The Exorcist: The Complete Anthology (1973-2005)

[mattc]

Originally Posted by NoirFan

Are people really citing Temple of Doom, The Empire Strikes Back, and Aliens as examples of poor franchise sequels?

[AKORIS]

Originally Posted by NoirFan

Are people really citing Temple of Doom, The Empire Strikes Back, and Aliens as examples of poor franchise sequels?

that's the internet for you.... anybody can comment about anything... no matter how insane it is....

[Mystic]

Originally Posted by balthazar_bee

I'm not sure I agree that The Exorcist III is particularly similar to the original. It's not "on the wings of a demon" crazy like part II, yes, but it's also pretty removed from the documentary realism of Friedkin's kinetic original.

As it exists -- certainly not Blatty's preferred form -- The Exorcist III is a strange bird. On one hand, Blatty's clearly not particularly interested and/or experienced in delivering startling cinema, from a technical point of view. I guess that's a nice way of saying it can be a bit bland at times.

On the other hand, it's also a movie of ideas, where the first film is (I'd say) a movie of events. So while The Exorcist throws the viewer into a palpably terrifying scenario, going for the balls repeatedly (and succeeding) with some of the most visceral stuff I've ever seen, The Exorcist III wants us to be troubled by ideas.

Yes, there are some traditionally "scary" moments -- including one that borders on literal shit-your-pants territory -- but so much of the film occurs after or before the fact, in the wake of or lead up to violence. And the talk. My god, the talk.

Don't get me wrong, I love Blatty's talk, and I even enjoy the performances, which are some of the most unjustly maligned ones in horror this side of Shelley Duvall, but this has to be the wordiest film to be followed by a Roman numeral in history. By far. No contest. Amiright? (Of course, things would've been both better and worse if Blatty'd maintained control -- we'd lose the Roman numeral, but have even more talk.)

Speaking of the performances. It seems odd that Blatty opts to rein in just about every aspect of part III (in comparison to the original) except the performances. George C. Scott is one of the finest actors of all time, and I love him as Kinderman, but man, does he get B-I-G sometimes. And he's got nothing on (likewise brilliant) Dourif, who chews it up, spits it out, chews it up some more as the Gemini. There are times when I wonder just how much more effective the movie would be if the two of them took it down, say, 20%?

Love Ed Flanders and Jason Miller unreservedly. Funny to think that Blatty didn't plan to bring back Miller. Nor did he have a part for Nicol Williamson. Try picturing The Exorcist III without those two. I'm no champion of studio tampering, but we'll call the end result an exception that proves the rule that it's always a bad idea. Though it is a shame we'll probably never get a look at Blatty's "Legion" cut. (We've got the book though, which does name-drop Williamson at one point -- how's that for lattice of coincidence, Otto?)

Look at that -- I've forgotten where I was going. I guess I just wanted to say that The Exorcist III is its own thing, and that thing is a fascinating, problematic, frustrating, talky, hammy little rough diamond. I love it even while I'm cataloging its faults.

Compare that to The Heretic -- I frequently find new things to admire, but that doesn't change how cold I feel towards it as a film. Who'd have thought relative dilettante Blatty could make a sequel to a classic himself, have it butchered by the studio, and the resulting film is still more satisfying than one made by John Boorman?

You make some good points about the Exorcist III. I think out of the films that followed the original film, the third film is the only worthy successor to the Exorcist. In my opinion, it's a good film that not only succeeds in terms of a sequel, but it works very well as almost a stand alone film too.

[Lyle_JP]

Originally Posted by NoirFan

Are people really citing Temple of Doom, The Empire Strikes Back, and Aliens as examples of poor franchise sequels?

I've always cited Temple of Doom as a poor sequel, and I'm far from alone. Even Lucas and Spielberg consider it a lesser work. The other two films mentioned are solid sequels.

[jacksparrow900]

A sequel is usually a movie that the events take place after the first film in the case of Temple Of Doom it takes place the year before Raiders. I don't consider it a sequel.

[paustin]

Originally Posted by jacksparrow900

A sequel is usually a movie that the events take place after the first film in the case of Temple Of Doom it takes place the year before Raiders. I don't consider it a sequel.

lol that's a technicality

[demonknight]

Originally Posted by jacksparrow900

A sequel is usually a movie that the events take place after the first film in the case of Temple Of Doom it takes place the year before Raiders. I don't consider it a sequel.

Prequels are sequels. If it came out after something and uses a common character, it is a sequel. So are spin-offs.

Back to the Future 3 takes place before Parts 1&2. Is it not a sequel?

[NoirFan]

Originally Posted by Lyle_JP

I've always cited Temple of Doom as a poor sequel, and I'm far from alone. Even Lucas and Spielberg consider it a lesser work. The other two are solid sequels.

I've avidly avoided watching Crystal Skull, and I didn't follow the critical reception too closely, but it was my understanding that the film was widely mocked and lambasted upon its release.

[jdw89]

Sorry only ever seen the original Exorcist movie, is this worth getting?

[demonknight]

Originally Posted by jdw89

Sorry only ever seen the original Exorcist movie, is this worth getting?

