Good News, Everyone! We've Watched Them All!

With Dominion and The Beginning behind us (not to mention some colossal delays because of yours truly), we've come to the end of the Exorcist series.  In some ways, I feels this may be one of the more divisive series as far as House of Sequels consensus goes.  Some films that I thought would have been an easy perfect score (the original) didn't make it, and I totally cock blocked (to Maire and Salty's surprise) II from the dreaded shitpickle.  That's what makes this series (and this project) so interesting, though.

We all get different things out of films.  Some of us obsess over directors and camera angles.  Some of us are obsessive gorehounds.  Some of us love awful acting and cheap sets.  And that's all ok.  The beauty of horror is that we can all come together and discuss what we like, what we don't like, and the community is always better for the conversation.  

The Exorcist series has everything.  It has pure, classic horror.  It has hokey 80's sentiments.  It has beautiful characters that are in every film.  And, it has shitpickles.  But, the fact that 3 humble students of the craft can't come together and tell you which is the best is a testament to not only how diverse the series is, it's also a monument to how awesome the horror community as a whole can be.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go eat some pea soup.


Franchise Ranking

The Exorcist	☆☆☆☆
The Exorcist III	☆☆☆☆
Exorcist II: The Heretic	☆
Exorcist: The Beginning
Dominion: The Prequel to the Exorcist

The Exorcist: The Beginning / Dominion (The Same, Yet Different)

Maire says:
Since these two movies are the same, yet different (just like you and me!), you get a two for one review! If you were not aware, these two films were shot simultaneously, so, I can only believe, there’d be a failsafe if one was completely terrible. The problem is, they’re both horrible.

And on to the plot!

Ah yes, the ol’ let’s-just-dig-up-this-thing-that-was-obviously-buried-for-a-reason-because-there-certainly-won’t-be-any-ill-effects plot device.

• Hmm, this centuries old tomb surely is structurally sound. Oh wait, OH NO!!!

• Ah yes, excavating this buried temple in a remote part of Africa is definitely a good idea. Pazuzu-who?    

Of course hilarity ensues.

If I had to pick, The Beginning is better than Dominion if only for the crazy homicidal kid. There are some seriously effed up deaths caused by this kid. It’s kinda great! Also, it has much less lame-o Pazuzu. Granted that’s not saying much. Pazuzu is still in there a lot, but he’s just not as lame as in Dominion.
 
That last paragraph may have the titles confused, but since none of us want to rewatch either, you'll just have to take my word for it.

Corey says:

If one of my compatriots didn't talk about how these films got made, or if you don't know, go ahead and read up.  I'll wait here.

Got it?  Ok, good.

These films run together in my mind, mainly due to the fact that they share so much of the same footage.  Now, that doesn't necessarily mean that they are bad films.  They are awful on their own merit.  One (don't ask me which one is which) has terrible cgi dogs, or wolves, or something.  It also has the British military doing what they do best: treating colonists like dirt.  And, it has a sexy female lead who ends up being the possessed.

Quick aside.  Dear not-at-this-point-in-time Father Merrin:  Just bang the hot chick.  You get some sweet action, and the fans get to see some boobage.  For real, more skin would have maybe at least kept me from wishing I was watching anything with Ray Romano in it.  Maybe.

The other film has a bunch of scenes with Nazis and Jews that totally make sense, a possessed kid, and the return of our old friend Pazuzu! Well, to be fair, I don't remember if both films had Pazuzu, but I think it was only the one.  Also, the church buried in the desert was cooler looking in this one (I think).

There is one scene that both films share, though.  One diamond in the rough.  One shining moment of cinematic brilliance that will rouse you from you drinking game induced haze.  

A baby. Born stillborn. Covered in maggots.  And it looked AWESOME.

So kudos, whichever director filmed that bit! Not only did you film the coolest scene in these train wrecks, it made it into both films!

Salty says:
When the House of Sequels was first conceived, I thought it would be cool if every post that I did was positive about the movie, and that even if I didn’t like it, I would try at least to make my response fun or entertaining – I just want to amiably agree to disagree with fans of each bad film - because, as a fan of horror, I have to be willing to accept criticism about the movies I love, but I find it a little offensive the negative reviews are malicious, not to mention a waste of my time. Who wants to read about someone ranting about something that they hate? (No one, Internet, no one wants to listen to you rant about things you hate) So, I at least tried to make my reviews for The Heretic and Psycho (’98) sort of fun in the way I pick on them, but these Exorcist sequels are really making it hard for me.

