Reign of Fire (2002) – Review

Hollywood has provided moviegoers with many post-apocalyptic movies, from the Planet of the Apes franchise to the Mad Max series – the aftermath of “The End of the World” has always been great cinema fodder – but with Disney’s Reign of Fire we get a rather odd entry as it tosses a fantasy element into the mix.

The movie opens with a young boy named Quinn Abercromby (Ben Thornton) stumbling upon a dragon that has just woken up from hibernation, this rude awakening caused by subway construction, and the creature flies up and away killing the poor kid’s mother in the process.  Maybe having a “take your kid to work day” in a dangerous underground construction site was a bad idea. This majestic creature then goes off to wreak havoc on the populace. Flash forward a couple of decades where we find a mostly destroyed Earth and humanity barely hanging by its collective fingernails. A now adult Quinn (Christian Bale) is amongst the survivors, hiding out in the ruins of an old castle, and while they seem to be living on the brink of starvation they are managing to hold on.  The true conflict kicks in when a group of American soldiers, led by the charismatic Van Zan (Mathew McConaughey), arrives at the castle claiming that they have the plan to kill the dragons and reclaim the world for humanity. Van Zan believes that there is a single male dragon that is the key to the species’ survival and if it is destroyed the dragon race will die off and mankind can take back the Earth.

Can his plan end this reign of fire?

The movie’s premise of dragons taking over the world is intriguing, and the special effects used to bring these mythical creatures to life is quite impressive, however, the dragons end up being more spectacle than substance and the story fails to explore their motivations or origins to any degree. Worst of all is the fact that the poster promised us helicopter gunships battling dragons over a burning London and none of that appears in this movie, instead, we get this quick explanation as to how mankind has been pushed to the brink of extinction by dragons “Who fill the sky like locusts” but the actual mechanics of humanity’s defeat is never properly explained. Later in the film, we see Van Zan take out a dragon using nothing more than a harpoon gun but if these things are susceptible to something as basic as a harpoon gun then how did the combined navies and air forces of the world lose to these things? Mathew McConaughey is amazing but are we to believe he’s more powerful than an United States Carrier Group?

“All right, all right, all right.”

Stray Observations:

• The movie opens with a male dragon waking up but where exactly did the females come from, was there Mail Order Bride service for dragons?
• The film posits an alternative history in which the dinosaurs were killed off by dragons, rather than the K-T asteroid, which I’ll admit is definitely a cooler theory but also rather silly.
• The “dragons” in this film are actually Wyverns because they only have two legs, whereas dragons have four.
• Gerard Butler and Christian Bale put on a stage play version of The Empire Strikes Back for the children and this is easily one of the best moments in this film.
• It’s never explained how Van Zan kept an armoured column of vehicles and a helicopter fuelled in a world that fell two decades ago. It is especially odd when you consider the fact that gasoline has a shelf-life between three months and three years.
• Van Zan is convinced there is only one male dragon on the entire planet, but as dragons are spread around the entire globe how does he know this? Does he subscribe to a Dragon newsletter?
• With one fly-by, a dragon wipes out Van Zan’s entire convoy and kills all of his men, which begs the question “How has he been surviving all these years if that is his casualty rate?”

“Now, shall you deal with ME, Van Zan, and all the powers of HELL!”

The acting is solid, with Christian Bale giving a strong performance as the stoic leader of a small group of survivors, but it’s Matthew McConaughey who steals the show as the charismatic and unhinged dragon hunter. He brings a lot of energy and intensity to the film and his scenes with Bale are some of the most memorable, which is odd considering the movie is about a war against dragons and not two angry dudes. Unfortunately, as good as McConaughy and Bale are as actors the characters they are portraying are somewhat underdeveloped, feeling like one-note stereotypes instead of fully-fledged individuals. Bale does his best to present a nuanced and emotional portrayal of a man who has lost everything and is fighting to protect what little he has left, while McConaughy gives us a cross between George S. Patton and Yosemite Sam.

“You rackin’ frackin’ varmint!”

The movie is visually impressive, with some of the most realistic dragon effects ever seen on screen, but it should be noted that these dragons are not portrayed as magical creatures, instead, there are depicted as biological beings that behave and move like animals.  Sadly, this does take away the majesty of these creatures and turns them into what can best be described as Jurassic Park knock-offs. The film’s pacing is also a bit uneven, with the first half feeling slow and ponderous at times, however, the film’s distinctive and striking visual style makes up for this with its desolate, apocalyptic landscape that perfectly captures the sense of hopelessness and despair that our protagonists feel. Of course, the biggest issue is the decision to give us “science-based” dragons and if one takes but a second’s thought about the “science” we are spoon fed it all falls apart.

