International Exorcist II: The Heretic Arrow Films UK Limited Edition blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[titch]

For those who like their turkeys well and truly cooked, Arrow Video UK is releasing their version in time for Thanksgiving:

Exorcist II: The Heretic Limited Edition Blu-ray

Buy Exorcist II: The Heretic Limited Edition Blu-ray from Arrow Films.

www.arrowfilms.com

It will, in all likelihood, have the same transfer as the rather excellent US Shout Factory Special Edition, released in 2018, and it shares some of the supplements as well. Arrow Video has, however, surpassed Shout Factory with the supplements. For those of us, who truly relish this fascinatingly awful film, it's a no brainer.

You have to love the person, concocting the press release spin: "From John Boorman, the director of Point Blank and Deliverance, comes Exorcist II: The Heretic, a visionary metaphysical thriller that confounded audience expectations by delivering something unique and entirely unexpected." Yes - that's one way of putting it.

 

[lark144]

As they say in Minnesota, "That's different". But seriously, my friends and I loved this film when it came out, especially the ruby heels. Sometimes camp transcends bad taste and illuminates not only contemporary culture but becomes something mysterious and unimaginable, a Stonehenge imprinted on celluloid. We considered The Heretic a beacon of personal cinema. Of course, it was the 1970's and our sensibilities were somewhat "enhanced". But, speaking of turkeys, I've seen much worse films, a number of them Academy Award winners.

 

[Worth]

I certainly wouldn’t call it a good film, but it’s bad in a fascinating way. I’d much rather watch an interesting failure than a perfectly adequate success.

 

[titch]

As they say in Minnesota, "That's different". But seriously, my friends and I loved this film when it came out, especially the ruby heels. Sometimes camp transcends bad taste and illuminates not only contemporary culture but becomes something mysterious and unimaginable, a Stonehenge imprinted on celluloid. We considered The Heretic a beacon of personal cinema. Of course, it was the 1970's and our sensibilities were somewhat "enhanced". But, speaking of turkeys, I've seen much worse films, a number of them Academy Award winners.

It makes a very good double-bill with Showgirls.

 

[Ethan Riley]

I didn't even know there was an Exorcist III. I've never felt the need to see the second one either. The first one was perfect cinema...you can't improve on it, and you can't continue it. There's no point.

 

[EricSchulz]

And they didn’t!

 

[Scott Merryfield]

I didn't even know there was an Exorcist III. I've never felt the need to see the second one either. The first one was perfect cinema...you can't improve on it, and you can't continue it. There's no point.

I actually like the 3rd film. It certainly doesn't compare to the original, but it's a good film on its own, IMO.

 

[Richard Kaufman]

The material with Max Von Sydow in "Exorcist II" adds to the original film.

 

[JoshZ]

I didn't even know there was an Exorcist III. I've never felt the need to see the second one either. The first one was perfect cinema...you can't improve on it, and you can't continue it. There's no point.

Exorcist II is a mess, but it's a fascinating mess.

Exorcist III is not nearly on the same level as the original film, and is quite different from it in many respects (for one thing, parts of it are pretty funny), but it's a genuinely good and interesting movie in its own right.

 

[lark144]

It makes a very good double-bill with Showgirls.

Completely different films for completely different audiences. Aesthetically and philosophically, Exorcist II has a lot more in common with Zardoz. In a way, Exorcist II & Showgirls are the reverse. Exorcist II takes trash and attempts, albeit intermittently and haphazardly, to turn it an investigation of comic complexity; of coincidence and divine mysteries. Showgirls takes trash and makes it trashier to the nth degree, critiquing its very existence while also reveling in it. Both are very personal, and while deeply flawed and unsuccessful, a perfect expression of their directors' personalities, but I wouldn't want to see them together.

Another thought. Many of the images in Exorcist II evoke the sublime and end up turning into camp, while those in Showgirls attempt camp and end up evoking the sublime. Still, for me, they're very different films.

 

[titch]

Completely different films for completely different audiences. Aesthetically and philosophically, Exorcist II has a lot more in common with Zardoz. In a way, Exorcist II & Showgirls are the reverse. Exorcist II takes trash and attempts, albeit intermittently and haphazardly, to turn it an investigation of comic complexity; of coincidence and divine mysteries. Showgirls takes trash and makes it trashier to the nth degree, critiquing its very existence while also reveling in it. Both are very personal, and while deeply flawed and unsuccessful, a perfect expression of their directors' personalities, but I wouldn't want to see them together.

Another thought. Many of the images in Exorcist II evoke the sublime and end up turning into camp, while those in Showgirls attempt camp and end up evoking the sublime. Still, for me, they're very different films.

And that's exactly why I think they make a good double-bill. But they have a lot in common: two turkeys, made with high ambition, loving care and great expense, by competent, experienced directors. Both aimed to be profound. They are both great fun, but not for the reasons the creators intended. Howlingly funny dialogue. Exorcist II even has a disco from hell soundtrack to boot.

