What are the most underrated sequels in movie history?
- Thread starter Darth_Pazuzu
- Start date
I agree about The Godfather Part III; while Sofia Coppola is awful, my biggest problem with the movie is the helicopter shoot-out. It reeks of something from a Jerry Bruckheimer movie rather than a Godfather sequence. Otherwise, I thoroughly enjoy it.
I honestly think Star Trek: Insurrection gets a bad rap.
Blade is regarded as the father of the new age of comic book movies, but Blade II is a better movie in every single respect.
I hate to say this, but RoboCop 3 is underrated, and I only say that because of its story potential. There was the capacity for a really good movie in there, and Robert John Burke did a remarkably good job in the suit. The PG-13 rating, the emphasis on appealing to kids, and fucking Frank Miller and Fred Dekker killed it. Getting past the horrific stuff in the movie, there's a lot of good material: A fantastic Poledouris score, performances of Burke and John Castle, Rip Torn chewing up the screen, and robot ninjas. Seriously, robot ninjas. That's, like, the definition of stupid fun.
I honestly think Star Trek: Insurrection gets a bad rap.
Blade is regarded as the father of the new age of comic book movies, but Blade II is a better movie in every single respect.
I hate to say this, but RoboCop 3 is underrated, and I only say that because of its story potential. There was the capacity for a really good movie in there, and Robert John Burke did a remarkably good job in the suit. The PG-13 rating, the emphasis on appealing to kids, and fucking Frank Miller and Fred Dekker killed it. Getting past the horrific stuff in the movie, there's a lot of good material: A fantastic Poledouris score, performances of Burke and John Castle, Rip Torn chewing up the screen, and robot ninjas. Seriously, robot ninjas. That's, like, the definition of stupid fun.
Ahhh, John Castle, he was the OCP security contractor's CO who gave off strong Jason Isaac vibes on RoboCop 3, one of few the redeemable aspects of that putrid movie.
I can understand the dislike and disappointment for At World's End, which didn't show nearly enough of Davy Jones, Jack Sparrow, and even Lord Becket, wheeling out Chun Yow-Fat and a washed up rock star for no real reason, with 80 minutes of little happening, more whiney angst and pompous misery, less ironic thrills or fun and most character deaths being anti-climatic.
Dead Man's Chest was an eyebrow raising runaround, but had far more charm and didn't vanish up it's own backside like At World's End did, so doesn't deserve half the scorn thrown at it.
Dead Man's Chest was an eyebrow raising runaround, but had far more charm and didn't vanish up it's own backside like At World's End did, so doesn't deserve half the scorn thrown at it.
^I was a particularly vehement critic of Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End when it first came out. The more I watch it though, the more I think that it simply suffered from sequel preconceptions. After Dead Man's Chest, I had some very specific ideas about what I wanted to see in the follow-up. At World's End did not fulfill any of my preconceptions. I agree that Chow Yun Fat was sadly wasted as Sao Feng. (I mean, he didn't even do any fighting.
) I also agree that they just kinda killed off Admiral Norrington & Governor Swan for no reason. The resolution of the Will/Elizabeth romance is a bit of a downer for such a popcorn franchise. Lord Beckett is kind of a lame big bad and absolutely shrinks next to such towering British character actors as Billy Nighy, Jonathan Pryce, & Geoffrey Rush. The giant pirate & Royal Navy fleets assembled at the final battle don't do any fighting. The Calypso sub-plot goes nowhere. Much of the rest of the plot is confusing as hell and suddenly brings in a lot of new elements that weren't even hinted at in Dead Man's Chest.
However, the more accustomed I get to those portions, the more I enjoy the rest of it. Orlando Bloom has really come into his own as an actor by this installment. Johnny Depp is fantastic as ever. It's great having Captain Barbossa back as a good guy. Keira Knightley's leg gets the award for sexiest performance by a single appendage. And, of course, if you enjoy nothing else, there is the maelstrom sequence at the end, the biggest, greatest action scene ever committed to film.
Return of the Jedi is probably the most uneven of all of the Star Wars films. The Ewoks are a bit too cutesy. Harrison Ford is clearly phoning it in while Carrie Fisher is obviously stoned out of her mind. There's not really a clear reason why they even bothered to bring C-3PO & R2-D2 on the Endor mission.