The Dodgy Science of Dragons in Reign of Fire

• The movie depicts the dragons as being able to breathe fire due to a flammable liquid stored in a sac located in their throats, however, this is biologically implausible as it would require the dragons to be able to create and store an immense amount of flammable liquid without it causing harm to their own bodies.
• We are told the dragons survive by digesting ash, and while ash is a good source of potassium, phosphorus, and magnesium it is biologically implausible for such large animals to live on that kind of diet as something this huge would require a lot of food and water to survive and reproduce.
• The movie depicts dragons as being able to fly despite their size and weight.  This would not be possible as their wingspan would need to be disproportionately large to support their body mass, and their bones would need to be hollow to reduce weight.  For a dragon to fly it must be a creature of magic.
• We see dragon fire being able to cause massive destruction, even to steel structures like tanks and trucks, however, this is not scientifically accurate as steel has a very high melting point and is fairly resistant to heat damage.
• The movie suggests that there is but one male dragon that fertilizes all of the female dragon eggs, in reality, this would lead to a lack of genetic diversity and would then cause inbreeding and genetic disorders.

“It’s gonna be a great Easter with this egg.”

Overall, Reign of Fire is a flawed but entertaining movie that offers a unique and compelling take on the dragon mythos, one that abandoned the fantasy aspect of dragons and replaces it with testosterone-fuelled performances by Christian Bale and Matthew McConaughey.  This is not necessarily a bad thing and should satisfy anyone looking for a thrilling and visually stunning adventure, but I still prefer my dragons with a bit of magic, so my favourite dragon movie Dragonslayer and it remains the gold standard of the genre.

Dragonheart (1996) – Review

Before Peter Jackson’s adaptation of The Lord of the Rings proved that fantasy films could be legit blockbuster entertainment, a trilogy that not only brought in huge box office but Academy Awards as well, there was very little in the way of “big-budget offerings” in the fantasy genre.  The best examples I had while growing up were the films by legendary stop-motion artist Ray Harryhausen but with the advent of computer animation certain fantasy elements that were once hard to pull off now took a major leap forward, enter Dragonheart.

The movie deals with an English knight named Sir Bowen (Dennis Quaid) who has spent his last few years training and mentoring the Saxon prince Einon (Lee Oakes), in the ways of  The Old Code, but when Einon’s tyrant king father is killed during a peasant uprising, and Einon himself is mortally wounded. Einon’s Celtic mother Aislinn (Julie Christie) has her mortally wounded son taken before a dragon and asks him to save the boy’s life. The dragon (Sean Connery) makes Einon promise to rule “justly and with honour” and replaces Einon’s wounded heart with half his own. Sadly, we don’t see much in the way of “ruling with honour” as Einon quickly proves to be even more oppressive of a ruler than his late father was He forces the former rebels into slavery and makes them rebuild an old Roman castle, which greatly distresses Bowen who now believes that the dragon’s heart has somehow corrupted Einon. With anger and revenge in his heart he vows to hunt all of these creatures down, of course, he’s wrong and Bowen was just blind to the fact that Einon was an evil little shit right from the start.

Our hero, the not-too-observant Sir Bowen.

We then jump ahead twelves years and Bowen has become a renowned dragon slayer, having hunted them to the brink of extinction, but when he encounters Draco, who he doesn’t know is the very creature who shared his heart with Einon, they get into a knock-down drag-out fight that ends in a stalemate – with Bowen in the dragon’s mouth but with his sword poised to strike up into the brain – and it’s here where the film starts to get a little wonky, with Draco pointing out that with him being the last of the dragons if Bowen kills him he will be out of a job.  Draco suggests a partnership and they agree not to kill each other, instead, they form a partnership to defraud local villagers with staged dragon “slayings.”  This is a take on the 1971 comedy The Skin Game where James Garner repeatedly sold Louis Gossett Jr. to various idiot slave owners, and while this leads to some fun moments plot-wise it doesn’t really go anywhere.  Worse is the fact that this change of heart makes no sense. Bowen blames the dragons for corrupting his Prince and thus vowing for vengeance, while Draco is the last of his kind due to the actions of Bowen the Dragon Slayer. How could either of these guys get past that hostile dichotomy?

Why doesn’t Draco think of using his ability to breathe fire to end this stalemate?

This buddy adventure aspect is only one element of Dragonheart as we also have Kara (Dina Meyer), daughter of the leader of the previous peasant revolt, who witnessed the now older Einon (David Thewlis) murder her father in cold blood, she now runs around trying to get the local peasants to give revolution another try. She gets less than stellar results. That is until she crosses paths with Bowen and Draco and they eventually go all Braveheart and somehow rally the people to march on Einon’s castle.  This all so we can have your standard medieval battle, a final confrontation between the hero and the villain, not to mention a noble sacrifice tossed in for good measure.  While some of this works a lot of it doesn’t and I’ll never buy Draco forgiving Bowen for hunting down and murdering all of his kind without even an “Oops, my bad” from this clueless knight.

“I’m too old for this shit.”

