![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jetpack_monkeyI often marvel at the number of "Unpopular Fandom Opinion" posts I read where the comments are, by and large, nothing but nodding agreement. I guess they couldn't've been that unpopular.
This, however, I think is an unpopular opinion:
Despite going to pot in the last half-hour, Exorcist II: The Heretic is by and large a better film than The Exorcist.![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
midnightfae and I watched it over the weekend and we both agreed on this point. Mind you, neither of us is terribly fond of William Friedkin's The Exorcist (read my review). Exorcist II starts out quite strong, creating a logical follow-up and actually explaining away some of the irritating plot holes and inconsistencies that plagued its predecessor. If Richard Burton comes off as a little Shatnery and Linda Blair just a bit too blank, these are minor flaws. John Boorman's film is a well-paced telling of an epic story about a demon that possesses those with a gift for healing in order to corrupt them and destroy their usefulness to the side of good (midnightfae commented that this would make a great television series, to which I replied that it already is one: "Supernatural"). Mind you, I can think of few films that plummet so far down the drain in their final act as Exorcist II -- the return to the Georgetown home where the first film took place is idiotic and poorly conceived, the locust metaphor is taken to some ridiculous extremes, and WTF two Linda Blairs. Everything before that is engaging -- imperfect, certainly, but engaging.
A strong contender for the "deserves a second look" pile.
This, however, I think is an unpopular opinion:
Despite going to pot in the last half-hour, Exorcist II: The Heretic is by and large a better film than The Exorcist.
midnightfae and I watched it over the weekend and we both agreed on this point. Mind you, neither of us is terribly fond of William Friedkin's The Exorcist (read my review). Exorcist II starts out quite strong, creating a logical follow-up and actually explaining away some of the irritating plot holes and inconsistencies that plagued its predecessor. If Richard Burton comes off as a little Shatnery and Linda Blair just a bit too blank, these are minor flaws. John Boorman's film is a well-paced telling of an epic story about a demon that possesses those with a gift for healing in order to corrupt them and destroy their usefulness to the side of good (midnightfae commented that this would make a great television series, to which I replied that it already is one: "Supernatural"). Mind you, I can think of few films that plummet so far down the drain in their final act as Exorcist II -- the return to the Georgetown home where the first film took place is idiotic and poorly conceived, the locust metaphor is taken to some ridiculous extremes, and WTF two Linda Blairs. Everything before that is engaging -- imperfect, certainly, but engaging.A strong contender for the "deserves a second look" pile.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 08:34 pm (UTC)