The idiotic A-hole who made this list in the first place decided to break the streak of naming movies that had been released after the turn to the 21st century as "the most hated films of all time" and decided to name a movie that was actually made around or before the time he was born. I know, I was shocked too. Anyhow, this will mark a new review for me, because I never actually saw this movie. However, unlike the drooling halfwit staff at Total Film, I'm actually going to do something they would never do...and actually research something before talking about it.
So, for those of you not in the know, The Exorcist is probably one of the most popular films of all time. Released in 1973, it was the talk of the movie world, what with reports of strange occurrences on set, people fainting in the movie theatre during screenings and even hysterical insistence from some people with a few bricks shy of a full load that a demon inhabited the actual film. Now, all ridiculous mishmash aside, people wouldn't talk this much about a film unless it was really, really good, really, really bad or really, really weird. The Exorcist is really, really good. So, I can understand if the sequel came out and it wasn't up to par with the original, that people wouldn't be impressed. However, one of the worst of all time?
Well, maybe not so much. I read an article on Wikipedia that some people say that the film has been misjudged and mistreated, that it's not the honking big pile of donkey crap that Total Film would have you believe. They don't ultimately believe it's that great, but it does not deserve the derision that the film has received from multiple sources. I find it interesting too to note that there have been 3 sequels after this film and I remember that 4 and 5 weren't received that well either...so, why does get all the blame? Just because it's the direct sequel to the film? See, this is the reason why I don't like Total Film or their stupid list: they have no perspective. They don't question why they feel a film is hated or if there is another reason or if there is something else that causes the hatred. They just knee-jerk "oh...bad movie...must...destroy...in...list." My question is this: if none of the films will ever live up to the original, should they not be hated as well? In fact, every sequel that does not live up to the original should be hated! The list would be five miles long!
So, what's my point? My point is, this movie probably isn't as hated as some believe and probably should not be on the list. There have been other movies that have not only been worse than the original, but insulting by either recycling the original without adding to it (The Hangover Part II) or by crapping on everything that was good about the original (Superman Returns). Ultimately, there are probably worse movies out there and more damaging ones than the Exorcist II. However, for some strange reason, it made it on this list.
Rating: Worth the hate? Only if you're prepared to put every disappointing sequel on the list as well...
- Stephenstein
Thanks to the magic of 3-D...I had to find other means of viewing this movie. Anyhow, I own parts 1 and 2 of this series, and despite the universal groan that seemed to come from everyone, I actually liked part 2...better than 1 even, though one was still really good. I liked the excitement and the battles, and the creatures, and all that good stuff from the first two films...now I haven't read the books, so this one may have followed the book, and if so...hoo-boy.There just wasn't a lot of excitement for me in this movie. Firstly, and I know they're probably just following the books at this part, but I didn't like having neither Peter or Susan there. That was my one and only problem with Prince Caspian, and it's just as I suspected. It's not that I don't like Edmond or Lucy...it's just...to make an analogy, it's like the Beatles if it's just Paul and Ringo. Now, there's nothing wrong with Paul and Ringo, but you know what's better? All four Beatles! It just seemed something was missing, and I know why it was done, etc, etc, I'm not saying it was dumb, but it doesn't feel the same.Worse though, is there is really no action in this movie. I mean yes, there's a fight near the beginning, and there's a decent creature battle at the end, but you have Edmond, Lucy, Caspian and the crew of the Dawn Treader walking around for most of the movie, looking for magical swords. Now, a clever writer would have had them go through big trials and tribulations for these swords. After all, they're integral to beating the main villain (more on that later). So, you would think they'd have to go through a lot to get the swords. Nah. They're mainly just lying around. You can just go and pick them up. Wah? Where's the adventure! Where's the danger and peril, if these damned swords are so important, why can I just go up, pick them up, and beat the villain? What's the point in even having these characters here if all they're going to do is ordinary stuff?I didn't like the villain, either. Look, in part 1, we had the White Queen, and she was awesome. Part 2 had Caspian's uncle, and while he was not as cool as the White Queen, he still lead this big human army, and there was a hell of a battle. In this one, there's a mist...and it's going to corrupt Narnia...okay. So, you have to beat a mist. Okay. Then the writer's threw in (and believe me, this might all be C.S. Lewis' fault, if they're following the book) "if you think of something scary, it will be manifested in the mist". Okay, so it's Ghostbusters. The Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man (or in this case, a big sea serpent) will show up, and fight the good guys. The sea serpent was cool, but I'm like, how is this mist going to corrupt Narnia? By swallowing people? Okay, but I'm not afraid of a mist...unless it's John Carpenter's mist. I don't care if it manifests something scary, or something tempting, or whatever, at the end of the day, you can blow on it, and it disappears. It was cool to see some of the characters from previous films, and of course they had to work the White Queen and Aslan in there. I liked the characters who appeared previously, and the new major character, Eustace was alright (though it was better when he was turned into a dragon). All in all though, I think they could have done something better with this movie. I heard they wanted to make it more kid-friendly...the run time is a lot less than the previous films, so they probably condensed the crap out of the story...and they condensed all the action and excitement out as well. Rating: 3 out of 5 stars (just because of how much I liked the characters from the first 2...it's closer to a 2.5, really). - Stephenstein