That all said, Quaid and Connery have excellent chemistry as the knight and dragon, despite the fact that their relationship makes no logical sense, and their banter is a highlight of the movie. This fantasy film also features some impressive special effects, and sure, they may be a bit dated by today’s standards but back in 1996, they were cutting-edge. The dragon’s design looks a little like a cross between a dinosaur and a dog but somehow it all works.  However, Dragonheart does have its flaws, the plot is fairly predictable and the supporting characters are poorly developed, not to mention the film’s constant struggle to balance its darker themes with its lighthearted moments.  It is in the addressing these themes of loss, betrayal and sacrifice, while injecting buddy comedy, where the film fails to strike a tonal imbalance.

Draco is really good at posing and looking cool.

Stray Observations:

• This was originally to be done with traditional stop-motion or go-motion effects but with the success of Jurassic Park it was decided to go the CGI route, so once again stop motion artist Phil Tippet was left in a supporting role to the computer animators. This time out he was relegated to the design department.
• At one point Bowen pours a mug of water and casually drinks while fencing with the young Prince, which was a clear nod to the sword fight between Danny Kaye and Basil Rathbone in The Court Jester.
• We get a “The peasants are revolting” joke, because why not rip off Mel Brooks while you’re at it?
• Bowen tries to free the peasant who had killed the King, and sure, Einon was being a cruel dick but the man was guilty of regicide. That Bowen isn’t then held accountable for trying to free him is also a bit daft.
• After slaying a dragon Bowen asks for a bag of gold for his services, from a group of Einon’s knights, but he is refused and this begs the question “If he wasn’t paid for this dragon slaying who exactly was paying him?”
• I know Einon is a bit crazy as well as evil but his trying to seduce Kara, who had just tried to assassinate him, moves well beyond crazy and into the realm of sheer stupidity.
• When an attempt to extort money out of the neighbouring peasants goes badly they decide to sacrifice Kara to the dragon instead of paying Bowen, and Bowen tells Draco to get rid of her, even suggesting that he eat the girl. Is this actually supposed to be our hero?
• The dragon slayers chain up the fallen dragon, but why? They were hired to kill the dragon and at this point in the film no one knew that Einon’s life was tied to that of Draco, so their chaining him up makes no sense.

I don’t even see Peter MacNicol among these dragon slayers.

The plot of the film hinges on the idea of a man struggling to recapture his idealism, which is a powerful theme that could have led to a very interesting movie, but the tone of the final script is a mess because any darker undercurrent is undercut by this “buddy-cop” banter.  Then there is the complete lack of chemistry between Quaid and Dina Meyer, who I think the film suggests are going to become romantically involved but don’t by that for a second. It should also be noted that there are some actors who can easily slip into any time period and accent, sadly, Dennis Quaid is not one of them. I’d put his portrayal of Sir Bowen up there with Kevin Costner’s casting in the title role of Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves as both of them should stay clear of anything prior to the 20th Century. This issue was not helped by the casting of such talented character actors as David Thewlis as Einon and Jason Isaacs and Brain Thompson as two of his more ruthless knights, because they work this era quite well and completely sell their parts.

“Who wants to apply for a job at Hogwarts?”

Overall, Dragonheart is your standard classic fantasy tale, with all the appropriate trappings, and if it’s mired in some dodgy storytelling and even dodgier attempts at humour it still holds up as a somewhat fun adventure and can be enjoyed as such. That is if you don’t take it seriously, which is the best way because it doesn’t take itself all that seriously either. So grab some popcorn, sit back, and enjoy the ride. And don’t forget to appreciate the fact that Sean Connery once voiced a dragon.

Dragonslayer (1981) – Review

The 1980s were a fun time when it came to dark fantasy films, with such entries as Ridley Scott’s Legend and Jim Henson’s The Dark Crystal making great strides in the genre, if not in great box office returns, but when it comes to fantasy offerings it’s hard not to mention Walt Disney Pictures as bringing classic fantasy tales to life was pretty much their business model.  While the studio had lost a little of the shine during the 80s they managed to team-up with Paramount Pictures to offer audiences a truly dark tale of fantasy and adventure.

The plot of Dragonslayer takes place in the sixth century and deals with a land terrorized by a 400-year-old dragon named Vermithrax Pejorative, who must be appeased by a virgin sacrifice twice a year. To handle this situation, Good King Casiodorus Ulfilas (Peter Eyre) had set up a lottery to chose which lucky girl would be sacrificed, to the beast needless to say, this is not something the villagers were all that happy about. Enter a delegation led by a young man called Valerian (Caitlin Clarke) who seeks help from the world’s last sorcerer, Ulrich of Cragganmore (Sir Ralph Richardson), who is their best hope of slaying the dragon. That he is possibly too old for the trip let alone slaying a dragon, is quickly put into question.

“Have you tried getting a hold of Gandalf the Grey?”

