Do you need to see Exorcist 2? - The Exorcist III (1990) Discussion

[–] bastasch8647 9 years ago

Please - absolutely do not watch Exorcist II: The Heretic. In fact, put off watching it for as long as you can. It's not only a POS, it completely breaks with the original novel and film.

For the very reason that Heretic is a nearly complete-disconnect from Blatty/Friedkin, it cannot and does not serve as a "bridge" between the Friedkin Film and Blatty's Exorcist III.

Exorcist III is definitely canon because it comes from Blatty himself. Forget Heretic - except as an exercize in painful unintentional comedy.

If you watch Exorcist III, please be aware that Blatty put some changes in the screenplay that not only differ from the book it's based on - Blatty's Legion - but it also breaks a little with the original novel and film (e.g., in Exorcist III, Kinderman considers Karras his "best friend", something not present in the first novel, the Friedkin film, or the novel Legion).

If you do view Exorcist III, hopefully you'll come back here with your review.

:)

reply

[–] !!!deleted!!! (16136429) 9 years ago

Thank-you for the reply, I can't seam to find it on my cable subscription or Netflix/Amazon prime but when I do come across it, I'll post back my thoughts. Cheers

reply

[–] bastasch8647 9 years ago

You're welcome. Looking forward to your review after you've located it and watched it.

:)

reply

[–] LetThemEatCake01 9 years ago

Exorcist III is definitely canon because it comes from Blatty himself. Forget Heretic - except as an exercize in painful unintentional comedy.

Why? because you say so? Everyone has dismissed it just like The Heretic. What's canon at this point besides the original? Nothing.

reply

[–] carpathianwolff 9 years ago

You actually should not ever see Exorcist II for any reason... Exorcist III (Legion) is the true sequel.

I still can't believe John Boorman directed such an awful film.

reply

[–] bastasch8647 9 years ago

Amen to that. Boorman's film has its defenders, but I'm not one of them. I never felt more insulted by a film than when I saw Heretic's premier in the theater. The audience seemed to feel the same way.

reply

[–] carpathianwolff 9 years ago

It's not without a very select few good qualities... I loved the idea of having to climb through a chasm to get to a secluded African village (it was in Africa right?), and when the guy fell and they had to find his body, that was a good sequence of events... but it seems anything to do with "Pazuzu" fails on every level.

I have "Deliverance", "Excalibur", "The Emerald Forest", "Hope And Glory" and "The General"... and I plan to see most of his other films eventually... I saw "The Tailor Of Panama" but it has to be one of Boorman's "lesser films"... I heard "Zordoz" wasn't very good either.

reply

[–] bastasch8647 9 years ago

Yeah, he's done other decent films with, imo, Deliverance at the top of the list. It's just that Heretic started, apparently from a variety of sources, with a pretty good screenplay that spiraled down into the current cut...

reply

[–] Edward_de_Vere 9 years ago

It's just that Heretic started, apparently from a variety of sources, with a pretty good screenplay that spiraled down into the current cut...

Well, according to Linda Blair it started out with a good screenplay, and that's about it. Given the fact that her entire post-Exorcist career has been rubbish, I doubt that Blair's judgment of what's a good script is especially sound. Since the screenwriter for EII has virtually no other films to his name, it's probably safe to say that the script was trash from the get-go, and rewrites just poured more gas on the fire.

There are bits and pieces of good material that show themselves in the film, mostly thanks to the fact that Boorman is a good director if and when he wants to be.

reply

[–] aldiboronti 8 years ago

I remember reading about Exorcist 2 before it came out. Once I saw that John Boorman was directing and Richard Burton starring I knew for sure it would be a pile of horse manure. And boy was I right. Has to be the worst sequel in film history.

reply

[–] bastasch8647 8 years ago

Agreed - a steaming ripe pile for sure.

reply

[–] Edward_de_Vere 8 years ago

Once I saw that John Boorman was directing and Richard Burton starring I knew for sure it would be a pile of horse manure

Why? Prior to EII, Boorman had directed Deliverance, which was a great film, and Burton had many impressive performances earlier in his career like Becket and Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf. What surprised me was how bad the film was in spite of having a strong director and cast.

reply

[–] TalesfromTheCryptfan 8 years ago

It sucks, see this one instead which is the real sequel.

"Unicorn, mermaid, vampire,sorceress! No name you'd give her would surprise me i love whom i love"

reply

[–] bastasch8647 8 years ago

Absolutely, it's the real sequel. Blatty wrote the book, The Exorcist - and its screenplay; and he also wrote the book Legion - and its screenplay, which he directed as the film, Exorcist III.

Blatty had nothing to do with the truly execrable Exorcist II: the Heretic. That was John Boorman's baby, and it sucked on nearly every conceivable level. Blatty's one and only true sequel has its flaws, but it's "real Blatty" most of the way through.

reply

[–] somesunnyday 8 years ago

LOL! No disrespect, but I find your question funny. Absolutely NOT. The Exorcist III is the true sequel to the original. Your life will be much better if you skip part II.

reply

[–] Doom 8 years ago

It really is best to be on something if you want to watch Exorcist II (liquor, pick your poison, etc.) - simply because it's THAT "out there".



Just my $0.02.

------

Wait a minute... who am I here?

reply

[–] antonasmodeus 8 years ago

The only good thing about EXII is getting to see Linda Blair all skanked out and acting like a whore. Pazuzu sure did have more fun with her this time around!

reply