However, it has a few good points. Mark Hamill gives his best performance of the entire trilogy. The space battle was the greatest space battle ever filmed (up until the Battle of Coruscant in Revenge of the Sith). The Jabba the Hutt sequence is excellent. The Luke/Vader/Emperor scenes are excellent.
I haven't seen it in ages but I do remember that I liked Return of Jafar a lot better than all of my friends did when it came out.
But I thought that Toy Story 2 was pretty universally beloved. Heck, it made a lot more money than the 1st one.
Some of my most underrated sequels:
The Scorpion King. The Mummy is a decent Indiana Jones rip-off. The Mummy Returns is kind of a mess. The Scorpion King is the ultimate guy's movie. It's 90 minutes of the Rock kicking ass. It even has a harem!
I have a nostalgic soft spot for Star Trek: Generations, Star Trek: Insurrection, & Star Trek: Nemesis. They all had some pretty bad moments but the production values are very good and it's just nice seeing the old gang together again.
When the Back to the Future DVD set came out a few years ago, I realized that the TV promos used almost no footage at all from Back to the Future, Part III. IMO, all 3 movies in the trilogy are great. I can never really pick a favorite. They've been such a part of my life that they're almost family. They each have their strengths. Part I is the funniest entry. Part II is a break-neck adventure that hits the ground running & doesn't let up even after it ends. Part III has the most heart & character growth. But while Parts I & II are generally recognized for their genius, Part III seems to get overlooked. That's just a shame.
I had a great deal of fun watching Ghostbusters 2. I don't know why Columbia hasn't put any effort into doing any bonus features for this one.
Actually, I've only seen Gremlins 2, never the 1st one.
Shanghai Knights had a much stronger plot than Shanghai Noon.
Another franchise where it's hard for me to pick a favorite is Indiana Jones (except to the extent that my answer is, "NOT The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull"). However, I agree that Indiana Jones & the Temple of Doom often gets the short end of the stick. I actually think this movie is the most successful one in recreating the feel of those old, kinda Euro-centric 1930s serials.
The Lost World: Jurassic Park is far scarier & far more intense than Jurassic Park. The transitions between animatronic & CGI dinosaurs are seamless. The cinematography is better. The body count is higher. It's only flaw is that stupid San Diego ending.
The Matrix Revolutions aspired to be something far deeper & more important than the pop cyberpunk of the original film. In my opinion (if no one else's), it succeeded.
The Chronicles of Riddick is certainly a radical departure from Pitch Black. However, taken on its own terms, The Chronicles of Riddick sets up a very interesting sci-fi universe that needs to be further explored.
) I also agree that they just kinda killed off Admiral Norrington & Governor Swan for no reason. The resolution of the Will/Elizabeth romance is a bit of a downer for such a popcorn franchise. Lord Beckett is kind of a lame big bad and absolutely shrinks next to such towering British character actors as Billy Nighy, Jonathan Pryce, & Geoffrey Rush. The giant pirate & Royal Navy fleets assembled at the final battle don't do any fighting. The Calypso sub-plot goes nowhere. Much of the rest of the plot is confusing as hell and suddenly brings in a lot of new elements that weren't even hinted at in Dead Man's Chest.However, the more accustomed I get to those portions, the more I enjoy the rest of it. Orlando Bloom has really come into his own as an actor by this installment. Johnny Depp is fantastic as ever. It's great having Captain Barbossa back as a good guy. Keira Knightley's leg gets the award for sexiest performance by a single appendage. And, of course, if you enjoy nothing else, there is the maelstrom sequence at the end, the biggest, greatest action scene ever committed to film.
Return of the Jedi is probably the most uneven of all of the Star Wars films. The Ewoks are a bit too cutesy. Harrison Ford is clearly phoning it in while Carrie Fisher is obviously stoned out of her mind. There's not really a clear reason why they even bothered to bring C-3PO & R2-D2 on the Endor mission.