I rarely make a double bill with films, which resemble each other too thematically. Those tend to be tedious.

 

[lark144]

And that's exactly why I think they make a good double-bill. But they have a lot in common: two turkeys, made with high ambition, loving care and great expense, by competent, experienced directors. Both aimed to be profound. They are both great fun, but not for the reasons the creators intended. Howlingly funny dialogue. Exorcist II even has a disco from hell soundtrack to boot.

I rarely make a double bill with films, which resemble each other too thematically. Those tend to be tedious.

I think they are great fun for the reasons the creators intended. And I don't see them as turkeys. They're subversive art films disguised as blockbusters. They're supposed to undermine their alleged commercial intentions with black humor, similar to those books of poetry that the Letterists published in the early 1950's with sandpaper that would erase the words as you would open the pages. Of course, doing so in the context of Hollywood filmmaking is commercial suicide, which is one reason I admire Boorman and Verhoeven. It's difficult to argue whether or not Exorcist II & Showgirls are successful, because one of the elements of their success is that they fail. However, if you look at some of Boorman's and Verhoeven's other films, there is similar "howlingly funny dialogue" going against the thrust of the narrative, which is there on purpose. These are two filmmakers who thrive on irony and discontinuity. I think the "profundity" of Exorcist II & Showgirls is that the films are cinematic Molotov cocktails. Therefore, I don't think you can treat them as the typical "so bad it's good" films, icons of hubris such as Moment by Moment or Exposed or Staying Alive because in Exorcist II & Showgirls that mockery, which is expressed through an extreme over-the topness, is the essence of the filmmaker's strategy. The films were and are misunderstood because of the way they were marketed. But that doesn't mean they can't be appreciated on their own terms, as films which critique the filmmaking process, purposefully attacking the viewer for attempting to gain pleasure. I wouldn't be surprised if at some point in the next decade or so, those films are considered masterpieces. Of course, I mean that both in jest as well as seriously, which is how Exorcist II & Showgirls are intended to be taken. OK, maybe they would be good together after all.

 

[Bryan Tuck]

You have to love the person, concocting the press release spin: "From John Boorman, the director of Point Blank and Deliverance, comes Exorcist II: The Heretic, a visionary metaphysical thriller that confounded audience expectations by delivering something unique and entirely unexpected." Yes - that's one way of putting it.

I mean... they're not really lying.

I've gone back and forth on this movie over the years. As others have said, it's a mess, but it's a fascinating mess. I respect the ambition and the attempt to not just mimic the first movie. It's the kind of "bad" that can only come from a genuinely interesting filmmaker trying to make something unique.

There's been a lot of contradictory information put out over the years about the different versions of the movie. Maybe some of the new bonus features will finally iron that out.

 

[JoshZ]

I think they are great fun for the reasons the creators intended. And I don't see them as turkeys. They're subversive art films disguised as blockbusters. They're supposed to undermine their alleged commercial intentions with black humor, similar to those books of poetry that the Letterists published in the early 1950's with sandpaper that would erase the words as you would open the pages. Of course, doing so in the context of Hollywood filmmaking is commercial suicide, which is one reason I admire Boorman and Verhoeven. It's difficult to argue whether or not Exorcist II & Showgirls are successful, because one of the elements of their success is that they fail. However, if you look at some of Boorman's and Verhoeven's other films, there is similar "howlingly funny dialogue" going against the thrust of the narrative, which is there on purpose. These are two filmmakers who thrive on irony and discontinuity. I think the "profundity" of Exorcist II & Showgirls is that the films are cinematic Molotov cocktails. Therefore, I don't think you can treat them as the typical "so bad it's good" films, icons of hubris such as Moment by Moment or Exposed or Staying Alive because in Exorcist II & Showgirls that mockery, which is expressed through an extreme over-the topness, is the essence of the filmmaker's strategy. The films were and are misunderstood because of the way they were marketed. But that doesn't mean they can't be appreciated on their own terms, as films which critique the filmmaking process, purposefully attacking the viewer for attempting to gain pleasure. I wouldn't be surprised if at some point in the next decade or so, those films are considered masterpieces. Of course, I mean that both in jest as well as seriously, which is how Exorcist II & Showgirls are intended to be taken. OK, maybe they would be good together after all.

Whatever Boorman's intent for Exorcist II may have been was unfortunately undermined by the fact that the final product turned out so dreadfully boring. It's hard to be subversive when the main thing you've subverted is your audience's ability to stay awake.

Showgirls, meanwhile, has already seen a critical re-appreciation. I recommend this book, which lays out the case for why it's always been a masterpiece.

