MovieChat Forums > The Exorcist: Believer (2023) Discussion > Bringing Linda Blair back for absolutely...

Bringing Linda Blair back for absolutely NO reason

posted 7 months ago by e3e34ifj (1374)
13 replies | jump to latest

This film was bad but that tipped me over the edge. They flexed Linda Blair coming back and then ended the movie. Reminded me of Mark Hamill being in the last 10 seconds of Star Wars 7, but at least everyone knew he would be the centerpiece of the sequel. I guess she's supposed to be in the sequel but now there's no mystery about her whereabouts. They could've built up to her appearing in the sequel, but now there's no mystery because we all know where she is. Imagine if in DGG's Halloween 2018, the characters say that Laurie Strode has been missing for 20 years and then in the last ten seconds of the movie, Jamie Lee Curtis randomly shows up from nowhere to say "hey, I'm in this movie too" and then roll credits. Whata load of shit.

[–] Lord Rake (3934) 7 months ago

They thought they were making a great film and everybody was going to lose their shit over it. What a shame the studio didn't bring on a great horror director and writers to do a proper sequel or continuation.

[–] BKB (6738) 7 months ago

It wouldn't have mattered if they brought in a great horror director. The problem is that there are simply too many of these type of horror movies that this is no better than they are and it's not special anymore.. In 1973, the audience had never seen anything like that.. In 2023, we have the Conjuring, the Pope's Exorcist, a dumb Amityville horror movie involving possession etc..

[–] Lord Rake (3934) 7 months ago

There is a way to make a good sequel to the exorcist with a creative director and writer. Simply going from one possessed girl to two wasn't it. I think they should have went in a completely different direction, night of the demons type of film or something similar to Exorcist 2 but with horror in it.

[–] mikethemartian (6200) 7 months ago

Does she reprise her role from Roller Boogie?

[–] ReelReviews14 (1138) 7 months ago

More like reprising her role from the 1990 film Repossessed.

[–] ElectricWarlock (104) 7 months ago

Linda cares more about her animal welfare charity these days than she does about acting. I suspect she didn't want a big role because she'd have to spend too much time away from her foundation.

[–] Fallout4 (27) 7 months ago

Yeah the cameo was dumber than the movie itself

[–] ReelReviews14 (1138) 4 months ago

I agree, Blair's "appearance" reminded me of the pointless Mark Hamill scene that concluded The Force Awakens. In both cases, its just sequel bait.

[–] BKB (6738) 4 months ago

You do realize that the entire story including the crawl at the beginning centered around finding Luke Skywalker, right?? You did see this movie, right?? For the 3 people who haven't??

[–] ReelReviews14 (1138) 3 months ago

>>You do realize that the entire story including the crawl at the beginning centered around finding Luke Skywalker, right?? You did see this movie, right??<<

Yep, just like Ellen Burstyn's entire story in Exorcist: Believer was that she hadn't seen her daughter Regan in years, and had no idea what her whereabouts were, because Regan stopped talking to her after her book was published. Then, Regan shows up for about 5 seconds at the end of the movie. Just like the useless Luke Skywalker cameo was entirely pointless after all the anticipation about "finding Luke".

What's your point?

[–] BKB (6738) 3 months ago

Because chances are, you won't see Linda Blair again if they make 2 more of these dumb movies and why?? Because she only showed up for the 1st movie to put butts in the seats and it failed.. Can't say the same for The FORCE AWAKENS that became the highest grossing movie domestically of all time..

That's my point

[–] javie (2207) 4 months ago

Sneswas very modern

[–] e3e34ifj (1374) 3 months ago

super nintendo was very modern?