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

[Winston T. Boogie]

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I'm not sure I've ever seen this. I have it on the Exorcist collection blu-ray set. Maybe I'll do a franchise marathon for October's scary movie challenge.

Bad as it was, it still managed to break even or even make a small profit at the box office. Nothing close to the original, but the studio didn't lose money. And it's apparently still popular enough to have been licensed and re-released multiple times on various formats on home video, so it's still making money for the studio.

I think it is a curiosity now and so different than the first film that people are intrigued by it. Your first watch of it will probably include a lot of eyerolling. I think it broke even because so many people were into The Exorcist that even only drawing part of that audience was enough to keep it from losing money. Make no mistake though, it is a bad and often ridiculous film.

The idea of pairing it with Showgirls is funny but I would say that Showgirls was made by a director that was always openly provocative in what he did, and he meant for it to be a camp fest, whereas I don't think Boorman really meant for his film to be so off the wall ridiculous.

He set out to make some sort of film that was sort of an apology for The Exorcist when nobody was looking for an apology for The Exorcist...certainly not anybody in the audience that would pay to see it.

I just think Boorman being appalled by Friedkin's film was a circumstance of Boorman only focusing on one aspect of it and not getting, oddly, that the film was about a crisis of faith. It's not a movie about torturing a child, it is a film about the difficulty of maintaining your faith in a world that will constantly challenge it. I think Friedkin did not really see it as horror but more wanted to capture what a struggle it can be for a human to maintain their faith in a god in the face of horrors. In this case, yes, he uses elements of the supernatural.

Boorman seems to have missed all that or just found what happens to the child in the film to be too much for him.

 

[TravisR]

View attachment 228102

Peter, you're making me want to rewatch The Exorcist.

 

[JoshZ]

I'm not sure I've ever seen this. I have it on the Exorcist collection blu-ray set. Maybe I'll do a franchise marathon for October's scary movie challenge.

Be advised that the copy of Exorcist II in the Exorcist Collection box set from Warner Bros. is a really lousy transfer that often looks VHS quality. It's very dingy and muddy and swamped in grain.

The movie will always be a victim of some of the worst cinematography fads of the 1970s, including a really excessive use of mist filters, and will never have sharp imagery, but the Shout! Factory remaster (and presumably this Arrow disc) looks decidedly better than the ancient WB transfer.

 

[SD_Brian]

I haven't yet watched my copy of the Scream Factory release. Any opinions as to which version of the movie to start with? The 117-minute version or the 102?

 

[Malcolm R]

Be advised that the copy of Exorcist II in the Exorcist Collection box set from Warner Bros. is a really lousy transfer that often looks VHS quality. It's very dingy and muddy and swamped in grain.

The movie will always be a victim of some of the worst cinematography fads of the 1970s, including a really excessive use of mist filters, and will never have sharp imagery, but the Shout! Factory remaster (and presumably this Arrow disc) looks decidedly better than the ancient WB transfer.

Good to know, but I'll probably watch that before I decide if it's worth spending more.

 

[TravisR]

I haven't yet watched my copy of the Scream Factory release. Any opinions as to which version of the movie to start with? The 117-minute version or the 102?

If you've already decided to waste 102 minutes of your life, you might as well make it 117.

 

[Jack P]

Charles Schulz once ran this little comment on "The Exorcist" in a Peanuts strip.

 

[SD_Brian]

If you've already decided to waste 102 minutes of your life, you might as well make it 117.

But why waste 117 when I could make it a double feature and waste 219?!

 

[TravisR]

But why waste 117 when I could make it a double feature and waste 219?!

Honestly, I've seen both cuts multiple times because the movie ranges from being an interesting failure to hilariously bad.

 

[titch]

I recall only one lynch party forming in a theater after a film, it was when I saw No Country for Old Men, when I walked out of the cinema a group had formed that were discussing going to ask for their money back because they felt the ending was a rip-off. They asked me to join them, they were angry, and I said I thought the ending and the entire film was brilliant, which they were disgusted by, and marched off looking for a manager.

Asking for their money back because they didn't like the ending of No County for Old Men?! That's hilarious!