We at the House of Sequels watched Dominion last in the franchise and I was prepared, if not expecting, to like it much more than The Beginning. After all, I like Paul Schrader (I own Taxi Driver and Bringing Out The Dead and I really like both movies and I have been trying to track down a copy of the mysteriously hard to find Rolling Thunder for a while), but Dominion is bad, and if I were a producer on the movie and I saw the dailies, I would have fired him too. I know that’s harsh, but this movie is just a failure.

I give it credit for trying to do something unique with the series (something that The Exorcist franchise does have to its credit is a very, very diverse set of films, and they kill a kid, which is a filmmaking move I respect because the moment you kill a kid in your movie you know that a part of the audience just checks out). That said, I just don’t understand what this movie is going for. Why anyone would want to make it or most importantly, why I would want to watch it? If you have a reason to like it let me know (and I mean really like it, not I like it because it sucks so bad it’s funny), I would be genuinely interested to hear it

As for the other film, I can’t lie; I went into The Exorcist: The Beginning expecting it to be terrible and it was and is. Why does The Exorcist need this many sequels? Because it’s a bankable title, I get that and respect it, but, at the same time, the film doesn't lend itself to follow-ups. Taking into consideration the way the story of the original plays out, I just think that it is much harder to make a likeable follow up than it would be to make one for say Nightmare on Elm Street (which I think gives additional credence to very likable The Exorcist III). Doesn’t the fact that this film is a prequel already suggest that there is little room for movement in the series?

As if the beginnings of the film weren’t precarious enough, add fact that the film is a salvage.  It's a picture cut partway through production given to the credited director to save it from being a turd, and I am not saying that you can’t polish a turd into an acceptable product, but I am saying that if you polish a turd with a bunch of bad CG and swap out some of your actors, you are going to get a shiny turn with a bunch of bad CG hyenas and some different actors.

The only really great part about The Beginning is that after reviewing it with Dominion, we here at the House of Sequels don’t have to review anymore Exorcist movies.

Maire	Corey	Salty
☆	☆	☆

The Exorcist III: Legion

Corey says:
So, this took forever to put up, and it's my fault.  Salty made me say this.  He's got me locked up, please help!

Maire says:

If you must watch a sequel to any movie, watch Legion (its true title). It’s really good. Like at the top of my list of favorite movies good. In fact, I’m gonna go check it out from the library again now. 

Perhaps I was biased after seeing II. Perhaps I blanked that reference to Pazuzu at the end, cos let’s face it, it shouldn’t have been there anyway. Or perhaps I have an untold affinity for long staircases. But I really enjoyed this movie. It kept a good amount of creepiness with just the right amount of crazy. Kinda like Cabin in the Woods did. And it’s got George C. Scott! And Brad Dourif! And Samuel L Jackson! And Larry King! And C. Everett Coop! C’mon!

Corey says:
Ah, poor Dimmy.  He had all those mommy issues, had to watch a respected and loved priest croak, and then threw himself out of a window after inducing a cross-masturbating pea soup spewing demon to transfer from a poor peeing girl’s body to his own.  That seems like enough torment for a lifetime, right?  RIGHT?  Oh, no.  Turns out ol’ Father Karras didn’t croak after that ridiculous stair-a-palooza, and washed up on a beach somewhere!  But don’t worry, George C. Scott is on the scene.

The thing with III is that it has some really good stuff.  George C Scott does his best trying to tie in this wacky Gemini Killer’s... uh... killings with the reappearance of someone he thought long dead.  There are some awesome death (or almost death) scenes, and the agony that Dimmy goes through, knowing that he is possessed, is some incredibly moving stuff.

Then, a random exorcism!

Talked about tacked on.  Shit.  Who’s this weird priest in the beginning?  Don’t worry about it.  He won’t show up until the end of the film, where he ends up dead anyway.  Christ.  I guess the dialog between Dimmy and George C. Scott (and the ultimate fate of poor Dimmy’s soul) didn’t make for gripping enough film.  Sheesh.

