Quote:
Originally Posted by keirarts  Exorcist (theatrical cut)
Personally I prefer this to the extended cut(s) that are out there, works perfectly as a genuinely scary and well crafted horror with some brilliant effects work and some magnificent sound design. It's been legally available for some time now with no signs of traumatised young girls in need of therapy so that's you proved wrong James Ferman! |
As most people know, The Exorcist is my all-time favourite film, the one I believe to be the greatest horror film ever made, and one I've seen well over 100 times, possibly 200 times. The theatrical cut is my preferred version because the scenes which aren't in this version, but are in 'The Version You've Never Seen' (aka The Director's Cut) work in isolation and on paper, but are less effective within the film. They are just slightly overwritten, unnecessary or the timing doesn't work particularly well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by keirarts Exorcist 2.
When the first film was a success but you don't understand why, Exorcist 2 is a great example of what you get. This one plays more like THE VISITOR but with less charm (or Jesus Franco Nero). Its looks wonderful in places, ennio morricone's score is excellent, but as a film it simply DOES NOT WORK!
Hopefully at some point this week I can get the much better part 3 watched. |
As you said, the score is very good and there are a couple of very handsome camera moves within scenes, but the overall film is a complete mess. Perhaps the main problem is the acting, with Richard Burton looking entirely disinterested (no wonder there were rumours of alcoholism at the time), James Earl Jones appearing as if he has stumbled on set from different film shoot, Louise Fletcher struggling with the subject material and script and even Linda Blair, who is generally better than the films in which she appears, looking bored.
Despite studio interference, The Exorcist III is an entirely different proposition.