IMDb user comments for
Exorcist II: The Heretic (1977) Plus avec IMDbPro »

Filtre:

Meilleur Chronologique prolific Ils ont aimé Ils ont détesté Cacher les spoilers:

Page 1 sur 21:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Index

203 commentaires au total

---

56 utilisateurs sur 75 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile :
The worst sequel...ever., 16 juillet 2003

Auteur : (Tyrantc@fridaythe13thfilms.com) de Chattanooga, TN

Wow. What can one say? Boorman went from Deliverance to this? Okay, in addition to being completely hilarious, this is also the most pretentious movie ever made, (aside from The Matrix Reloaded). Good thing Burstyn sat out for this turkey. Please tell me that I didn't see James Earl Jones in a big locust suit. Please tell me that I didn't see Oscar Winner Louise Fletcher being groped by a matted Linda Blair stand in and moaning (I am not making this up) in such a way that would make Ron Jeremy take notice. And what in the name of all things good and holy is a "Synchronizer" and what does it have to do with anything at all? Why is Africa made of fiber-glass? Why is Richard Burton made of stone? Oh, God. They couldn't have made this worse if they had scripted it so. Oh, wait...they did. Well, for all its faults at least it's not a desperate attempt by a major studio to milk whatever money they can out of a pre-existing hit by combining a-list actors, and a controversial visualist director, with a hastily prepared screenplay that shares little of the spirit and intelligence of its predecessor, producing a boring, although often laughably pious bastardization of something far, far greater. Oh wait....it is. If you're a fan of bad movies, you have reached Zen here. If you're a fan of the original Exorcist, run, just run and don't look back. Run with your arms flailing into the night as the preview audiences surely did in 1977.

---

37 utilisateurs sur 52 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile :
So Bad It's Great!, 20 mars 2005

Auteur : joelmeggs de Fredericton, Canada

Do I recommend seeing the Exorcist II? You bet I do! It's so ridiculously bad, you're sure to enjoy yourself. You will laugh out loud at the hypnotism scene. Your sides will hurt at the priest's attempts to put out a fire with a crutch. And was Richard Burton possessed by William Shatner for this movie? One of the best bad movies ever. Someday they'll make a movie about this movie, I'm sure of it. The director didn't like the original Exorcist! Who hires a director for a sequel when he disliked the original? And this was the most expensive movie produced by Warner Bros. at the time? Where did it all go?

---

47 utilisateurs sur 72 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile :
Not as bad..., 5 septembre 2004

Auteur : AzNRiCE247

Some people say this movie is horrible, though I actually found it quite entertaining. I think the problem is the high expectations. The expectations for the movie were so great that there was just no way that it could be achieved. People habitually compare Exorcist II to the original exorcist movie, but as it's own movie, it is actually better than most horrors out there.

The scientific part was actually quite interesting to me, and the metaphor was excellent foreshadowing. Linda Blair has grown since the first exorcist, and was very good as an actress.

While not as scary as the original, this movie was filled with mystery and suspense. I recommend this movie to most fans.

7/10 ~*StaRz*~

---

34 utilisateurs sur 49 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile :
A cult film if ever there was one, 28 août 2000

Auteur : galensaysyes

I liked this when it came out and I still do. The bad press on it began immediately, and all the reviewers jumped on the bandwagon; only one of the reviews seemed to correlate with what showed on the screen. I think the time was wrong for mysticism, and maybe for religion: the sixties had ended, and the mode of fantasy then in favor was space fantasy, full of technical detail. A couple of decades later, the climate is different: "Stigmata", which has a story not unlike that of "Exorcist II," and looks and feels so much like it that it might almost be the same film with different actors morphed in, didn't get good reviews but wasn't laughed out of theatres either.

Most of the people who like "Exorcist II" tend not to have liked "Exorcist I" much, and vice versa. Blatty himself said in one interview that it didn't work because the director was a Protestant, and in another interview that it was because he wasn't a believer. To me the second film shows more spiritual feeling than the first, but no interest at all in the Church, and maybe in some minds that equates to unreligiousness.