Salty says:
One of The Exorcist III’s biggest flaws is that it’s called The Exorcist III rather than Legion, the director’s original title. This is a problem because it will remind the dedicated sequel viewer that there was an Exorcist II and immediately put them off wanting to watch the movie. But it’s good! I swear!

The charm of the film is its off-kilter approach to sequel-hood that reeks of its literary origins. Rather than lamely following a growing Reagan, we are instead treated to see the torment assigned to the soul of Father Karras by the demon he so callously tricked out of its young host (even though our site is full of spoilers, if any readers unfamiliar with The Exorcist III are still reading at their own peril, I regret to inform you that his punishment is not to watch his mother suck cocks in Hell). As punishment for his martyrdom Karras’ corpse is possessed and reanimated by the soul of a long dead Zodiac-type serial killer who is killing members of the church (still, that’s a bummer). Now this may sound like a bizarre follow-up, but the film makes it work.

As a plus, the main character, an aging detective of shallow faith, is played by George C. Scott, which Stephen King fans may remember as the short old white man cast to play the scary seven-foot tall one-eyed Native American in Firestarter and I have a special place in my heart for Mr. Scott due to his role in the excellent haunted house movie The Changeling (not to be confused with the Clint Eastwood movie of the same name, which I was very disappointed to find out wasn’t a remake), a film which testifies to how scary antique wheelchairs can be - occupied or not. Not to mention Brad Dourif is also in the cast and who doesn’t love that guy? From Wise Blood to Blue Velvet to Trauma (If you don’t know what this movie is I recommend it. Creepy film fact: the girl who does all the nude scenes is the director’ daughter) Brad Dourif is an unrecognized hero of acting who always leaves a lasting impression and I, for one, am sorry that he is not in more movies today – though I’ve heard that a new Child’s Play movie is going to be made and – since he does the voice of Chucky – I am glad to know that he is getting paid.

…Anyway, Exorcist III does it’s own thing, but it’s a good thing. There is a kind of nervous anticipation and the horror goods come in quick shots and brief details, but they resonate well as long as you are paying attention. In fact, it’s a film that is best viewed alone just to make sure you’re not distracted into missing something, which is a quality that I really like and respect in a movie. The main problem with watching this kind of movie with others that are seeing it for the first time is that you have to monitor any movie-watching conversation heavily to make sure that you aren’t talking about the kill that is sort of borrowed from The Abominable Dr. Phibes right when someone is about to get decapitated with a huge pair of surgical shears, and at the same time you don’t want to abruptly halt whatever your talking about and give away the fact that something is coming, because disturbed elderly people scurrying across the ceiling are most effectively distressing when they are discovered by a first-time viewer rather than being pointed out to them. It’s a slippery slope.

Maire	Corey	Salty
☆☆☆	☆☆	☆☆☆

The Exorcist - the Franchise Introduction

One franchise down! Next up we’ve decided to go with one of the more unlikely entries to make our list: The Exorcist. It is a unique horror series in that it’s sort of what Marvel (DC is better) did with The Avengers only in reverse… only it’s a horror movie… and there are no superheroes… What I mean is what’s weird about it is that all the sequels are individual adventures of each of the characters that are joined in the first film. Part 2 follows Reagan, part 3 follows Father Karras and 4 and 5 are alternate histories of Merrin, which is something that Marvel does – it all comes together.  The franchise does reach the 5-film watermark as we have decided to treat The Beginning and Dominion as separate films as they do in fact have different, though similar story lines, and are credited to different directors (one of whom also made Nightmare on Elm Street 4, so we will be seeing more of his work later).  Who would of thought that a film with a masturbating twelve-year-old girl would have so many sequels… oh.

The Exorcist II: The Heretic - destroying Linda Blair

Maire says:
What the fuck did I just watch?

Yes, I know it’s one of those movies that you need to watch, in a hipster kind of way.

Yes, it did lead to a moment of awesomeness when Corey realized why he knew the name Pazuzu, and accurately recreated how he knew it.

And yes, it allowed for J. Spurlin over at imdb to come up with this understated gem for his plot summary:

His investigation takes him to Africa where he locates another recipient of Merrin's exorcising and learns something fascinating and terrible about locusts.

BUT, the above ≠ good movie. Or even laughably bad movie. Remember, I’m the schlock guy of the group, but hoo boy, this was a baaaad film.

