3 of 3 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars
Strange, But Worth A Look, Mar 31 2006
The infamous sequel to the one and only horror box-office smash is not as bad as its reputation, but it might have faired better if the powers-that-be hadn't tried to duplicate the success of the original. The premise is interesting: four years later, a priest, Father Phillip Lamont, (Richard Burton) is asked by the Cardinal (Paul Henreid) to investigate the work of Father Lankaster Merrin (Max Von Sydow), particularly his last exorcism and unexplained death. The reluctant clergyman tracks down Regan MacNeil (Linda Blair), now a young woman, who is still under psychiatric care, where her doctor, Gene Tuskin (Louise Fletcher) is trying to retrieve the girl's repressed memories of her possession. Still plagued by nightmares, Regan agrees to undergo hypnosis, aided by a machine that can transfer her thoughts and images into another person's mind. Both doctor and priest discover that the demon Pazuzu that had possessed her is still attempting to take over. Due to the transfer of thoughts, Father Merrin's past work and warnings takes us on a trip to Africa, back to the house in Georgetown, and into a swarm of giant locusts. It is revealed that the victims of the ghastly entity's torture are healers -and therefore saviors of the world. The music, by Ennio Morricone, especially Regan's theme, is beautiful and haunting. Director John Boorman extensively recut the film several times, due to the scathing reviews of critics and public alike (the latter of which threw objects at the screen during its viewings), but the film was quickly withdrawn from the theatres. Restored to the original cut on video and DVD, the visuals, effects and music are top-notch; unfortunately, the screenplay and the clashing of images make the film somewhat incoherent and hard to follow. The competent cast tries gamely, but despite the hypnotic gaze and voice of Burton, Fletcher's warmth and Blair's energy, and the rest of the performer's efforts, they become increasingly lost in the perplexing imagery. If you think you can handle the puzzling presentation, you may find it worth a look.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars
Truly, one of the worst..., July 6 2004
...if not THE worst movie. As I was watching this it was hard to come to grips with how far askew a sequel could be. This movie seems little more than a reason to rehash the first movie and it seems the protaginists are simply 'looking for trouble.' Just about the only bright spots in this is the rather gritty, realistic areas that must have been filmed on location, seeing Regan again (not necessarily hearing her), and seeing Louise Fletcher (see Regan). The dialogue here is simply not any good, but the worst part is the story. I'm sorry... WAS there a point to this movie? No, I mean beyond the financial aspect. Didn't think so. This is without a doubt the biggest let down in a sequel ever, but beyond that may be one of the worst movies ever, no, really. Think how the Lost World tainted Jurassic Park, not multipy that by 100.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
5.0 out of 5 stars
I like it better than Exorcist!, Nov 1 2011
I don't really understand why people keep saying this is a bad movie. It's much better than Exorcist III and the prequel, and it's definitely better than a lot of horror movies made in these days. I'd give it 6 stars if such a scale is allowed.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No