When Ulrich is killed by Tyrian (John Hallam), the brutal Captain of Casiodorus’s Royal Guard, it’s up to the wizard’s young apprentice, Galen (Peter MacNicol), to become our movie’s dragonslayer, stating to the delegation “All that you asked of him, you may now expect of me. The dangers he would face, I will now conquer. The task he would undertake, I will now fulfill. I’m Galen Brandwarden, inheritor of Ulrich’s craft and knowledge, and I am the sorcerer you seek.” These are pretty bold statements from a sorcerer’s apprentice, dragon slaying is not normally a gig for a novice. There are also some nasty wrinkles along the way, such as Tyrian murdering Hodge (Sydney Bromley), the wizard’s old retainer and keeper of secrets, but the most interesting twist is the discovery that Valerian is actually a young woman, who has been disguised since birth to avoid being selected for the lottery.  It should be less of a surprise that she will also become a somewhat love interest for the hero.

Galen is clearly shooting way above his pay grade.

Galen’s journey is not just a quest to defeat a monster but a coming-of-age story about the nature of power and responsibility and accepting one’s strengths and limitations. And then with the role of Valerian we don’t get the typical damsel in distress, who must be saved from clutches of the dragon by our stalwart hero, instead, with Dragonslayer we have Caitlin Clarke playing a spirited woman who has spent her entire life disguised a man and that is something that has definitely shaped the kind of person she has become, one who will challenge traditional gender roles and adds depth to the story.

“A woman’s place is in the kitchen or on a sacrificial altar.”

What makes Dragonslayer truly remarkable is its attention to detail, from the intricate costumes by Anthony Mendelson to the breathtaking sets by Elliot Scott, every element of the film creates a rich and immersive world that captures the imagination with every frame. That twenty-five percent of the budget went to the dragon itself should be a surprise to no one who has seen the film, this creature is a marvel of special effects and pretty awe inspiring. With its scaly skin and fire-breathing capabilities it fully capture the threat of such a mythical beast. Of course, the key test to any such creations isn’t so much on what marvel of technology was utilized to bring it to life but what character and personality it has on screen, and in the case of Vermithrax Pejorative you have an aging malevolent beast whose very appearance screams death and destruction.  But surprisingly, it also gets us to somewhat sympathize with this aging creature of a bygone age.

A literal baptism by fire.

Creating such a fantastic character required visual effects that were quite groundbreaking for its time – computer-generated monsters were not even a glint in ILM head Dennis Muren’s eyes at this point – and what this film provides the viewer more than holds up to today’s effects. The dragon itself is a marvel to behold, brought to life with a combination of animatronics and puppetry that seamlessly blends with the live-action footage. Stop-motion effects wizard Phil Tipped utilized a technique called “Go Motion” that would allow the animators to incorporate motion blur into each frame that involved motion, which removes the distinctive staccato effect found in traditional stop motion animation. As for the dragon’s design itself, graphic artist David Bunnett came up with the conceptual look of Vermithrax Pejorative, a look that even when not moving was bloody terrifying. With Phil Tippet and company bringing it to life they created one of the most imaginative and distinctly memorable creations in film history, one whose appearance has influenced countless fantasy films that followed.

We get a really electrifying finale.

Stray Observations:

• This is a Disney co-production about a sorcerer’s apprentice but it doesn’t include animated brooms and buckets, talk about a lost opportunity.
• This is the second co-production between Paramount Pictures and Walt Disney Productions, with Robert Altman’s Popeye being the first, and while both films had fantastic production value they also both had poor box office returns.
• If there is a better dragon name out there than Vermithrax Pejorative I haven’t come across it, and it roughly translates as “The Worm of Thrace Which Makes Things Worse” which is even cooler.
• The King’s whole plan behind the lottery was just to buy them time, with the dragon being four centuries old he hoped to outlive it, but who’s to say it wouldn’t live five centuries?
• A family that has a daughter chosen for sacrifice is excused from the lottery for five years, but looking at the size of this kingdom I can’t see how they could provide two sacrifices a year if they continually shrink the pool of eligible families.
• If one’s virginity was a prerequisite to be included in the lottery wouldn’t every maiden in the kingdom be doing her best to get laid? I could see an enterprising young man offering his services in a pinch.

“Want your daughter’s saved from sacrifice? One gold piece and five minutes is all I need.”

The movie does have some flaws, the pacing of the film can be slow at times and some of the characters and their motivations could have been more fleshed out. The noble Princess (Chloe Salaman) sacrificing herself when she learns that she’d be exempt from the lottery all these years, while everyone else lost daughters, could have used a little more screen time, yet the movie does a pretty damn good job of balancing horror and humour in an era when magic was dying and Christianity was on the rise.  Director co-writer Matthew Robbins tackled such topics masterfully and was unafraid to show the darker side of this medieval setting, with moments of brutality and cruelty that added weight to the story. The entire production was buoyed by a fantastic score by Alex North and the bombastic music provide the perfect amount of boost. In conclusion, Dragonslayer is a thrilling adventure film with heart and intelligence and is a must-see for fans of fantasy films, and is also a testament to the power of practical effects and strong storytelling.

