Cast:
Linda Blair (Regan MacNeil), Richard Burton (Father Philip Lamont), Louise Fletcher (Dr. Gene Tuskin), Max von Sydow (Father Lankester Merrin), Kitty Winn (Sharon Spencer), Paul Henreid (The Cardinal), James Earl Jones (Kokumo), Joey Green (Young Kokumo), Ned Beatty (Edwards), Karen Knapp (The Voice of Pazuzu), and Dana Plato (Sandra Phalor) Directed by John Boorman (#565 - Zardoz, #975 - Deliverance, and #1210 - Excalibur)
Review:
"The sin I committed was not giving the audience what it wanted in terms of horror ... There's this wild beast out there which is the audience. I created this arena and I just didn't throw enough Christians into it."
I was waiting for this day to happen, if you can believe it. I knew damn well what I was getting into when it came to the sequel to The Exorcist, which I remember being a fine film, if not exactly one I went back to again and again. Maybe it was one of those times where I stick more to my comfort horror picks than anything, but yes, the things that stuck with me was the voice of the demon (maybe the devil) by Mercedes McCambridge or maybe the lead performance by Ellen Burstyn. It was good, but the fact that it was nominated for multiple Academy Awards makes its reputation perhaps a bit too lofty when compared to other features of its time. Of course, others will remember William Friedkin and his direction of material that had been written by William Peter Blatty based on his 1971 novel of the same name, and it should be noted that neither had spoken about it being a horror film, instead viewing it as a movie about the mystery of faith. Uh, okay. However, you do not get to see none of them in the sequel, since Blatty and Friedkin clearly had better things to do (such as suing each other and Warner Bros because of disputes over profits and credits) and the only actors to return from the original was Blair, Winn, and von Sydow (who is given more mention than Jason Miller, whom the film practically ignores). Somehow, it should only make sense that a director that didn't even like the first film was recruited to do the sequel, and the studio actually thought they could aim for a PG rating rather than an R, if only because they didn't want to be as controversial as the original was when it came to being rated an R (because some people thought it merited an X, proving that taste is selective).. No seriously, Boorman though that he could make a "kind of riposte to the ugliness and darkness of The Exorcist" - you know, the guy who turned down The Exorcist for Zardoz. William Goodhart was tasked with writing the script, one that was aimed for the metaphysical, but this script ended up with rewrites from Rospo Pallenberg and Boorman, albeit with no credit to them (Blair has stated that Pallenberg directed a good chunk of the film, probably because of Boorman suffering from Valley fever for a number of weeks). The final product came about after attempts were made to tinker with it due to bad preview screenings, which didn't really help matters. You know how bad the reviews were? Apparently, when studio executives went to see the film, the audience members got so mad at what they were watching that they chased down the executives down a street. The film was successful on its $14 million budget, but the reputation was so horrendous that a third Exorcist movie wouldn't happen until 1990, directed by Blatty. While the fact that the film turns 45 years old this year seems like a good reason to cover it, the fact that there is a new Exorcist film out for release in 2023 seems like another good reason to get back into the spirit, regardless of who is directing it, I guess.
You know, I wanted to give things a chance, if only because I am reminded that Martin Scorsese stated that the film got a bit of a bum rap upon release, noting its interesting question about the great goodness drawing all evil and all of that stuff that I'm sure would make a nice essay to get drunk with. Sure, a movie trying to frame the first film with "look, what really happened that night?" is a bit shaky, but there is potential. Then the synchronizer and its strobe light come into the picture, which starts the giggling process, complete with see-through glass for the "institution" and a silly sound for the device to boot. Somehow, seeing Richard Burton watch as Louise Fletcher puts on that ridiculous contraption alongside poor Linda Blair makes it apparent just how ridiculous making a sequel can be. It makes me wonder if Blair's appearance in the Exorcist parody Repossessed (1990) would be any less embarrassing, honestly. The fact that Burton (cast because Jon Voight dropped out) drank heavily as the film production wore on makes this only more offbeat. Remember this: Burton did the film as a "paycheck movie" so he could do better things like Equus (1977), a movie about a teen being treated for blinding horses in a stable. Hell, Blair has stated that she doesn't know what the film is actually about, does that tell you all you need to know about this movie? You have a scene that goes on for a bit about Pazuzu and Africa before it ends with a shot of James Earl Jones growling that does a cut to a shot of a leopard. The barrage of locusts doesn't help matters out, either. Honestly, it isn't the lack of gore or exploitation angle that makes things so baffling, it is the fact that it is so bland as a horror movie to the point of coma. In other words: the audience may be a bit weird in what they think they want, but when they know what kind of bullshit won't fly with them, they will tell you very clearly. One feels like they are watching two different movies smashed up into one, as if they couldn't make up their mind as to who to lend their focus on beyond zigzagging everywhere with its alleged main trio of Blair, Burton, and Fletcher, with the latter either suffering the most because of a lack of things to do or benefitting from the lack of dumb shit to do besides maybe playing the "science" lead, which amounts to a bag of sand in screen presence. If Blair was put through plenty of tough things for the original, she gets to have the pleasure of being put through the wringer in a role that even a more quality actor would have been doomed to fail. She seems lost in a wholly different movie than the one that is actually happening, as if being in a movie about silly teenagers would actually be more up her alley than the gobbledygook present (she didn't put on the makeup for the demon as with the first film, by the way); she seems confused, and you would be too, which results in a sad performance that satisfies no one. Burton gets to wander through a paycheck movie with mild dignity that somehow seems too nice for trash like this, as if the movie needs someone to take this material less seriously. Okay, so you are probably wondering how the plot goes. Well, aside from a failed exorcism or so, you get to learn about psychic healers that Pazuzu likes to target while a heretic priest resists the urge of a succubus that looks like Linda Blair before the house from the original goes belly up in locusts. Oh, and there's a scientist that had these powers who now spends time trying to target locust swarms. Got all of that? In its attempts at trying to play with the story elements of the original, it demystifies the test of faith that made a solid first movie.
You know who I was most curious to see? Beatty and Jones, because each get to wait over an hour to show up. Yea, maybe the fact that there isn't much to say about them makes them seem better, unless Jones being in a locust suit and spitting some fruit onto a row of spikes counts as embarrassing. The only one who has any sense of dignity is von Sydow, and he is in it for flashback scenes of all things. That is this movie in a nutshell: things happen, and you just go with it to see how stupider it can get. The best possible director for this kind of movie may not have been someone like Boorman, honestly. It needed someone who was willing to work in the parameters of what the script entailed with their own sense of imagination, whether that involved keeping the script as it was or going even more gonzo. Maybe it should have been made as a straight-up exploitation copy of the original instead, because it probably would've looked as cheap as this film feels, which is astounding considering the multimillion-dollar budget on this film. It feels like an exploitation movie that thinks it is high class with no sense of awareness. If the original had the hint of elegance within its material, this movie is like a bastard fifth cousin that came from outer space. The Ennio Morricone score may be the only thing about the movie that makes any sort of sense. This is the kind of movie that will make people who though the original was the greatest horror thing since sliced bread hate the idea of sequels (and perhaps challenge the very nature of God itself) and make people who thought it was fine remind oneself the merits of the original. In short, the only thing scary about it is the idea a sequel worse than this exists. It is an incoherent mess from start to finish in the most amusing ways possible.
Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.
Next Time: Literally anything will be better than this film. So it is time at last for Underworld (2003).
No comments:
Post a Comment