Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
15 of 16 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Mixed, 2 May 2006
Obviously with a collection of this nature, the quality of each individual film varies wildly. Presentation-wise, the box and DVD menus are all fantastic. The first film is an undeniable classic, the second an unintentional comedy, the third a good slasher (of sorts) film, and the two prequels interesting as an experiment in how much an individual director can bring to a movie; Dominion is simply stunning, and the Beginning is entertaining enough. In all, a worthy purchase for any horror fan.
|
|
|
16 of 18 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Cheap at twice the price, 29 Nov 2006
If you enjoyed "The Exorcist", or you just thoughy you might enjoy it, or even if you are merely curious, I strongly recommend this set of five films, especially at this giveaway price.
The first two films - "Dominion The Prequel" and "Exorcist The Beginning" - which actually date from 2005 and 2004 respectively, both stem from the same basic idea, use most of the same sets, and feature many of the same actors (in the same roles). Yet despite the basic similarities the two storylines are significantly different so that seeing one doesn't spoil your enjoyment of the other. And yes, they are definitely BOTH worth watching. Indeed, I still can't make up my mind which I enjoyed most.
"The Exorcist" - the original film, complete with director's commentary, etc. - now gets shifted to number three, in logical order of viewing, though it was originally released in 1973.
What is remarkable is that this is possibly the least gripping of the first four films - unless you've never seen it before. That is because, IMO, it relies incredibly heavily on outrageous special effects for most of its impact. In 1973 this was cutting edge stuff and truly mind boggling, but special effects have developed so much in the last 30 years that most viewers will have seen far more convincing/stomach churning sights than are included here.
"Exorcist II The Heretic" (1977) rests almost entirely on the shoulders of Richard Burton, playing the role of Father Merrin's successor in the fight against the demon Pazuzu. This is a complete break from most of the film roles Burton played, but apart from the rather overplayed expression of a man on the edge of a total breakdown, IMO Burton does a pretty good job. And it certainly doesn't hurt that other parts include Louise "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" Fletcher as a psychiatrist (just begging to be convinced that evil is more than just nasty thoughts; Max Von Sydow (now playing Father Merrin as a young man!); and of course Linda Blair both reprising her original role as "Regan the possessed" AND as the allegedly exorcised Regan a year or two after the original events.
Indeed, it could be that this is actually the best of the four films for anyone wanting something more than a simple gore fest.
And then there's "The Exorcist III" - if you really must.
An interview with director William Friedkin and author William Peter Blatty amongst the numerous extras on the two-side "The Exorcist" disk make it clear that Blatty's ideas on what should have gone into the film differed quite significantly from Friedkins, and when you see what a bodge job "The Exorcist III" is - being both written and directed by Blatty, based on his follow-up book "Legion" - you'll realise how fortunate it was that Friedkin had ultimate control of the earlier film.
Anyone who has seen Blatty's film "Twinkle, Twinkle, Killer Kane" (also based on one of his books) will have some idea of how rambling and unsatisfactory his handling of this medium is. And "The Exorcist III" is definitely on a par with "Killer Kane".
Having said that, the one highlight of the film is Brad Dourif.
Usually relegated to weasely scumbag roles such as "Grimer Wormtongue" in "Lord of the Rings II". This time round, in the title role, he is allowed to show something like the full range of his acting skills. And a jolly good job he makes of it.
So, four goodies and one also ran.
In my opinion it's still an excellent package overall and at a knock down price. You could say it's an offer you can't refuse ;-)
|
|
|
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Certainly not a bad box set at all, 8 Jul 2009
I have to confess i had actually only seen two of the five films contained in this box-set when i purchased it, those being The Exorcist(1973) and The Exorcist 3(1990), but being as i had enjoyed both of those films and the copy i bought was a very good price(£5 brand new!), i figured i wasn't really losing anything even if i didn't like the other 3. Here are my opinions of all 5 films in year release order:
The Exorcist (1973)-*****
True this film may now be over 35 years old but it has lost none of its power to shock. As(Director)William Friedkin says in the introduction, it is a film about the belief in evil and the belief that evil can be cast out. It is the story of a young innocent girl, possessed by a demon and the priests who are called upon to try and cast the demon out. Brilliantly atmospheric, geneuinely scary and startlingly realistic, this has to be considered one of(if not, THE!)greatest horrors of all time. A classic.