Personal Note: I’d rather live in a world with dragons than one with pompous priests going on and on about hellfire and damnation.

The Exorcist III (1990) – Review

There aren’t many sequels out there that completely ignore the events of the previous chapter but John Boorman’s Exorcist II: The Heretic was so bonkers that William Peter Blatty, author of the original book, took it upon himself to helm the third instalment, which he adapted from his book Legion, and proceeded to ignore the idea that Richard Burton’s sweaty priest ever existed.

The film picks up fifteen years after the events of the original The Exorcist, on the anniversary of the death of Father Karras (Jason Miller), with Lieutenant Kinderman (George C. Scott) investigating a series of gruesome murders in Georgetown, murders that have distinct religious overtones that consists of a young boy and a priest being brutally murdered. But it’s when his friend Father Dyer (Ed Flanders) ends up in the hospital that Kinderman begins to discover a connection to a “Patient X” (Jason Miller) in the mental wing of a nearby hospital, who seems to be possessed by an evil force that had tormented the world in the past. What’s interesting about The Exorcist III is that it starts out as your standard police procedural, with Kinderman trying to solve these murders, but we get a left-field turn into the supernatural when this mysterious patient claims to be The Gemini Killer (Brad Dourif), a serial murderer who also died fifteen years ago.  The highlight of the film is the dynamic dialogue between these two.

 

“Well, Kinderman. Have the lambs stopped screaming?”

Unfortunately, the higher-ups at the studio weren’t quite happy with that “simple” premise and were not happy that the film was completely lacking in an “exorcism” and so Blatty was forced to do major re-shoots to amp up the battle of good vs evil, which consisted of shoehorning in an entirely new character, Father Morning (Nicol Williamson), who will become the Lankester Merrin of this film, unfortunately, this character doesn’t fit organically into the plot and his inclusion comes as an interruption to the battle of wills between Kinderman and the Gemini Killer, which should have been the central focus of the film’s climax. On the plus side, these re-shoots involved the return of actor Jason Miller – originally rejected by Blatty due to the man’s poor health due to alcoholism – and the blend of his performance with that of Brad Dourif works surprisingly well, as for its big special effects extravaganza ending, that not so much.

 

“The critics are going to crucify me, aren’t they?”

Stray Observations:

• Lieutenant Kinderman claims that Father Karras was his best friend and that he loved him, which is odd considering that other than a nice piece of banter their relationship was about five to ten minutes long in the previous film.
• Kinderman connects the first victim to the MacNeil exorcism because the young African American boy’s mother was the one who determined that Reagan was speaking backward English, which is not true, in The Exorcist the person who determined the language was a man and who was Caucasian.
• This film has one of the all-time great jump scares, if you’ve seen the movie you know the one I’m talking about.
• When asked how he is able to get in and out of jail without being seen, The Gemini Killer replies, “It’s child’s play” which is a nice nod to Brad Dourif’s iconic role as Chucky in the Child’s Play movies.
• There is a dream sequence where Kinderman seems to be walking through purgatory, with angels organizing souls and sending them to their proper destination and it looks like something out of a Terry Gilliam film.

 

“Mam, I’m sorry, but Heaven Can’t Wait.”

One of the film’s greatest strengths lies in its ability to create a sense of dread and unease through atmospheric tension rather than relying solely on jump scares or excessive gore. Blatty, who also wrote the screenplay based on his own novel, masterfully crafts an eerie ambience, making effective use of shadowy cinematography, haunting music, and subtle yet powerful performances. Standing in for the late great Lee J. Cobb, we have George C. Scott delivering a standout performance as Lieutenant Kinderman, portraying a complex character haunted by personal demons while facing unimaginable horrors. Scott’s commanding presence and nuanced acting lend credibility to the unfolding supernatural events, and his chemistry with the supporting cast enhances the film’s overall quality.

 

Law and Order: Special Supernatural Unit.

This is not to say that The Exorcist III is not without its flaws, the film’s pacing occasionally falters, particularly in the middle act due to those forced additions, and the narrative takes some detours that may confuse or lose the audience’s interest. Additionally, while the movie builds tension effectively, the climax feels somewhat rushed and lacks the same impact as the film’s earlier scenes. Despite these shortcomings, The Exorcist III succeeds in delivering thought-provoking themes and exploring the nature of good and evil in a deeply unsettling manner. The film raises questions about the fragility of faith and the persistence of evil in the world, captivating viewers with its philosophical undertones amidst the terror. Moreover, the film also showcases some truly memorable and genuinely terrifying moments that will leave an indelible impression on horror enthusiasts. The movie’s carefully crafted set pieces and skilful use of practical effects contribute to a number of chilling sequences that are sure to make your skin crawl.

 

I particularly liked the appearance of a certain DC comic book villain.