Since everyone cracked up at the sight of Burton and Blair emerging unscathed from the collapsing Georgetown house at the conclusion of Exorcist II: The Heretic, John Boorman's first stab at recutting the film changed that to Burton being buried with the bugs and Blair beginning a magic dance, to make the nasty locusts at her feet disappear. It didn't help - audiences still howled with laughter.

Like you, I first saw Exorcist II: The Heretic on VHS. Pre-internet and pre trusty film guides. I was initially terribly disappointed at how bad it was, compared to the first Exorcist, and was devastated that I'd wasted two week's pocket money to rent the tape. But I didn't go stomping back to the video store to demand my money back!

However, in the ensuing 40 odd years, after watching an enormous amount of movies, I've become a devotee of unintentionally bad films. I cherish Exorcist II: The Heretic, as much as I do Showgirls, Under The Cherry Moon, Plan Nine from Outer Space, The Swarm, Boom!, Freddy Got Fingered, Cats, Battlefield Earth, Body of Evidence, Mommie Dearest, Bolero, Road House, The Room and a great number of Nicholas Cage movies.

 

[Kaskade1309]

The biggest problem with the sequel is that it was sort of doomed out of the gate -- it really had no chance. Don't forget, the first film was so incredibly entertaining and eye-opening that people were basically willing to accept anything as a sequel; however, in that acceptance came expectations that they were going to see more of the same, with perhaps Regan still sort of being possessed by remnants of Pazuzu (or perhaps another person under its influence), thus they'd get more head spinning, vomit spewing, F-bomb dropping, etc. You can imagine everyone's shock when this wasn't what they saw up on screens in '77.

I, like many critics, applaud Boorman for what he was trying to do with the material -- sew it into something that explored the mythology behind the demon and Merrin's first encounter with it, as to explain why it knew him upon entering Chris and Regan's townhouse in the first film -- but it ended up coming off like a psychedelic acid trip that made zero sense in some places. There are so many unanswered questions here....why was Lamont able to "speak" or "communicate" with Merrin through the synchronizer and through Regan's mind? I understand that Tuscan's device allowed people to tap into unconscious caves of their memories, but how in the hell did that allow Merrin to "leave a message" for Lamont, so to speak? Why did Lamont have to "fly on Pazuzu's wings" in order to find Kukumo in Africa, and why did he have to prove his faith by stepping across the needle bed while Jones sat in a chair wearing a grasshopper Halloween costume?

What exactly was the "evil Regan" in her bedroom towards the end? Why did it try to "seduce" Lamont? Was this Pazuzu creating an "alternate Regan" or was it all a mirage?

Much of the material in The Heretic also undoes the notions behind the prequel projects, notably Renny Harlin's Exorcist: The Beginning, as in that film, it's suggested that Merrin travels to a British-controlled region in Africa sometime after "the war," where he discovers signs of possible demonic activity in a boy (keeping in line with the whole "Merrin-performed-an-exorcism-in-Africa-on-a-young-boy motif), yet it ends up being the woman doctor in the village who is under "Pazuzu's" control. Further, unless I am mistaken, in Friedkin's original film, Merrin is in Northern Iraq on the dig when he unearths the statue head, supposedly unleashing Pazuzu (which eventually "flies" to Georgetown and takes Regan over) -- yet in Exorcist: The Beginning, the African village where he supposedly drops the icon in the sand isn't anywhere near the area portrayed in the opening dig scene in The Exorcist (it can be argued that the sands, over decades, shifted the location of the idol, but I don't buy that).

At any rate, if you take The Heretic on face value and just watch it as a "terrible but fun" horror flick, it's not so bad IMO. I always preferred the shorter "video cut" compared to the longer variant, as that's the one I grew up with when I caught the film on TV and cable. I also don't care for the ending of the longer cut, wherein we see a "crispy" Sharon saying her last words in Tuscan's arms.

 

[Kaskade1309]

Be advised that the copy of Exorcist II in the Exorcist Collection box set from Warner Bros. is a really lousy transfer that often looks VHS quality. It's very dingy and muddy and swamped in grain.

