/exorcist2theheretic/
shareYeah, definitely overrated - it should have been much funnier to deserve a 3,6/10. Instead, for most of its overabundant length, it´s just kinda dull.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
I rarely give films a 1. Usually there is something of merit that keeps ANY film above that. I gave this movie a 1 - it IS that bad.
Please nest your IMDB page, and respond to the correct person -
With all due respect, you must have either been heavily sedated for the entire film or on a drug of some sort to not have seen ANY merit whatsoever. Even people who downright hate the film are for the most part able to admire it's cinematography, scenery, and music.
Come, fly the teeth of the wind. Share my wings.
I always chuckle to myself when someone starts off an argument with "with all due respect", because 90% of the time it's followed by an ad hominem attack...which yours is. No matter, since you're really the lone wolf of defense on this board for this film, I'll play along....
No, I wasn't heavily sedated....at least in the sense you mean. I was by the film itself, because one of the most telling factors of any bad film is that it is just downright boring. There certainly is a lot of buildup in this film but little to show for it.
Cinematography, scenery - yeah, OK, in that silk-covered lens style that everyone was so popular about in the 70s, right....Ennio Morricone, yeah, yeah....it's all wasted, and therefore irrelevant. No film can stand on its cinematographic legs and say, "But what about how I look?!?" when all else fails and appear to have credence. Besides, that soft look was all wrong for the film's content. The first film, by comparison, used a hard, dark, gritty tone and didn't soften anything - it was all quite striking, angular, and not prettified at all. It makes even the mere appearance of Regan kind of dreadful in anticipation. There is no feeling even approaching that in any regard with this sequel.
Please nest your IMDB page, and respond to the correct person -
Oh, believe me, I would be the first to tell you that this film is much more than just a film that looks good with it's cinematography. I was just saying that even in bad reviews for the film, they state it as a positive so it seems unreasonable to say you can't find 1 single good quality of the entire film.
Come, fly the teeth of the wind. Share my wings.
A sentence or two devoted to the film's cinematography isn't in any way worthy of much at all. More times than not a bad 'pretty' film will be hammered even harder by critics who froth over the filmmaker's attention to window-dressing and not story. Exorcist II should have been filmed not in golden, angelic, silky soft light, in shades of yellow, tan, baby blue, and white, but instead in black, maroon, red, deep green, sick-pale yellow. Yes, like the first film, but independent of that film. The contrast of this film's downright feminine glow and its sweating, dusty, African, locust-laden supernatural premise does not work at all.
Please nest your IMDB page, and respond to the correct person -
The color scheme wouldn't work if it were the same type of film as the first movie, but it's not. I think it works beautifully for the kind of film it was. I think that if you saw it as a dreamlike, surreal experience in the same way as Dario Argento's films (especially Suspiria) rather than a harsh, brutal, realistic film like the first one, you would see that the cinematography just suited the film perfectly.
Come, fly the teeth of the wind. Share my wings.
I think we can agree that you like this movie. I watched it with my partner the other night, I get the tone and theme you talk of but it really does not improve the fact that the movie is a bore. I like rubbish films too but this was really hard to like. This was supposed to be a horror sequel. It failed. Besides character names and a couple of actors this movie should of been called something else.
EZ the man with two legs
I like rubbish films too but this was really hard to like. This was supposed to be a horror sequel. It failed
Agreed on both points, i.e., first - the film is in essence unlikeable, because it insults the viewer's sensitivity and intelligence and ham-handedly wrecks Blatty's carefully constructed theological nuances, as well as his likeable characters such as Sharon Spencer.
And - second - it failed not only as a sequel, but as a horror sequel, mostly because it was not horrifying in the least. When audiences hooted, groaned, and laughed over this film's "horror" (the "bad locust", "this is where Kokumo fought Pazuzu", "I was possessed by a demon", the literal invasion of Washington, DC by a plague of locusts, "touched by the wings of the Locust", "Father Merrin is suspected of being a Satanist", "spitting a leopard", "I AM PA-ZOOOOO-ZOOOO!", and a dozen other absurdities) their reaction puts this "horror" movie in the ... pile ... in which it rightfully belongs.
I'd say about a 3
BHT RISES myspace.com/blackheart60
[deleted]
It's 3.7 now. ;)
shareI am a famed defender of rejected films (Dune is amazing!), but the Exorcist 2 is a hilariously awful from start to finish. Some of das imagery is striking, but the film makes absolutely no sense beyond a strange 'Exorcist Avengers' line and the climatic exorcism seems to be more lile a WWE-style bed-based wrestle. Still, the viewer does come away with a lot of information on locusts, not a lot on exorcism, but information galore about locusts.
Best films ever:
Snakes on a Plane
Snakes on a Train
Snakes on a Crane
Snakes on Mark Twain
[deleted]
I just rated it 10 and now it's 3.8!
shareActually, it should be higher than 5.0. This movie had suspense and was quite tense at times.
shareI really wish to watch Exorcist 3, but I have to go thru this first. Not enough mana yet.
Not that the movies have anything in common, but somehow it does not feel right to watch part 3 without first watching part 2.