| Author | Message | ||
     Weber (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 212.121.214.10 |
On Sunday I found myself with several hours spare and a box set of all 5 Exorcist films... I can now officially state that the only two woth watching are the original and Exorcist 3: Legion. The two prequels are bizarre - especially having both in one box set. I'd love to know the story behind doing an action movie remix of Dominion and calling it Exorcist the Beginning. It's probably a more interesting story than either of the two films told. One thing all the followups and prequels have in common is that they get things wrong from the original movie. Even Exorcist 3 has a date of 1975 as Fr Karras's year of death. In the first film we're specifically told that Fr Merrin has perfomed AN exorcism, 10 to 15 years ago (that would make it 1959 ish). It took a month and nearly killed him. In both prequels the exorcism takes about 5 minutes - regardless of how much power teh demon seems to have - and in Exorcist 2 the heretic, we find out he's been wandering the world seeking out possessed people to exorcise and has performed dozens. Also both prequels are set in the late 40's (Dominion in 47, Beginning in 49)and Fr Merrin is an ex-priest in both. Exorcist 2 also completely removes any believability in the plot that the original might have had. We have the completely stupid thought transference machines and Richard Burton turning in one of the worst performances of his career. He must have been deperate to pay the mortgage when he took this one on. When he stared straight at the camera and spewed yet another load of pretentious bollocks I nearly choked on my drink. It's really sad that that film has the name Exorcist attached. I know when I saw the name Renny harlin pop up in the opening credits of Beginning, my heart sank. The only slight modicum of intelligence in the whole of Dominion (and there wasn't much of that) was surgically removed by Harlin's prowess at brainless action sequences and any trace of characterisation was similarly excised. A typical example of this would be the two director's handling of the falshbacks to Nazi occupied Holland. In Schrader's vision, we see the townsfolk being held at gunpoint. In Harlin's we start with a sepia closeup of a cute little girl with her toy dog. Sickening - in all the wrong ways. My advice - watch the original and number 3 (which isn't flawless - it too suffers from a tacked on exorcism and father Morning should have a much larger role) and forget that the other three exist. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.156.233.19 |
I prefer 2 to 3. I liked 3 but 2 bravely took the story into a new direction, something I think many film makers shy away from. I liked it was quite a spiritual film rather than horror, another rare thing. I really disliked the Schrader film. I like Schrader but the film was really flat for me. I got all the Ring films in one box last week - it looks great. Are the sequels any good, does anyone know? I've only seen the first. And Sleeping Bride, the film that comes with them as an extra? | ||
| Weber (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 212.121.214.10 |
Number 2 is now my official least favourite sequel ever. It's complete smelly granny pants. It might take the story in a new direction, but not one that works, or that is any good in it's execution. Sorry Tony but I really hate that film. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.149.162.54 |
 I bring you ... Ring 2, the remake sequel! That has to be the dullest, most pointless sequel ever, I think. God it was boring. I could physically see my wasted life dissolving in front of me.  | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 99.126.164.88 |
I side with Tony on this one - E2 had something about it.... It was closer to a sci-fi novel; to something you'd read, rather than watch. And I actually admired that. But then I'm a big Boorman fan, and think EXCALIBUR as a fantasy is better than the entire LOTR series, so.... | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.32.31.1 |
I'm with Weber in his assessment of the first three Exorcist films, and refuse to watch the last two. As for the Japanese Ringu trilogy... I really like and own all three on DVD. The first is a masterpiece, the second an extremely strong continuance/expansion and the third a surprisingly effective and imaginative prequel. The US remake was shit and I refuse to waste my time on the sequel remake. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.140.191.116 |
There was something almost Cronenbergian about E2. It has the polished air of his later films, too, not the Rabid's or Shivers. | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.32.31.1 |
I've watched 'Exorcist II' a few times, trying to love it - as it was John Boorman, a mere five years after 'Deliverance'... but it just doesn't work. Weber's right, it negates too much of the original, while cashing in on the name, and would have been far better and made more sense as a seperate project entirely. It's a film that infuriates because of what it purported to be and what it clearly wasn't - a cohesive sequel to 'The Exorcist'. Now, Blatty's own 'Legion' (aka 'Exorcist III') is a different kettle of fish, even if it was flawed (though not fatally) by studio interference, demanding an exorcism for their money. Book and film worked as natural sequels by taking to the next level the specific theme of possession by a demonic entity, and the inference that intelligence can exist outside the physical body. 'Exorcist II' got bogged down in confused psychobabble - as did Boorman's similarly pretentious and infuriating 'Zardoz'. The man just doesn't do sci-fi imho. He more than redeemed himself, genre-wise, with 'Excalibur' though! | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 99.126.164.88 |
But see, get over that, Stevie! A simple thing like not conflating film with book! Not getting expectations dashed by thinking them the same thing! It's how one can then enjoy STARSHIP TROOPERS and THE FRENCH LIEUTENANT'S WOMAN and SLAUGHTERHOUSE-FIVE and (now that I've read it and see) THE LONG GOODBYE and and and and.... | ||
| Protodroid (Protodroid) Username: Protodroid Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 109.79.8.213 |
"EXCALIBUR as a fantasy is better than the entire LOTR series," God, yes. Only severe OCD would force me to watch the last film in the LotR trilogy. | ||
| John Forth (John) Username: John Registered: 05-2008 Posted From: 82.24.1.217 |
I've tried to watch THE EXORCIST II several times and never made it any further than about 40 minutes in. Absolute nonsense. It still staggers me that a such a talented crew and batch of actors could make something so unwatchable. Blatty's EXORCIST III, though, I love. It took a kicking off the studio, but at times it arguably contains more scares than the original. | ||
| Patrick Walker (Patrick_walker) Username: Patrick_walker Registered: 01-2010 Posted From: 195.59.153.201 |
You know what, Exorcist III/Legion might well be my favourite horror film ever made, if I'm honest. I'm certainly not saying it's the best, but just the overall tone, the script, cast, direction, pace and, well, just about everything outside of the studio interference are spot on and really do it for me. As I side note, I believe that in Blatty's original version the only special effect in the entire movie was the old lady scuttling across the ceiling of the hospital ward. It's great stuff. | ||
| Mick Curtis (Mick) Username: Mick Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.176.178.44 |
Hmmm - not sure about EXCALIBUR, with the comedy-Merlin. Nicol Williamson shouldn't have stooped so low. | ||
| Allybird (Allybird) Username: Allybird Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 88.111.132.33 |
Don't know if anyone else likes it here, but I caught most of The Exorcism of Emily Rose last night and quite appreciated the non-linear nature of the film, from courtroom scenes going back to what reportedly happened. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.253.77 |
I liked The Exorcism of Emily Rose, too. I'm a sucker for exorcism films, but I thought this one had some quite chilling moments amid the hysteria. | ||
| Allybird (Allybird) Username: Allybird Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 88.111.132.33 |
I'm glad you said that. I sat up on my own last night to watch it...suspended my disbelief, and let my mind be disturbed by those chilling moments. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.253.77 |
I want to see the German film about the same case - Huw mentioned on here ages ago that it was pretty good and focused more on the factual psychological elements. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.132.93.28 |
It was good. Even eerie. I might have liked more ambiguity but it was certainly affecting. Also there was one odd scene where there was a drive to a more modern city in which the girl lived, and I had the strange feeling she was leaving her time. I don't think it was intended though (I love things like that). | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 85.222.86.21 |
The documentary about the actual case on which Blatty's 'The Exorcist' was based, was extremely unnerving. If you ever get the chance, check it out. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.166.117.210 |
Seen it. Enjoyed it. |