While this third instalment may not reach the same iconic status as its predecessor, The Exorcist III is a solid horror film in its own right, with a strong performance from George C. Scott, an eerie atmosphere, and some truly chilling moments, not to mention Brad Dourif’s chilling portrayal as this film’s version of the Zodiac Killer, this entry offers up a captivating and disturbing viewing experience for fans of the genre. If you’re a horror aficionado or a fan of the original film. this one is definitely worth a watch.

Exorcist II: The Heretic (1977) – Review

If the idea of seeing the great James Earl Jones in a locust costume sounds appealing then have I got a film for you. As everyone knows, sequels are fairly dodgy propositions as the failures greatly outnumber the success, for every Godfather Part II we have dozens of films like Speed 2 and Highlander II: The Quickening, and it’s in this latter category that we find John Boorman’s Exorcist II: The Heretic, a film that isn’t so much a sequel to the William Friedkin classic as more a dare between creatively twisted individuals.

How do you follow the “Scariest movie of all time?” That is a tough question and a sequel of The Exorcist, director John Boorman decided that attempting to expand upon the terrifying world of demonic possession was the way to go.  This is not an intrinsically bad idea, unfortunately, this particular expansion involved an incoherent mess of a plot that was nothing more than a haphazard collection of nonsensical ideas stitched together without regard for logic or coherence. It feels as if the filmmakers threw random concepts at the wall to see what would stick, sadly, nothing does. Taking place four years after the original, this sequel follows Regan MacNeil (Linda Blair) as she continues to grapple with the trauma of her previous possession, with the aid of Dr. Gene Tuskin (Louise Fletcher), who despite Regan’s claims that she has no memory of the horrifying events of the previous film, she is sure those memories are simply suppressed.

Note: Dr. Gene Tuskin’s psychiatric institute appears to consist of a series of transparent cubicles that allow absolutely no privacy for the patients, which seems rather counterproductive to the whole idea of doctor/patient privilege. This is equivalent to working in a fishbowl.

And exactly what kind of therapy does Dr. Tuskin practice? It seems she developed a device called a “synchronizer” which uses flashing lights and pulsing tones to synchronize a person’s brainwaves which allows them to share memories.  If this sounds insane and about as scientifically realistic as sticking a fork in a light socket to learn about the heat sink of the universe, it’s actually dumber than it sounds and looks even worse in practice. Not only is this premise just a bunch of scientific gobbledygook but it also relies on the patient being able to hypnotize the doctor so that they can sync up in the “dream world.” This is when things go bad, with Dr. Tuskin almost dying during a session and only saved when Father Lamont (Richard Burton) jumps in and syncs up, despite him having absolutely no idea how any of this shit works. That said, the dream battle between Regan and her possessed alter-ego was kind of fun to watch.

 

Why they both felt the need to cop a feel remains a mystery.

However, instead of building upon the psychological terror and supernatural elements that made the original film so memorable, Exorcist II: The Heretic descends into a chaotic mess of pseudo-intellectual mumbo-jumbo and nonsensical dream sequences.  At the centre of this is Boorman’s incomprehensible decision to focus much of the film’s running time on the inexplicably inept priest, Father Phillip Lamont, who is tasked by the Cardinal (Paul Henreid) to investigate the events surrounding the death of Father Lankester Merrin (Max von Sydow).  For this, he embarks on a magical mystery tour of Africa to investigate the origins of Regan’s possession, which leads him on a quest to find Kokumo (James Earl Jones), a person who Father Merrin once saved from the demon Pazuzu, who is also the evil force that’s been giving Regan such a hard time.

 

“Ooh, I wanna take you down to Kokomo.”

Stray Observations:

• It’s hard to believe that the same year James Earl Jones lent his voice to create the iconic villain Darth Vader he also donned a locust costume in one of the most bizarre sequels ever made.
• Lamont keeps a picture of Father Lankester Merrin in his bible and I have to wonder “Is this part of a set of trading cards consisting of Vatican superstars?”
• Casting Nurse Ratched from One Flew of the Cuckoo’s Nest to play the kindly doctor of a psychiatric institute in this film was definitely an interesting choice.
• Regan’s psychic abilities detect a fire in the basement of the institute, which is a good thing because Dr. Tuskin apparently purchased a discount fire prevention system that can’t even detect a raging fire. Mind you, this does lead to Richard Burton flailing feebly at the fire with a stupid crutch, and that is cinematic gold.
• Regan lives in a penthouse apartment that sports a balcony, one that consists of only sporadic guardrails as a safety measure.  This allows a sleepwalking person to conviently walk to their death if needed.
• The constant repeating of the names Kokumo and Pazuzu is not only hilarious but can make for a fun if dangerous drinking game.
• The character of Sharon Spencer, one of the few returning characters from the original film, inexplicably becomes a servant of Pazuzu and gets a rather unfair exit from the franchise.
• Father Lamont briefly succumbing to the allure of “Succubus Regan” is a little off-putting considering this is between an underage girl and a Catholic priest.