The movie will always be a victim of some of the worst cinematography fads of the 1970s, including a really excessive use of mist filters, and will never have sharp imagery, but the Shout! Factory remaster (and presumably this Arrow disc) looks decidedly better than the ancient WB transfer.

I recall reading your review of the Anthology version of the film and then the Scream Factory variant; I cringed when you were describing how bad the transfer was on the Warner disc. I waited until I found a good deal on the Scream Factory release, as I knew it had to be somewhat better.

I really can't complain about Scream's efforts on their Blu-ray (both discs), as this film will just never look polished and "great."

 

[Kaskade1309]

Asking for their money back because they didn't like the ending of No County for Old Men?! That's hilarious!

I always thought the ending was severely abrupt, but if I am not mistaken, it followed closely in the footsteps of the novel...but to demand money back? Yeah, that's a bridge too far...

Great, great film though.

Since everyone cracked up at the sight of Burton and Blair emerging unscathed from the collapsing Georgetown house at the conclusion of Exorcist II: The Heretic, John Boorman's first stab at recutting the film changed that to Burton being buried with the bugs and Blair beginning a magic dance, to make the nasty locusts at her feet disappear. It didn't help - audiences still howled with laughter.

Like you, I first saw Exorcist II: The Heretic on VHS. Pre-internet and pre trusty film guides. I was initially terribly disappointed at how bad it was, compared to the first Exorcist, and was devastated that I'd wasted two week's pocket money to rent the tape. But I didn't go stomping back to the video store to demand my money back!

However, in the ensuing 40 odd years, after watching an enormous amount of movies, I've become a devotee of unintentionally bad films. I cherish Exorcist II: The Heretic, as much as I do Showgirls, Under The Cherry Moon, Plan Nine from Outer Space, The Swarm, Boom!, Freddy Got Fingered, Cats, Battlefield Earth, Body of Evidence, Mommie Dearest, Bolero, Road House, The Room and a great number of Nicholas Cage movies.

Don't forget gems like Ninja III: The Domination.....

 

[JoshZ]

I haven't yet watched my copy of the Scream Factory release. Any opinions as to which version of the movie to start with? The 117-minute version or the 102?

If you've already decided to waste 102 minutes of your life, you might as well make it 117.

This was what I wrote when I reviewed the Shout! Factory Blu-ray a half dozen years ago:

"In some ways, the short version is a legitimate improvement. It removes some of the most laughable and/or baffling moments and picks up the turgid pacing a bit. To be blunt, most viewers will appreciate that it mercifully gets the movie over with sooner. On the other hand, its editing is often extremely jumpy and confusing (though that's no less true of the long version), the addition of a new prologue cobbled together from still frame photos from the original movie is borderline incompetent, and some of the excised bits contained important thematic material that viewers who do like the movie (and a few of those do exist) will regret losing."

 

[Bryan Tuck]

Here's an article from the 07/071977 issue of the Philadelphia Inquirer (though it apparently originated in the Washington Post) that reported a little on the 2nd and 3rd versions of Exorcist II, which Boorman referred to as "Exorcist III" and "Exorcist IV" at the time:

I can't find it at the moment, but there was another article I read that clarified that the "3 1/2 minutes of cuts" to "Exorcist III" was just a single cut that essentially removed the epilogue. Theaters were initially instructed to physically cut the print, but a week or so later they received a new final reel with a smoother audio transition. This version was apparently the one on the initial VHS/Beta release from Warner's WCI...



The 3rd version ("Exorcist IV") was the heavily re-edited 102-minute version. It played theatrically in other countries, but the US apparently kept showing the 2nd cut.

 

[Kaskade1309]

PLAYED TO TEST MY NEW DENON RECEIVER'S "DTS NEURAL:X" UPMIXING SYSTEM WITH DTS-HD MA 2.0 MONO TRACKS (DISC TWO - 102-MINUTE "VIDEO" CUT)...

​

 

[Richard Kaufman]

So which 2 versions are on this new release? The original and "Ex IV"?

 

[Kaskade1309]

"Ex IV"?

 

[JoshZ]

"Ex IV"?

See post 56 above.