The first "Exorcist" purported to be about possession, but most of its imagery was of a young girl being raped: by her mother's party guests, by doctors, by priests, by a crucifix. "Exorcist II" actually is about possession, among other things, and culminates in the interesting idea (excised after release but later restored on video and DVD) that people who have been possessed and purged of evil can go forth to heal all the others who are similarly afflicted. I happen to think that's an inspiring idea for a story.

But then I like mystical thrillers, and apparently most filmgoers don't--or didn't then. The first "Exorcist" was not one; this is. The images in the first film, when they don't involve repulsive bodily detail, have no metaphysical resonance; they're relentlessly physical, often sexual, and when the demon itself appears, it's in the form of the actual, literal statue. By contrast the images in "Exorcist II" have deliberate metaphysical implications. I doubt that they were worked out thoroughly; it's more as if Boorman were playing with them, in the same way he lets the light play through the stylized sets and behind the actors. The scenes of possession capture the sense of historical accounts of the phenomenon more than those in the first film, which is too much distracted by physical threat and sexual aberration.

Like "Exorcist II" or no, take it seriously or no, I was and am puzzled why more people were unable to enjoy its appeal to the eye and the ear (the music was pretty too), let alone to the imagination. I think perhaps they couldn't allow themselves to enjoy it: that they had to deride it and be seen to deride it because what it said, or the way in which it was said, was something that they had just learned to reject or that contradicted something they had just learned to believe.

It must be admitted that the film is unsatisfactory dramatically. The fantastic incidents of the first film, besides being reduced to the most prosaic physical terms, were fitted within a sequence of conventional, punchy, easily playable scenes; one cared about Ellen Burstyn's problems in a movieish way, and through her Linda Blair's. In the sequel Blair doesn't have the scenes to play, and her inexperience as an actress keeps one from feeling involved with her; Burton is better, but his dialogue doesn't communicate the spiritual dilemma he's undergoing. The excitements of the narrative tend rather to distract from this also. But I found them fun in their own right, and the film as well, apart from the occasional gratuitous shock for shock's sake: fun for the mind and the fancy.

---

15 utilisateurs sur 18 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile :
Highly underrated, but not great, either, 28 octobre 2005

Auteur : Chromium_5 de Minnesota

Poor John Boorman. He has all these great ideas, but whenever he tries to put them to the screen, the result is so damn goofy you can't tell whether you're watching a metaphysical drama or a slapstick comedy (for more on this, see "Zardoz"). His "Exorcist" sequel is miles below the original if you're looking for scares, but miles above it in terms of actual storytelling, plot, character development, etc. It's full of interesting ideas (the most interesting being the idea of pure goodness as a magnet for evil), and Regan turns into an angelic heroine out to stop the demon that once possessed her. But Boorman's wacko imagery, while fascinating in places (the doves, the locusts), tends to get a little TOO wacko, to the point where you can't help laughing (the hypnosis machine, Richard Burton putting out a fire with a wooden crutch, James Earl Jones spitting up a tomato).

If you can accept the fact that this is a completely different movie than the original, you might find that it's a pretty good movie on its own. Fantastic acting from Burton, a wonderful score, and some truly gorgeous visuals, especially the climactic scene in the house, make it one of the most underrated movies of all time. Even if some scenes leave you falling over with laughter.

---

15 utilisateurs sur 20 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile :
A Brilliant, Lousy Film, 5 août 1999
Auteur : Athanatos de San Diego, CA

Inside this terrible film is an excellent film screaming to get out. There are moments of real power and and frightening beauty, but they are drowning in sludge. One wonders if this mixture is a result of conflict amongst those making the film, or of Boorman simply not being able to keep his grasp of a vision.