However, it has a few good points. Mark Hamill gives his best performance of the entire trilogy. The space battle was the greatest space battle ever filmed (up until the Battle of Coruscant in Revenge of the Sith). The Jabba the Hutt sequence is excellent. The Luke/Vader/Emperor scenes are excellent.
I haven't seen it in ages but I do remember that I liked Return of Jafar a lot better than all of my friends did when it came out.
But I thought that Toy Story 2 was pretty universally beloved. Heck, it made a lot more money than the 1st one.
Some of my most underrated sequels:
The Scorpion King. The Mummy is a decent Indiana Jones rip-off. The Mummy Returns is kind of a mess. The Scorpion King is the ultimate guy's movie. It's 90 minutes of the Rock kicking ass. It even has a harem!
I have a nostalgic soft spot for Star Trek: Generations, Star Trek: Insurrection, & Star Trek: Nemesis. They all had some pretty bad moments but the production values are very good and it's just nice seeing the old gang together again.
When the Back to the Future DVD set came out a few years ago, I realized that the TV promos used almost no footage at all from Back to the Future, Part III. IMO, all 3 movies in the trilogy are great. I can never really pick a favorite. They've been such a part of my life that they're almost family. They each have their strengths. Part I is the funniest entry. Part II is a break-neck adventure that hits the ground running & doesn't let up even after it ends. Part III has the most heart & character growth. But while Parts I & II are generally recognized for their genius, Part III seems to get overlooked. That's just a shame.
I had a great deal of fun watching Ghostbusters 2. I don't know why Columbia hasn't put any effort into doing any bonus features for this one.
Actually, I've only seen Gremlins 2, never the 1st one.
Shanghai Knights had a much stronger plot than Shanghai Noon.
Another franchise where it's hard for me to pick a favorite is Indiana Jones (except to the extent that my answer is, "NOT The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull"). However, I agree that Indiana Jones & the Temple of Doom often gets the short end of the stick. I actually think this movie is the most successful one in recreating the feel of those old, kinda Euro-centric 1930s serials.
The Lost World: Jurassic Park is far scarier & far more intense than Jurassic Park. The transitions between animatronic & CGI dinosaurs are seamless. The cinematography is better. The body count is higher. It's only flaw is that stupid San Diego ending.
The Matrix Revolutions aspired to be something far deeper & more important than the pop cyberpunk of the original film. In my opinion (if no one else's), it succeeded.
The Chronicles of Riddick is certainly a radical departure from Pitch Black. However, taken on its own terms, The Chronicles of Riddick sets up a very interesting sci-fi universe that needs to be further explored.
Isn't that a widely-held opinion? It's like the best-reviewed movie on Rotten Tomatoes, I've always considered it easily superior to the first one.
My own choices:
- X-Men 3 and Spider-Man 3; two threequels that have been widely derided, but I think they're on the whole good, if flawed, films (they have the common flaw of trying to do too much).
- The Pirates of the Caribbean sequels, which I love almost as much as the original.
AWE should've been more leaner and meaner, with Sparrow seen killing the Kraken through almost sheer fluke, for example, while cutting the Shanghai and pirate island bits out, and compressing the first 70 minutes.
I dunno, I thought Lord Beckett's death had a surprising emotional impact and Tom Hollander is of, IMO, the same acting calliber as Pryce, Nighy or Rush, but is not playing a larger than life character at all like Barbossa or Davy Jones, but instead an imperious technocrat who just wants to do business, having little time for mumbo-jumbo and pirates. In his estate and onboard his EITC flagship his offices strongly resembles the popular Napoleoic boardgame, Risk.
We should've seen more scenes of the Royal Navy and EITC's private navy taking out pirate shipping (often without the help of the Flying Dutchman) while having the red coats of the Royale Marines and the blue coats of the EITC mercenaries jumbled in together when we see Becket's forces (we could also have a Royale Navy High Admiral breathing down his neck, threatening to cut the license for the East Indian Trading Company in the Caribbean).
Like the Calypso sea goddess.
I found him quite flat, even though he has improved a lot.
I thought he was wasted somewhat, but I loved the bit on the ship where there are multiple copies of him crewing the immobile Black Pearl, while he is literally going nuts.