 

“Is that a crucifix in your pocket or are you just glad to see me?”

The greatest sin this movie commits is undercutting the sacrifice of Father Damien Karras from the original film.    When Lamont tells Dr. Tuskin, “Your machine has proved scientifically that there’s an ancient demon locked within her!” This means that the sacrifice Karras made was all for not, as the demon is apparently still making its home inside of Regan even after Karras called it into himself before leaping to his death. In fact, this film never even mentions Father Karras, it’s like he didn’t exist and that Father Merrin was the only exorcist to help Regan. This is quite insulting and unforgivable. What this film lacks is a scene where we learn that Chris MacNeil never paid the Catholic Church for the exorcism and that Regan is being repossessed, I know, that’s an old joke but it’s still valid as this whole film is a joke.

 

“Who’s Afraid of Regan MacNeil?”

The script by William Goodhart took a more philosophical and psychological approach, attempting to delve into the nature of evil and the human psyche and while this ambition is commendable the execution left much to be desired as the movie’s plot became tangled up in a web of dream sequences, metaphysical imagery, and weak character development, leaving audiences more puzzled than engrossed. Script issues aside, the performances in this abomination of a film were equally disastrous. Linda Blair, who once portrayed Regan with such conviction, now seems disinterested and detached while on the other end of the spectrum, we have Richard Burton as Father Lamont, who is so absolutely miscast that it’s embarrassing.  His sleepwalks through his lines and fails to inject any semblance of life into his role and that was the nail in the coffin of this entire enterprise.

 

Get used to this vacant look.

Visually, the movie is a disaster as well. The cinematography is uninspired and lacks the atmospheric brilliance of the original and where the special effects were meant to invoke horror and awe, instead, they come across as laughably cheesy and outdated. It’s as if the filmmakers threw any semblance of quality out the window, opting for shoddy production values and uninspired set designs. The film’s attempts at horror are laughable at best because instead of building genuine suspense, it relies on cheap jump scares and tacky special effects that have aged as poorly as Richard Burton’s liver. The once-iconic demonic presence of Pazuzu is reduced to a cartoonish sideshow, eliciting more unintentional laughter than genuine fear.

 

“As God is my witness, I’ll never be possessed again.”

John Boorman’s Exorcist II: The Heretic also suffers from atrocious pacing as the film drags on for what feels like an eternity, with excruciatingly long scenes that serve no purpose other than to further confuse and frustrate the audience. The constant shifts in tone and style are quite jarring, leaving viewers bewildered and desperate for some semblance of coherence. Even the technical aspects of the film were abysmal. The cinematography is uninspired and lacks the atmospheric quality that made the original so haunting. The editing is choppy and disjointed, adding to the overall sense of disarray. It is clear that little effort was put into making this film visually appealing or engaging and seeing the once-great Richard Burton stagger through this movie is a shame.

 

“Could someone order me another round?”

One could accuse this film of being an absolute insult to the intelligence of its audience as it fails to deliver a comprehensive plot and relies on those cheap and predictable jump scares to keep the audience awake, lucky for us, this brings it into the “So bad it’s good” category due to the sheer absurdity of it all, and the attempts at philosophical musings and theological exploration just add to film’s pompous narrative mess and makes this entry laughably shallow and half-hearted as it adds nothing of substance to the overall narrative and certainly no scares. I’d say all of these actors deserve some form of acting award for being able to deliver lines from such a moronic script without bursting out laughing, or at least screaming for their agents. How can you not love such great lines of dialogue as “Pazuzu, king of the evil spirits of the air, help me to find Kokumo!” or one of Lamont’s greatest rebuttals “Don’t hide behind science, you’re better than that!” but the best example has to be when Regan’s newly developed ESP helps an autistic girl talk and she explains to her why she is at the institute.

 

“I was possessed by a demon. Oh, it’s okay. He’s gone.”

In conclusion, Exorcist II: The Heretic is a soul-draining disaster that tarnishes the legacy of its predecessor. It is a muddled, confusing mess of a film, with wooden performances, laughable attempts at horror, and a complete disregard for storytelling. This is a film that failed to capture the spirit of its predecessor and fell victim to a weak script, disjointed narrative, and underwhelming performances. Fans of the original may find some interest in its attempt to expand the mythos, but overall, this sequel disappoints as a standalone film and even worse as a sequel, but for fans of bad movies this is quite a gem.

The Exorcist (1973) – Review

Horror stories can take place in a variety of places, from an isolated cabin in the woods to a Gothic manor full of dark hallways and mystery, but one of the scariest locations in cinema history is that of a 12-year-old girl’s bedroom. Based on William Peter Blatty’s novel of the same name, director William Friedkin takes us on a journey of true horror in The Exorcist, a film that brings terror right to your doorstep.