The beauty of The Exorcist is its epic clash of “good vs. evil” in an unexpected container. The horror of The Heretic is its desperate attempt to cling to its predecessor’s glory, while derailing so quickly and horrifically, nothing is left but a shell of what could have been an ok film and another 90 minutes to sit through.

But hey, it’s not all bad for Linda Blair. Just check out all of this awesome modeling work she did in the early 80’s.

Salty says:
Watching The Heretic is like being in a serious accident: you don’t really know what’s happening or why when it’s going on, but you are pretty sure that it’s really, really bad and you just want it to be over. You wish you had avoided it, but you just have to let it play out. Then, once it ends and you get some distance on it and you start taking in the details, you start to question it. Why is that doctor’s office full of glass walls? Was that even a doctor’s office? Why did that man have a strobe light on his forehead? What the fuck was up with those moths? Isn’t that the dude from Field of Dreams? Why doesn’t that skyscraper’s balcony have a complete railing? What is this movie about? Did the person I watched this movie with slip me some drugs? I have only scratched the surface here. This movie creates questions upon questions.

And afterwards the movie haunts you, and for a while you can’t relate to people who haven’t had the same experience, but you bond intensely with those who have. You may try to explain it to friends and loved ones, but they don’t understand unless they experience it for themselves. So, you try to move on and pretend it didn’t happen, but it becomes the standard by which you compare all other bad you films you’ve seen. I am not kidding; this is what seeing The Heretic is like. How did this move not obliterate a lot of people’s careers? Was this movie the result of a bet? Does anyone like this movie? I don’t know any of the answers to any of the questions that I have put forth here.

Corey says:
Before I start on II, let me give you my interpretation of the star ratings that we use here at the ole’ House.  

☆ :  Garbage.  Very little (if any) redeeming quality. 

☆☆ :  There’s some good stuff in there, you just have to look for it a little. 

☆☆☆  A film that must be watched.

I want to emphasize that 3 star rating: a film that must be watched.  It doesn’t say it has to be good.  And now, Exorcist II.

This film is baffling in how bad it is.  I’m not sure if bad is even the correct word for it.  If you haven’t seen II, I must insist.  To just try to put into words how I feel about the film, much less the quality, is very difficult.

First, Reagan’s back! Hooray!  Let’s hook her up to this weird sci-fi brain thingy!  Repressed memories GO!  Now James Earl Jones, and Africa, and Pazuzu! And bugs, don’t forget the bugs!  Some dudes fall off of a cliff!  Reagan can heal the sick!  Roll credits!

Ok, did that last paragraph make sense?  No?  Good.  Now, imagine how that is my review of II, keeping in mind... I give it three stars.

Maire	Corey	Salty
☆	☆☆☆	☆

The Exorcist - introducing Linda Blair

Maire says:
Woo, I’ve actually seen this one before!

Aside from being a classic, The Exorcist gives us much more than warm fuzzy memories. I feel like this is the franchise the established the trope of privileged white parent(s) with a demon possessed child. It also brought the whole exorcism ritual into pop culture. Seriously, I think I know all of the text and hub bub thanks to this franchise and The Omen franchise. And it made Linda Blair’s career! Well, for a moment anyway.

Chances are, you’ve seen this one too, so I won’t ramble. And if you haven’t seen it, go watch it. It’s pretty good.


Corey says:
This was the first time that I had viewed the “super scary pants-shitting fuck fuck fuck” version of the already terrifying Exorcist.  To add to the pot ‘o fun, this was also the first time viewing the film in over a decade.  And let me tell you: this bad boy holds up.

One of the most interesting things about this film is that much of the “scary” comes from the awful realism and desperation that Dimmy and company have to face.  There’s no fun in the film.  No camp.  Very little gore. The only jump scenes are very subtle (let’s play spot the Capt. Howdy!), which makes them even more terrifying. And yet I am horrified by what William Friedkin put together.

It’s the kind of horror that builds in you, like a cancer.  At first, I’m just uncomfortable.  So a little girl pissed herself in the middle of a party, no big deal.  Then there’s some spooky shaking.  Kind of weird, ok.  And then it just keeps going.  It keeps hitting you with escalating acts of defilement.  And that spider walk.  Fuck that spider walk.