See the rest first. Opinions matter in this case.

[Lyle_JP]

Originally Posted by NoirFan

I've avidly avoided watching Crystal Skull, and I didn't follow the critical reception too closely, but it was my understanding that the film was widely mocked and lambasted upon its release.

When I said "the other two", I was referring to the other two sequels discussed in the post I was quoting, "The Empire Strikes Back", and "Aliens". I was not referring to the other two Indiana Jones films (although I feel that The Last Crusade is excellent).

[NoirFan]

Originally Posted by Lyle_JP

When I said "the other two", I was referring to the other two sequels discussed in the post I was quoting, "The Empire Strikes Back", and "Aliens". I was not referring to the other two Indiana Jones films (although I feel that The Last Crusade is excellent).

Ah, I see. I was scratching my head a bit there.

[sarah_wentworth]

Originally Posted by ditcin

Each is very different. In my opinion 3 is closest in tone to the first.

II is very different from them all in everyway and can easily be discount because of it. Give it a chance, be open minded and expect a very different kind of film. It is very Hollywood, big, spectacular and far reaching in scope. Where all the others remain true to the theme of "the mystery of faith" II tries to explain not the mystery, but the evolution of man in conjunction with faith.

The Prequels are very similar, yet different. The BEGINING is very Hollywood and like SUPRMAN RETURNS relies too much on throw back to the first film.
DOMINION is more subtle and internal, acting more like a "forward" in a book rather than a prequel. It leave more out and even more to the viewer to decide and unfold.

Above all, enjoy.

oh i have seen them but really want to see them on blu ray. i agree with everything you said. i love part 2. 3 is my favourite and has the scariest scene in any movie i've ever seen. my sister and i watched it years ago and one scene made us jump lol. we still talk about it.

i love the prequels but one of them more than the other and i have no idea which one. i love all these movies

Originally Posted by The Fallen Deity

Say what you will about Episodes I-III & VI but The Empire Strikes Back is far from crap.

It's actually widely regarded as not only the best movie in the entire Star Wars saga but it's also seen as one of the best movies ever made.

that is true yes

[sarah_wentworth]

Originally Posted by Lyle_JP

I've always cited Temple of Doom as a poor sequel, and I'm far from alone. Even Lucas and Spielberg consider it a lesser work. The other two are solid sequels.

Alien 3 is my favourite Alien movie. more of a horror movie

Originally Posted by jacksparrow900

A sequel is usually a movie that the events take place after the first film in the case of Temple Of Doom it takes place the year before Raiders. I don't consider it a sequel.

actually i never thought of that. it is a prequel

[ditcin]

Originally Posted by sarah_wentworth

oh i have seen them but really want to see them on blu ray. i agree with everything you said. i love part 2. 3 is my favourite and has the scariest scene in any movie i've ever seen. my sister and i watched it years ago and one scene made us jump lol. we still talk about it.

i love the prequels but one of them more than the other and i have no idea which one. i love all these movies


that is true yes

As good as III is in many ways it is really a sequel to the book rather than first film.
The friendship between Kinderman and Karras doesn't come together in the film - they never got that close. There wasn't enough time really.
I remember seeing III in the theater and thinking they weren't friends when Kinderman fondly looks at a framed photo of the two posing as buds!?
In fact, in the film Karras is plainly pushing Kinderman away, not to be mean, but out of depression.
The time frame in the book is longer for with more time between events so a friendship evolving fits. ...even the exorcism is much longer -days.
To me it is they flaw in the film that Blattly should have toned down to a simple haunted feeling of Kinderman feeling, "I should have done more in the case and this might have been avoided." But for him to pick up that photo and drone over the death while stating his "friend's" name is a bit out of place with what's been set up by the first film.
Having read both books I remember being very disappointed by Legion. Unlike the film there is no mention of a different demonic voice uttering about the work of the Gemini Killer- it all the Gemini Killer. In fact, the books clearly states that it was the Gemini Killer that possessed Regan - which is ridiculous when Blattly himself clearly stated it was the demon, Pazuzu.

[Blu MacReady]

Originally Posted by demonknight

Prequels are sequels. If it came out after something and uses a common character, it is a sequel. So are spin-offs.

Back to the Future 3 takes place before Parts 1&2. Is it not a sequel?

I'd disagree. The events of BTTF 3 are set before the first film 1885. But. The main characters are following on from events from 1 & 2, so it's definitely a sequel.

[MrClarke]

Originally Posted by Lyle_JP

I've always cited Temple of Doom as a poor sequel, and I'm far from alone. Even Lucas and Spielberg consider it a lesser work. The other two are solid sequels.

Which is strange to me because I think Temple of Doom is the best in the series. I like the other two, but not even close to as much as I liked ToD.

[nekromantik]

Will this contain the extras from 40th Anniversary disc of Exorcist?

[balthazar_bee]

Originally Posted by NoirFan

I've avidly avoided watching Crystal Skull, and I didn't follow the critical reception too closely, but it was my understanding that the film was widely mocked and lambasted upon its release.

[NoirFan]

Ha, thanks for reminding me of the most ridiculous sequence in Last Crusade.