---

9 utilisateurs sur 11 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile :
John Boorman's metaphysical extravaganza delights and surprises., 16 août 1998

Auteur : Rigor de Chicago, USA

John Boorman's fascinating 1977 sequel to The Exorcist is a metaphysical departure from the straight forward chills of the first feature. Perhaps this is why so few viewers find this film initially rewarding. It is much less a sequel than a whole new rethinking of the original source material. Reagan becomes a kind of new age heroine and Boorman (surprisingly) turns the misogyny and mean spiritedness of the original film into an emotionally passionate look at this young woman as a survivor of real spiritual and emotional trauma. The film has some hard amazingly passionate performances from Louise Fletcher, Richard Burton and Linda Blair. Although, it has to be admitted that the script has some of the most pretentious dialog imaginable, Boorman is remarkably able to make most of the text seem plausible. A classic of its kind.

---

10 utilisateurs sur 13 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile :
Not as Bad as Everyone Says It is, 24 novembre 2006

Auteur : little_drama_queen_1990 de Etats-Unis

OK so maybe this movie wasn't as good as the original, but honestly ask yourself Is it possible to create a movie as good as The Exorcist without recreating it? I think not. It had in my opinion a very good plot. I thought it was very cool how they went into detail about the past of Father Merrin while still focusing on what Regan is going through, and I'm glad they didn't do the same monster. I really liked how they set Father Lemont up to have to choose between the angelic Regan and the sinful Regan,and speaking of Regan Linda Blair was awesome. Going back to the end, I love how even though they looked the same and were dressed the same she managed to make the costume work, and make it look like an innocent sort of dress for one, yet at the same time the evil Regan looked sexy in the same dress!All in all I thought it was a darn good sequel and give it a 7/10!

---

6 utilisateurs sur 6 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile :
Interesting plot and design, 5 novembre 2006

Auteur : binah-1 de Etats-Unis

I love this movie. No its not Citizen Kane, but not every film has to be. I thought it was an interesting concept and a good attempt to answer questions from the first film that Blatty doesn't really answer, mainly why was Regan possessed. I loved the cinematography and the music is great. Boorman is noted for not being an actors director. But his focus on theme and mood really worked well. The look of the film was great. This movie is not the worst film ever made. That is such a cliché and overly used. I like to view the film on its own and not as a sequel. Even Blatty's own attempt at a sequel had its own life and had a slight connection to the first film. I think its time that this film was given its due and given some merit for its originality.

---

11 utilisateurs sur 16 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile :
Homage to Teilhard de Chardin disguised as horror/sequel, 12 août 2003
Auteur : Dejan Jovicic (deka@beotel.yu) de Belgrade, Serbie

As the most of the commentators argued here, this film has some serious flaws which make it very hard to comprehend. The story line is inconsistent, the acting disjointed and inadequate, not to mention that it represents a new conceptual whole, essentially detached from its predecessor. Still, it has certain qualities - some original visual effects, photography, great atmosphere (especially the scenes in Africa).

Also, put in a broader context, this film manages to capture a part of intellectual ambiance of the late seventies, introducing ideas and concepts that were then considered pseudo-scientific and fanciful, only to become legitimate subject matter of serious research, two decades later. The collapse of humanity into one group mind (obvious references to de Chardin's notion of noosphere, drawn by father Lamont), the parallels between insect (locust) and human society regarding the spread of destructive/violent behavior (check mass psychology, research on swarm intelligence, the popularity of Steven Johnson's 'Emergence' etc.)

So, for those of you expecting horror movie chills and thrills - you should skip this one. But for those of you interested in how quirky scientific ideas inspire pop-culture pieces like 'The Heretic' - it is highly recommended.

---

---

Page 1 sur 21:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Ajouter un autre commentaire

---

Liens liés

Plot summary	résumé du Amazon.com	Notes
Récompenses	Critiques des Forums	Revues externes
Plot keywords	Principaux Détails	Your user comments
Your vote history