Last edited:
My pet theory about that is that that's what's actually going on inside Jack's head ALL THE TIME, even before he died.
In the first post, I had listed Ridley Scott's Hannibal (2001) as one of my favorite underrated sequels. I really like this particular film a lot, because it has a more epic feel to it and widens the characters' universe considerably. It's also extremely baroque and perverse, although not without its own (admittedly warped) moral compass!
True, Julianne Moore isn't Jodie Foster, but her performance as Clarice Starling is still terrific in its own right. Gary Oldman is excellent as the warped, disfigured Mason Verger - particularly when he first comes face to face with the captive Dr. Lecter and gives a biology lesson on his pet boars, counting exactly how many of each kind of teeth they have! Ray Liotta is perfection as the smarmy, corrupt Paul Krendler, and he lends a welcome dose of goofy humor to counteract the gruesomeness of the infamous final dinner scene. And then of course there's Anthony Hopkins in the title role! Granted, there's sometimes a little too much ham in his performance, and I could have done without at least one "okey-dokey!" But these are minor complaints - petty trifles, really.
I think it's really quite telling that after the so-so reception of this long-awaited sequel to the Academy Award-nominated The Silence Of The Lambs (1991), the producers almost immediately decided to do something that was stylistically more in line with Silence, opting to do a prequel in adapting Harris' first Lecter novel Red Dragon. Granted, Red Dragon (2002) isn't bad at all (I mean, how could it be with Edward Norton in the lead?), but I thought it was done perfectly alright the first time around by Michael Mann with Manhunter (1986), thank you very much.
And as far as Hannibal Rising (2007) is concerned...well, suffice to say I really can't remember all that much about it, really! (And that's never a good sign...)
True, Julianne Moore isn't Jodie Foster, but her performance as Clarice Starling is still terrific in its own right. Gary Oldman is excellent as the warped, disfigured Mason Verger - particularly when he first comes face to face with the captive Dr. Lecter and gives a biology lesson on his pet boars, counting exactly how many of each kind of teeth they have! Ray Liotta is perfection as the smarmy, corrupt Paul Krendler, and he lends a welcome dose of goofy humor to counteract the gruesomeness of the infamous final dinner scene. And then of course there's Anthony Hopkins in the title role! Granted, there's sometimes a little too much ham in his performance, and I could have done without at least one "okey-dokey!" But these are minor complaints - petty trifles, really.
I think it's really quite telling that after the so-so reception of this long-awaited sequel to the Academy Award-nominated The Silence Of The Lambs (1991), the producers almost immediately decided to do something that was stylistically more in line with Silence, opting to do a prequel in adapting Harris' first Lecter novel Red Dragon. Granted, Red Dragon (2002) isn't bad at all (I mean, how could it be with Edward Norton in the lead?), but I thought it was done perfectly alright the first time around by Michael Mann with Manhunter (1986), thank you very much.
And as far as Hannibal Rising (2007) is concerned...well, suffice to say I really can't remember all that much about it, really! (And that's never a good sign...)
Star Wars: Return of the Jedi
No, I did not like the Ewoks but other then that I quite enjoyed the movie and thought the ending and closure it brought was fine.
Star Wars: The Phantom Menace
Now, it has been a while since I saw it but from what I can remember it had some very good points. The fight with Darth Maul for instance, the opening fighting scene on the ship.
It was to an extent spoiled by little boy wonder and Jar Jar.
Star Trek:Generations
This one I actually really like. It captured the feeling of the show very well; I enjoyed the storyline and for me it just worked.
They could have made more of the fact they had Kirk there. But other then that, I enjoyed this movie a lot.
No, I did not like the Ewoks but other then that I quite enjoyed the movie and thought the ending and closure it brought was fine.
Star Wars: The Phantom Menace
Now, it has been a while since I saw it but from what I can remember it had some very good points. The fight with Darth Maul for instance, the opening fighting scene on the ship.
It was to an extent spoiled by little boy wonder and Jar Jar.
Star Trek:Generations
This one I actually really like. It captured the feeling of the show very well; I enjoyed the storyline and for me it just worked.
