A new documentary, BOORMAN AND THE DEVIL/’25 (not seen here), now hunting a distributor, takes a look at what went wrong with the sequel to THE EXORCIST. (Spoiler Alert: Everything!) So, what better time to size up this universally reviled flop? Hollywood’s top example of self-inflicted ‘franchise-icide’ till JOKER: FOLIE À DEUX came along.* Would it seem better now? Nah, still plenty lousy. But reaction currently leans more toward sorrow than anger. Quite the opposite of FOLIE. Director John Boorman must have envisioned a different kind of exorcism since the problem doesn’t concern Catholic believers, but possessed locusts! (The director working thru his nuttiest period: ZARDOZ/ ‘74 just before; EXCALIBUR/’81 just after. Possessed child Linda Blair returns, still with Satanic induced mental troubles (did the Devil also supply the chipmunk cheeks?) and therapist Louise Fletcher playing surrogate mom/hypnotism partner. Plus a priestly confused Richard Burton, briefly restored to acting legitimacy via EQUUS on stage & film, as the Pope’s Exorcist, tasked with taking care of unfinished business from the last film. After the DOA opening, Boorman quickly came up with a new cut (about a reel shorter in spite of clarifying additions*), the cut going round now is the original 1'57". But since this is misconceived from the get-go. how could it make any difference?
DOUBLE-BILL/LINK: *Where this is merely a tax write-off, a conceptual mistake, that JOKER sequel spoils the original . . . for those who liked it. https://maksquibs.blogspot.com/2025/07/joker-folie-deux-2024.html
ATTENTION MUST BE PAID: *Maybe Boorman got it shorter by cutting Linda Blair’s musical comedy numbers. They’re the scariest things in here.
No comments:
Post a Comment