This is one of the few films that we’ll watch that I think still affects me the same way that it did the first time I watched it.  It’s a masterpiece, and it’s status as one of the greatest of all time is well deserved.


Salty says:
Catholics go out of their way to hate themselves. What an unusual dogma: love the weak, the poor, the meager and the sick because they are blessed - but you, you’re scum, born into sin and damnation, you had better spend the rest of your life trying to make up for your own offensive existence or you’ll spend eternity filleting yourself and diving into salt or whatever. This is one of the most popular religions in the world. At least they've got good demons.

When I watch The Exorcist this is what comes to mind. For some reason - though I've seen the movie half a dozen times at least - I always forget about the Father-Karras-dying-mother subplot that is so depressing. It always catches me off guard. Instead of expecting to watch a tutorial on how to glut on self-loathing, I always remember the film as a kind of party with my dream demon the way The Murderdolls portray it in Love At First Fright, which, I believe, is the way most of the world remembers it. That is, the world and I remember a joyride with blasphemy and spinning heads and pea soup. I watch the movie to see Reagan scream “Let Jesus fuck you!” and do the blood vomiting crab-walk and to enjoy all the other rank and belching shenanigans Captain Howdy brings with him.

And the film works it’s way to those things, but you have to make a lot of other stops. First there is the sad life of Karras, then the pissing on the carpet, both of which are difficult to watch. And then we go to the hospital for tests. The tests are the worst. While it’s always funny to watch people smoke in the hospital, but advanced painful medical tests performed on a screaming young girl are not fun to watch, and it's around this time that I usually forget that I put this movie on to have fun with the devil and I start thinking that maybe I remembered wrong and that this movie isn't a joke to have fun with, but instead it’s very disturbing film. Then comes the Father’s visit to his mom in the asylum and Reagan’s mother’s despairing plea for information on how to go about getting an exorcism, and I know that the movie’s goal is to make me feel ashamed to watch it, and I kind of do.

So, by the time I get to the goods that I've been waiting for - that I looked forward to with a smile on my face - it’s not so easy to smile, because the movie is so serious that it makes you see the horror even if you only wanted to just revel in the weirdness and the chaos, and catholic or not, I am certain that I don’t want to hang out with a demon, regardless of his rank on a ship, and I start to think that maybe I should hate myself a little for thinking that I would. That’s how I know that the film was made by Catholics. Way to go fetus-huggers.

Maire	Corey	Salty
☆☆	☆☆☆	☆☆☆

Closing the Curtain on Psycho

We can look back now with fond memories at the highs and the lows that came from that peek into a high-rise building in a Southwestern city where we found Marion Crane who would become a victim. She was not the first or the last, but the one that we remember the fondest, because she helped set the standard. We participated in a crime and as we watched her reach for us through that low-flow stream of hard motel water, begging for more defensive wounds, she taught us something. She taught us that this is what you should fear. Not vampires and werewolves or mummies and gorillas, but sudden unexpected death at the hands of madness in the midst of an adventure. And through her sacrifice we met a nice young man, though he was admittedly a little inordinate. He killed a lot of people, but we like him anyway, so we leave him with wife and child on the way. Norman Bates killed dozens and now he’s going to be a family man, Charlie never killed anyone and he’ll be locked up until the day he dies. Life is funny.

Genre fans and those with Wikipedia access and spare time may be wondering about The Bates Motel. Well we here at the House of Sequels couldn't track that down, but we’ll keep an eye on the “rare DVD’s” tables at the next convention we attend. In the meantime, we've pulled off of the main highway for long enough, the time has come to continue the journey and we've got a long way to go: all the way to Washington D.C. where a young girl as been acting strange lately, it seems she may be getting sick and no medical tests can locate the problem.

But before we go we make a mark for those who want to follow in our footsteps, we want you to learn from our work and save ourselves from having to answer the same question over and over. So, using the 3-star rating system you may or may not have noted at the end of our posts as well as the power of democracy we at the House of Sequels humbly present the true fruits of our labors: a best to worst list of the franchise! Disagree with us? Tell us in the comments below! (We’re not going to change it, but we like feedback)

Franchise Ranking*
Psycho	☆☆☆☆
Psycho IV	☆☆☆
Psycho II	☆
Psycho III	☆
Psycho '98	shit pickle**

*Post about Franchise Ranking coming soon!
**See Franchise Ranking post.