The Exorcist 2: The Heretic (1977)- NO STARS
Oh, my god, what happened here?! This must've seemed like a sure 'fire-hit' on paper. True, both the author of the original(William Peter Blatty) and Director(William Friedkin) had nothing to do with it but still, a cast that boasted 6 time oscar nominated Richard Burton, Oscar winner Louise Fletcher, James Earl Jones, Ned Beatty and even Linda Blair reprising her role as Regan MacNeil from the first film, coupled with a more than competant director(John Boorman, DELIVERANCE) would've been able to have produced at least a fairly decent film, right? WRONG!! This film is a total disaster. In fact, it is frequently refered to as one of the worst sequels in film history. Its hard to say where the problem was as every aspect of it is DREADFUL. The storys a complete mess, for starters. It begins with Regan MacNeil, now 16, suffering from nightmares about her exorcism 4 years previously. Is the demon trying to re-possess her? She then meets Father Lamont who has been ordered by the vatican to investigate the mystery of Father Merrin's death. These two are naturally brought together by their situations but then the story gets so convuluted and complicated that you are left wondering what the hell is going on. Linda Blair said in an interview that the script was written and re-written several times and boy, can you tell!
Next, there is the dialogue. Its terrible. An example,'I flew here on the wings of locusts'. What the hell?! The acting is hammy and at times, unintentionally hilarious and the sets(especially those used in the African Settings), look cheap and tacky. In fact, it was so bad, John Boorman pulled it from the cinema after only a few weeks, re-editted it, cut it and re-released it to try and retrieve some dignity, but to no avail. Of course, it was a massive box office dissapointment. Both Linda Blair and Louise Fletcher blame it for ruining their film careers. Based on my viewing and the viewings of most people, their accusations are certainly well founded. A terrible picture.
The Exorcist 3 (1990)-****
After the massive failiure of The Exorcist 2, The Exorcist 3 emerged 13 years later. This time, The originals author, William Peter Blatty was at the helm, directing(and scripting) from his own sequel novel to the original Exorcist novel, LEGION(according to Blatty, William Friedkin, director of the original, was supposed to direct from Blatty's script, but dropped out over conflicts with Blatty over the story). It bears no resemblence, or ties to The Exorcist 2. Taking place 15 years after the original, Georgetown is now being plagued by a grisly serial killer. Lt. Kinderman from the original film is investigating and realises that the manner of the murders is very similar to a case 15 years previously. The catch? The murderer was caught and executed. Is it a copy-cat? or are there more sinster forces at work? I really enjoyed this film. True, it is in no way a return to the genuinely disturbing original, but it is a MASSIVE improvement on the second. It plays out more like a modern-day slasher film than a tale of demonic possession, but that takes nothing away from it, with good turns from both George C. Scott as Kinderman and Brad Douriff, amazing as the psychotic Gemini killer. A good sequel.
Both the prequels, Beginning(2004) and Dominion(2005) are ok, best viewed as independent films, both with very similar storys but with a different outcome of each so as not to spoil the end for someone who wants to see both. Stellan Skarsgard plays a young father Merrin in both and his experiences of demons and demon possession, first in east Africa (Dominion) and then in kenya (Beginning). Here, we get an insight into the origins of the evil which would come to fruition in the later Exorcist films. Both films-***
In summary, not a bad box set at all, one masterpiece, one good sequel, two enjoyable enough prequels. And as for The Exorcist 2.......... well, judge for yourselves. I know my opinion.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|