They could have made more of the fact they had Kirk there. But other then that, I enjoyed this movie a lot.
I quite agree with suarezguy's above comments. I always thought Indiana Jones And The Temple Of Doom was a great film, and quite a funny one too (in places, that is)!
I also agree with the statement that The Matrix Reloaded was on par with the original Matrix. But when discussing the sequels, I think a lot of people lose sight of the fact that Reloaded and Revolutions together constitute one great big 4 & 1/2-hour epic film. So what's with all the hate for Revolutions? Did it just not end in a viscerally satisfying enough manner for mainstream audiences, and where they hoping for a simpler, more black-and-white, Manichean finish with mankind permanently crushing the machines? Well, if so, that would be kind of a betrayal of one of the trilogy's thematic preoccupations, namely the relationship between humanity and machines and how our own spirituality fits into the equation. Not to mention the fact that humans will always use - and always need - machines, be they simple or complex. Or were people just simply hoping for the thing to go out with a loud bang? Or did they just get the point and simply have a problem with the Wachowskis' execution?
And how does everybody else feel about Ridley Scott's Hannibal? (See my comments above)
I also agree with the statement that The Matrix Reloaded was on par with the original Matrix. But when discussing the sequels, I think a lot of people lose sight of the fact that Reloaded and Revolutions together constitute one great big 4 & 1/2-hour epic film. So what's with all the hate for Revolutions? Did it just not end in a viscerally satisfying enough manner for mainstream audiences, and where they hoping for a simpler, more black-and-white, Manichean finish with mankind permanently crushing the machines? Well, if so, that would be kind of a betrayal of one of the trilogy's thematic preoccupations, namely the relationship between humanity and machines and how our own spirituality fits into the equation. Not to mention the fact that humans will always use - and always need - machines, be they simple or complex. Or were people just simply hoping for the thing to go out with a loud bang? Or did they just get the point and simply have a problem with the Wachowskis' execution?
And how does everybody else feel about Ridley Scott's Hannibal? (See my comments above)
I have to agree here as well. Exorcist II was dung, whereas Exorcist III was a great film and very underrated IMO. That was a movie based on the novel Legion by the original author, William Peter Blatty ( who also directed I believe) , which was the only true follow-up to The Exorcist. Great film. In fact I loved it so much, I went to a horror convention once just to meet Brad Dourif.
I'd recommend those novels BTW. Both of them great reads for those who haven't picked them up (The Exorcist and Legion).
-Rabittooth
Agreed, absolutely. I'm a big fan of Blatty and The Exorcist films.
But once again - not to be a nag or anything - but I'm starting to feel like people are talking past me. What about the Matrix sequels and Ridley Scott's Hannibal? (See my comments in my above two posts)
Look, I'll make you a deal: I'll let you know what I think of The Exorcist III if you let me know what you think of the ones I've just mentioned!
But once again - not to be a nag or anything - but I'm starting to feel like people are talking past me. What about the Matrix sequels and Ridley Scott's Hannibal? (See my comments in my above two posts)
Look, I'll make you a deal: I'll let you know what I think of The Exorcist III if you let me know what you think of the ones I've just mentioned!
Agreed, absolutely. I'm a big fan of Blatty and The Exorcist films.
But once again - not to be a nag or anything - but I'm starting to feel like people are talking past me. What about the Matrix sequels and Ridley Scott's Hannibal? (See my comments in my above two posts)
Look, I'll make you a deal: I'll let you know what I think of The Exorcist III if you let me know what you think of the ones I've just mentioned!
For my part, I think of The Matrix as one big film with three parts like Lord of the Rings, so I don't really critique them individually (however I like the Reloaded installment the best for the awesome fight scenes).Hannibal I hated because of the changes to the plot from the book. I know...people believe that the Clarice character would NEVER end up involved with Lecter, but I am convinced that those are folks who did not read the novel. If you read the book, you see how it happened. Feel how it happened.
I think they should have at least tried to capture the stuff in the novel, but they didn't. Even the brain eating scene didn't contain the emotional impact that it did in the book.
I know it's a tough transition from novel to the screen, but it seems they didn't really try.