It Doesn't Suck: Showgirls, by Adam Nayman

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Well, it should be pointed out that Boorman made Exorcist II from the perspective of hating The Exorcist. He thought it was a dreadful film, so he is subverting The Exorcist with Exorcist II. It is intentional, that he is making a very different kind of film with his sequel and that is a response to, not a follow-up of, Friedkin's film.

I don't think I have sat all the way through Showgirls, and I can't say why Verhoeven made it, I've never read or watched anything about the picture. If he made it as a response to some other film or films that he found profoundly terrible, then I guess they could have things in common.

 

[titch]

Well, it should be pointed out that Boorman made Exorcist II from the perspective of hating The Exorcist. He thought it was a dreadful film, so he is subverting The Exorcist with Exorcist II. It is intentional, that he is making a very different kind of film with his sequel and that is a response to, not a follow-up of, Friedkin's film.

I don't think I have sat all the way through Showgirls, and I can't say why Verhoeven made it, I've never read or watched anything about the picture. If he made it as a response to some other film or films that he found profoundly terrible, then I guess they could have things in common.

Bad scripts are the main similarities. No director has ever delivered a good film with a lousy script. There are examples of directors changing and rewriting the script daily during filming (Steven Spielberg on Jaws, Stanley Kubrick on The Shining, Francis Ford Coppola on Apocalypse Now! but these are exceptions that prove the rule).

Showgirls is a prime example of films which come into being because there is way too much money being thrown around by film studio executives and because a director is suddenly perceived as omnipotent (Damien Chazelle/Babylon, anyone?) . The flimsiest of ideas, written on a table napkin at lunch - "MGM-style musical...set in Vegas...strippers....sleaze....glamor" - was enough to throw $2 million dollars at and get the ball rolling. Paul Verhoeven was riding high after two enormous box-office smashes for Carolco (Total Recall, Basic Instinct) and was given free reign by the studio.

John Boorman didn't like the script for Exorcist II: The Heretic and the script was being rewritten on the fly during production. Most of the plans for location shooting were scuppered. The odd thing was, John Boorman had just delivered Zardoz, prior to being given the keys to Exorcist II: The Heretic. A box office and critical smash it was not. But the suits obviously thought that a quick sequel to one of the all-time blockbusters simply couldn't fail. Just proves "Nobody Knows Anything".

 

[JoshZ]

Bad scripts are the main similarities. No director has ever delivered a good film with a lousy script.

If you actually look at it from a screenplay perspective, Basic Instinct is a garbage script - idiotically plotted and ragingly misogynist. But Paul Verhoeven directed the hell out of that movie and turned it into something far beyond what was written on the page. He took Joe Eszterhas' one-dimensional "Psycho B---- from Hell" villain and had Sharon Stone play her as the hero of the story. All the Hitchcock and Vertigo allusions were Verhoeven's doing, and elevated what would have otherwise been C-grade made-for-Cinemax trash into a monster blockbuster hit and a cultural phenomenon.

When the Eszterhas script for Showgirls came across his desk, Verhoeven thought he could do something similar with it. Unfortunately, the audience reaction to that one didn't work out quite as well for him.

John Boorman didn't like the script for Exorcist II: The Heretic and the script was being rewritten on the fly during production. Most of the plans for location shooting were scuppered. The odd thing was, John Boorman had just delivered Zardoz, prior to being given the keys to Exorcist II: The Heretic. A box office and critical smash it was not. But the suits obviously thought that a quick sequel to one of the all-time blockbusters simply couldn't fail. Just proves "Nobody Knows Anything".

In his commentary on the Collector's Edition Blu-ray, Boorman claims that the only reason he agreed to direct Exorcist II was that he'd been led to believe he'd have carte blanche and a large budget - promises that were both reneged once production started.

 

[TravisR]

When the Eszterhas script for Showgirls came across his desk, Verhoeven thought he could do something similar with it. Unfortunately, the audience reaction to that one didn't work out quite as well for him.

I think the biggest difference between the two movies is that Elizabeth Berkley is a terrible actor and Sharon Stone is not. Or, if I'm being kind, if Verhoeven had directed Berkley into a better (or even adequate) performance, he might have been able to make a silk purse out of the sow's ear again.

 

[JoshZ]

I think the biggest difference between the two movies is that Elizabeth Berkley is a terrible actor and Sharon Stone is not. Or, if I'm being kind, if Verhoeven had directed Berkley into a better (or even adequate) performance, he might have been able to make a silk purse out of the sow's ear again.

Over the years, I was very hard on Elizabeth Berkley and may have written some things about her in old reviews that I'm not terribly proud of today. But over time, I've come around and think she did pretty much exactly what Verhoeven asked her to do and what the material called for.

You want to talk bad performances, though, let's look at Richard Burton in Exorcist II.

 

[Malcolm R]

Well, it should be pointed out that Boorman made Exorcist II from the perspective of hating The Exorcist.

So, of course, he was the natural choice to hire to make a sequel.