MovieChat Forums > ElectricWarlock > Replies
ElectricWarlock's Replies
I'm disappointed but not surprised. It was overshadowed by 2 other religious themed horror movies coming out right before it (Immaculate and Late Night With the Devil) for one. Then you have some of the hate for The Exorcist: Believer spilling over. It is still very fresh in peoples' minds so they probably thought "Oh great. Another generic supernatural horror movie trying to make money off a classic." It is just bad timing all the way around.
It needed Eddie and Marilyn desperately. I get that it was a prequel and he wanted to tell a story that had never been told before, but it doesn't seem like there was enough story there to fill a 2 hour movie. Eddie and Marilyn had to enter the family somehow, so they should've been in it. Without them it felt like a kids' movie without any kid characters for its audience to relate to. And if it's too juvenile for adults, but too mature for kids, then who exactly is the intended audience?
I thought I was probably the only one who noticed.
You can think whatever you want, it doesn't make it true.
If that is the case, she should still be Heather Donahue because that was far from a terrible movie.
And the girl who played Allison was a Taylor Swift lookalike to me.
All Night Operator definitely
It is an Australian movie. Nothing to do with America. And I don't recall mentions of God or Satan anywhere in this movie. Maybe a supernatural, demonic presence implies religious subject matter but it wasn't directly stated.
If you don't like them, don't watch them. I'm not a Taylor Swift fan so I'm not going to watch her concert movie, but I'm not going to try to get it taken away from those who are. I'll just watch something I will like instead.
My understanding was that he was already recovered when Mia went to visit him and his mother at the hospital. But the demonic entity wanted Mia to think he was still sick so it could trick her into killing him
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.
Traditionally no Exorcist movie beyond the first has been a big moneymaker. "Requels" are the big trend of the moment and supernatural horror has been pretty big the past 10-15 years with Paranormal Activity, The Conjuring, and Insidious proving to be 3 of the biggest horror franchises of the 21st century. But neither of those things guarantee an Exorcist sequel would be a huge success.
The first time anyone tried to make a sequel, it was called "one of the worst horror movies of all time." And Warner Bros. wasted so much money making 2 prequels before. Scrapping an entire $30 million movie when they didn't have faith in it and paying $50 million to make another, only for it to flop as well. Besides the first, only the 3rd has a bit of a cult following. Frankly, it would be naive and a little dumb for them to gamble that much when the franchise hasn't done so great in the past. And I don't think a reputable studio would do something that stupid. I still believe the $400 million is either an Internet rumor that grew out of control or they must have the rights to the entire franchise and its merchandising.
But what does that deal include? Is it just so they could make their trilogy or are they making money off the other 5 films, the TV show, and all the Exorcist merchandise out there as well? There is also an Exorcist maze at Halloween Horror Nights and I know millions of people go there each year. It should make a lot of that money back. That's not to mention whatever the movie will make on Digital, Blu-ray/DVD, and eventually Peacock.
If the deal really even happened, which I have my doubts. It could just be a rumor that got blown out of all proportion. Did Fox have to pay that much to make their TV show? I don't think they owned the rights before.
I'm very glad it's proven itself to be a financial success. Although critics tore it apart, people wanted to make up their own minds so they've seen it anyway and I think that's great. Now it's made nearly 3 times its budget.
It's doing great in theaters. It doesn't need to wait for Blu-ray/DVD/digital and streaming. It has made about 3 times its budget worldwide already and it still has time left to make more.
Vera Miles is alive but she is 94 and hasn't done a movie in 28 years. Who knows what her health could be like at that age? Maybe it's worth a phone call for David. The most they could do is say "no."
It doesn't necessarily have to be a child even. It can be an adult or even an animal. No need for the franchise to pigeonhole itself by doing the same thing over and over.
You could argue that for most horror franchises. Halloween, Child's Play, A Nightmare on Elm Street, Friday the 13th, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Wrong Turn, Leprechaun, the list goes on and on... All killing just for the sake of it. Scream tries to give the killers big, elaborate motives for each movie. But even those are starting to get repetitive. The same reasons, just different characters.
<spoiler>Linda Blair is in it at the very end. Regan is estranged from Chris because Chris wrote a book about the events that happened in the original movie. Regan disapproved because she wanted a private life. But Chris never gave up hope that she would come back into her life someday. At one point Chris gets her eyes stabbed out with a crucifix by one of the demon possessed girls who also tries to tell her Regan is dead. At the end there is an unknown person who comes to visit her in the hospital. Chris assumes it's the father of one of the possessed girls, and then we see it's Regan who says "No, Mom. It's me" and holds her hand. </spoiler>