Red Dragon, however, was a VERY acceptable screen version of the novel. Pretty well done.
-Rabittooth
^I'd be happy to weigh in on Hannibal except that I have never seen it nor any of the other Hannibal Lecter movies.
I don't think it was simply a problem with execution. I liked The Matrix Revolutions and was just about the only one of my friends at the time who did. And I know that none of them got the point of it. Or at least, they didn't get the same point that I did. Personally, I think they were trying to impose too much of a Christian interpretation on the film. Since I have had a broader philosophical exposure, particularly to the classical Greeks, I think I had an easier time absorbing the movie as concepts instead of a direct 1:1 allegory.
The way I saw it, the movie was ultimately about the defeat of Agent Smith's nihilism & desire to destroy/absorb everything. Neo represented the best in humanity, the desire to keep on going for the sake of going.
I think that most people were expecting a more literal, definitive conclusion with mankind achieving a clear victory over the machines. They were expecting Star Wars or The Lord of the Rings, not something so philosophical & ambiguous.
I don't think it was simply a problem with execution. I liked The Matrix Revolutions and was just about the only one of my friends at the time who did. And I know that none of them got the point of it. Or at least, they didn't get the same point that I did. Personally, I think they were trying to impose too much of a Christian interpretation on the film. Since I have had a broader philosophical exposure, particularly to the classical Greeks, I think I had an easier time absorbing the movie as concepts instead of a direct 1:1 allegory.
The way I saw it, the movie was ultimately about the defeat of Agent Smith's nihilism & desire to destroy/absorb everything. Neo represented the best in humanity, the desire to keep on going for the sake of going.
I think that most people were expecting a more literal, definitive conclusion with mankind achieving a clear victory over the machines. They were expecting Star Wars or The Lord of the Rings, not something so philosophical & ambiguous.
Those of you who have already read my earlier comments regarding Exorcist II: The Heretic (1977) already know where I stand, so I won't give a rehash of my thoughts on that.
William Peter Blatty's own The Exorcist III (1990), based on his own 1983 novel Legion, is a pretty good film for the most part, and really quite chilling in places. I particularly thought the hospital corridor scene with the character of Nurse Keating was well-executed!
However...I don't think it's a perfect film, and on its own terms I don't think it's as effective as either William Friedkin's The Exorcist or John Boorman's The Heretic. In the first place, Blatty was forced by the studio to re-cut the film and tack on a final exorcism sequence against his better judgment. (On the upside, however, Blatty got to work with one of his favorite actors, Nicol Williamson as exorcist Father Morning. FYI, Williamson was actually Blatty's first choice to play the role of Colonel Kane in his 1979 thriller The Ninth Configuration before ultimately casting Stacy Keach!)
But an even greater problem, in my opinion, is the splitting of the Patient X/Gemini/Karras role between two different actors, Brad Dourif and Jason Miller. At first Dourif was supposed to play the role (not as the face of killer James Vennamun, but as the possessed Father Karras). But then apparently the studio decided they wanted the more familiar face of Jason Miller from the first film, so audiences would better recognize the character. Blatty agreed, but he also didn't want to sacrifice Dourif's performance, so then he split the role of Patient X between that of Karras (Miller) and Vennamun (Dourif). While the audience first sees the face of Jason Miller, presumably to establish that this indeed is the possessed form of Father Karras, suddenly and shockingly the face changes to that of Brad Dourif. ("No, I am not! I'm alive!! I go on! I breathe!!")
While on one hand it's an interesting device to have Lt. Kinderman (George C. Scott) see a man who looks like Damien Karras while the audience sees the face of James Vennamun, in a way Blatty sort of undermines his own material. Presumably the audience is supposed to experience the events from the perspective of Kinderman, as he starts out as an unbeliever and slowly but surely starts to believe that there are demonic forces at work. But by in effect "privileging" the audience with the visage of Dourif as the Gemini Killer, Blatty sort of breaks the fourth wall and has the killer almost speaking directly at us while shifting the perspective away from that of Kinderman! After Dourif delivers the gory details of exactly how he murdered Father Dyer (Ed Flanders) ("Now that's what I call showmanship, Lieutenant! But then of course, no one notices. Pearls before sw..."), Kinderman abruptly smashes him in the face and busts his nose. And it's quite a sudden shock to the audience, because we've been so mesmerized by Dourif's performance up to that point that when Kinderman slaps him, we're like "Oh yeah, that's right! Kinderman was in the room, wasn't he?"