Set in Georgetown, the story revolves around the possession of a young girl named Regan MacNeil (Linda Blair) who after playing with a Ouija board, and conversing with her invisible friend Captain Howdy, her behaviour becomes increasingly disturbing and her physical health deteriorates at an alarming rate. Needless to say, this greatly concerns her mother, Chris MacNeil (Ellen Burstyn), and after medical science fails at every turn she becomes desperate and seeks help from the church.  This leads her to Catholic priest/psychiatrist Father Damien Karras (Jason Miller) who quickly deduces that this isn’t a case of mental illness but an actual possession. As the intensity of Regan’s demonic possession escalates, Father Karras collaborates with a seasoned exorcist, Father Lankester Merrin (Max von Sydow), to perform a harrowing battle against the demonic forces within her. The winner is anyone’s guess.

 

“In this corner, weighing in at 92 pounds and full of evil.”

The performances in The Exorcist are exceptional, particularly that of Linda Blair as Regan, her portrayal of the possessed young girl is astonishingly convincing as she embodies both innocence and sheer malevolence.  One must tremble thinking of what this young actress had to put up with to pull off that performance. On the adult side of things, Ellen Burstyn delivered a powerful performance as the anguished mother, capturing the desperation and helplessness of a parent confronted with the unimaginable. I think any parent could relate to the pain and suffering of Chris MacNeil as she is forced to watch her daughter become something other than her sweet child. Then on to the big guns with Max von Sydow and Jason Miller both bring depth and gravitas to their roles as battling priests, struggling with their own personal demons, and hats off to Jason Miller for more than holding his own with the legendary Max von Sydow. Fleshing things out are some nice character moments with Karras feeling guilty about leaving his own mother (Vasiliki Maliaros) to die alone and the fun banter between him and Lieutenant Kinderman (Lee J. Cobb), which added a nice amount of humanity to the proceedings.

 

That Kinderman is a movie buff is the gravy on this character.

Stray Observations:

• Is archaeology worth the risk? Going by the movies you are more than likely going to awaken some long-dead evil spirit, which is never good.  In the best-case scenario, you will most likely end up with melting Nazis.
• If I learned anything from watching a horror movie it’s that you should never ever play with a Ouija board, it never ends well and if you don’t end up possessed by some demonic entity it will be probably get one of your friends.
• It should also be taken under advisement that if your child has an imaginary friend there’s an 80% chance it’s actually a ghost or a demonic entity.
• The scenes where Regan is tested at the hospital, such as her arteriogram which results in arterial blood spraying from her neck, are all viscerally terrifying and more disturbing than any of the demonic stuff later in the film.
• The exorcism that Father Merrin performs is the “Rituale Romanum” but there should be four priests, not two, for this procedure as well as a doctor on standby. Do we assume this is because of Catholic church budget cuts?

“Shouldn’t we at least call Doctor Strange?”

One of the film’s most commendable aspects is its ability to create an atmosphere of dread and unease that lingers long after the credits roll. The haunting and unsettling imagery, accompanied by an eerie score, creates an unrelenting sense of tension that keeps viewers on the edge of their seats. The shocking and visceral scenes, including the infamous head-spinning and levitation sequences, are masterfully executed and continue to be the stuff of nightmares and is a testament to the crew involved, especially make-up effects wizard Dick Smith whose transformation of sweet Linda Blair into a vomit spewing hellion is quite amazing. The film’s ability to create an atmosphere of unrelenting terror is unparalleled, from the eerie opening shots to the haunting musical score by Mike Oldfield, the film sets a profoundly unsettling tone that lingers throughout. The cinematography, combined with the effective use of shadows and dim lighting, adds to the sense of dread and suspense, intensifying the horror on screen, but as good as all these visuals are it would all have been for naught if not the brilliant script.
 

The film’s screenplay, written by William Peter Blatty himself, is both intelligent and thought-provoking as it delves into themes of faith, doubt and the existence of evil, raising profound questions about the nature of spirituality and the human condition. While The Exorcist is undeniably a horror film, it goes beyond mere scares and offers a profound exploration of the darker aspects of humanity. Friedkin’s adaptation of Blatty’s novel is notorious for its graphic and disturbing imagery, pushing the boundaries of what was deemed acceptable at the time of its release. The gruesome and shocking scenes of demonic possession, combined with realistic practical effects, continue to shock and unsettle audiences to this day. It’s important to note that the film is not for the faint of heart and contains intense and disturbing content.

“Your mother sews socks in Hell, Karras!”

In conclusion, The Exorcist remains a seminal horror film that has had a lasting impact on the genre and has never been topped. Its chilling atmosphere, outstanding performances, and thought-provoking themes elevate it beyond the realm of your typical scary movie. While its shocking content may be too much for some viewers, those willing to delve into its depths will find a film that is as terrifying as it is intellectually stimulating. Without a doubt, William Friedkin’s The Exorcist is a true classic that will continue to haunt audiences for generations to come, cementing its status as one of the greatest horror films ever made.