I'm probably not alone when I say that Brad Dourif's performance as the evil Gemini Killer, James Vennamun, is a great one. While indeed sadistic and cold-blooded, Dourif imbues the Gemini with a good deal of layering and nuance, and he modulates the delivery of his lines just enough so that his monologues never get boring! But in a strange sort of way, it's Jason Miller's performance as Vennamun (when we first enter the cell) that's even more unsettling. When the Gemini delivers the whole story of how he killed a young girl named Karen (which never made the newspapers), every word uttered by Miller feels so chillingly, spine-tinglingly wrong because it's coming from the lips of the man who selflessly sacrificed himself by throwing himself out a window at the end of the first Exorcist! ("I picked her up in Richmond...and then I dropped her off...at the city dump! Some of her...some of her I kept. I'm a saver! Pretty dress she was wearing...little peasant blouse...pink and white ruffles. I still hear from her occasionally...screaming! I think the dead should shut up unless there's something to say." Which then of course begs the question from the audience: "And what have you to say, dead man?")
A major part of the problem with The Exorcist III, however, is the fact that Blatty was forced by circumstance to make The Exorcist III and not a more direct, straightforward adaptation of his novel Legion. Like I stated earlier, the story is about the character of Detective Kinderman's progress from unbelief in God to ultimately believing in the existence of evil spirits (much the way the original Exorcist was about Father Karras's almost identical journey). But when the story is a sequel to an earlier horror film, the audience is already clued-in to what's really going on and has no problem making that leap. In fact, they're already way ahead of Kinderman and quite frankly, they may be impatiently waiting for him to catch up! And then when you add the aforementioned "splitting" of Patient X between two different actors - one whose face Kinderman sees and one whose face the audience sees - and the end result feels somewhat...off, somehow.
Mind you, I think The Exorcist III is certainly a decent film, but it probably would have worked a lot better if Blatty had been allowed to make Legion and not have to make his story conform to the studio (Morgan Creek)'s expectations of what a sequel to The Exorcist should be.
Last edited:
Agreed. More American Graffiti had the impossible task of following one the best American movies ever made. (And the most profitable percentagewise of any movie shot on film).
While the original told us what ultimately happened to each character, it was still great spending time with the characters and watching them head toward their fates.
The weakest parts of MAG were the 1967 segments shot in multi-frame. I wish they'd re-edit the film and make Debbie's segment visually more traditional. The psychedelic-feel approach just didn't work.
Also, too bad Richard Dreyfuss' career had taken off so fast that he didn't sign on for MAG.
--Ted
I will list a few not mentioned.
"Devil's Rejects"=Great horror movie. Loved the sherrif character in the movie.
"Kingdom of the Crystal Skull"=I think it's the best Indiana Jones movie of them all.
Clerks II=Nice followup that doesn't just repeat the first movie. Seeing Gen X characters dealing with the fact that they are getting older is something I can relate to. I hope they do a Clerks III someday and we see how they are adjusting to being 40 plus years old.
Texasville=Like Clerks II and Crystal Skull it deals with a theme I love in movies and that is seeing a established character dealing with the passage of time. Helps that it has some good music and Annie Potts in her best role.
Jason
"Devil's Rejects"=Great horror movie. Loved the sherrif character in the movie.
"Kingdom of the Crystal Skull"=I think it's the best Indiana Jones movie of them all.
Clerks II=Nice followup that doesn't just repeat the first movie. Seeing Gen X characters dealing with the fact that they are getting older is something I can relate to. I hope they do a Clerks III someday and we see how they are adjusting to being 40 plus years old.
Texasville=Like Clerks II and Crystal Skull it deals with a theme I love in movies and that is seeing a established character dealing with the passage of time. Helps that it has some good music and Annie Potts in her best role.
Jason
Toy Story 2 is to this day one of the top 3 pixar movies