Connect with us

Editorials

In Defense of ‘Exorcist II: The Heretic’

Published

on

Horror fans love a good franchise. Traditionally, these franchises go on and on while not providing much new content in each subsequent film, oftentimes rehashing the same events from the original movie that we loved so much. Some favorites are HalloweenFriday the 13thA Nightmare on Elm Street, and Saw, among others. But once in a blue moon, we get a sequel that not only barely resembles the first film but also really didn’t need to be made into a franchise in the first place. Exorcist II: The Heretic, directed by John Boorman and released in 1977, is a perfect example of just that. Upon its release, it was condemned by moviegoers and critics alike, routinely subjected to “worst movies of all time” lists over the years. But is it really one of the worst movies ever made? I would have to argue no, it is not. While most might disagree with me, I will always stand by that opinion. Hear me out.

The Exorcist (1973) is undoubtedly a classic, from the original book by William Peter Blatty, to the film of the same name directed by William Friedkin. It’s dark, moody, and minimalistic and begs the viewer to question faith and what it means to them. Exorcist II: The Heretic does absolutely none of that. It’s bright, over-the-top, melodramatic, and doesn’t have as much to do with faith itself or even trying to be particularly scary. But what it lacks in scares and realism, it makes up for with a different intriguing question: does great goodness draw evil? Where William Friedkin succeeds in telling a dark, minimalist story about good triumphing over evil, John Boorman succeeds in taking us on a very weird, yet hypnotic, journey about goodness in the world and how the battle between good and evil is never really over. The change in tone can be jarring for people who were expecting more of the same in this sequel, but it doesn’t diminish the value of the film as a whole.

When I was first planning to watch the film, I heard about all the negativity surrounding the film: how it was horrible, boring, dumb, and just a complete waste of time. And yet when I finally watched it, I discovered a strange and fascinating story surrounding Regan MacNeil (played once again by OG star, Linda Blair) coping with the trauma of her exorcism, and beginning to understand that she is one of many with a great gift of goodness in the world that the demon Pazuzu is out to destroy. Then, there’s the story of Father Lamont (Richard Burton) investigating the circumstances surrounding the death of Father Merrin, which brings him to Regan. We are also introduced to a futuristic type of hypnotherapy developed by Dr. Gene Tuskin (Louise Fletcher) where two peoples’ minds can become synchronized and both can see the same past event take place, thereby helping the doctor better understand and be able to treat serious trauma in patients. Yes, it’s a wild concept, but it’s not that far off when you consider The Exorcist had spinning heads, levitation, and objects flying around a room on their own like a hurricane.

This film really shines in two specific areas: cinematography and music. I was taken aback by how beautifully shot the film is, which shows that Boorman had a different kind of vision for his film. As someone always interested in the filmmaking process, I couldn’t help but be struck by the sleek look of the film (thanks to William A. Fraker) and was equally shocked that most people who viewed it didn’t even notice that aspect. Then, there’s the music composed by the late great Ennio Morricone. Most famous for his spaghetti western scores, Morricone lends a tribal and almost otherworldly element to the score to further set it apart from its predecessor, which once again was minimalistic and comprised of a mixture of scary, classical pieces. Being a musician myself, I have always been acutely aware of music in film and how it affects the viewing experience. I absolutely adore Ennio Morricone’s score in this film, and “Regan’s Theme” is still one of my favorite pieces of film music ever. Listen to it, and I challenge anyone to tell me it isn’t a stunning piece.

Exorcist II is filled with fascinating ideas that make you think about good rather than evil, and while it is essentially an anti-Exorcist film, it does one thing that most other sequels wouldn’t dare – give us something new. We are asked from the very beginning to suspend our disbelief and accept a world of fantasy. And in that realm, everything seems possible. It may not be a perfect movie, yet every time I watch it, I find myself rooting for it to be a success rather than a disappointment. It is truly a sequel I never stray from rewatching.

Advertisement

I had the pleasure of meeting the incredible Louise Fletcher at Monster Mania Con back in 2017, and I had just one thing I felt I needed to ask her, “Was John Boorman a good director?” I think many people have gathered that he was not, since the film has garnered such a strong negative reaction from people ever since. She told me very kindly, “He was a very good director. But he had a different vision for the film than the producers, and they clashed over what it should be in the end.” That was all I needed. I now feel I really understand what happened and why the film exists in the way that it does. It is by no means a bad film, it’s just the result of too many cooks in the kitchen and not letting one visionary create the film they believed in. I’m not here to say Exorcist II is better than The Exorcist, as I happen to know the original is indeed superior. But I am here to say please give it a break. Watch it again with an open mind; you might just surprise yourself.

Mike Lefton is a musician, writer and filmmaker from New Jersey and has been a fan of the horror genre since he was a kid. When he’s not watching horror films he’s either playing with his band, The Dives in the NJ/NY area, or working on an episode of his podcast, Dismembered: A Podcast Taking Apart Horror. He also enjoys musicals, animals, and aimlessly scrolling through TikTok.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Comments

Editorials

Revisiting the Incomprehensible Silent Night, Deadly Night Series: Which Is the Best, Which Is the Worst, and Are Any of Them Actually Good?

Published

on

It’s beginning to look a lot like Christmas!

Which means we need to bust out some relevant Christmas horror films to watch here. And it also means there will be many listicles that put Silent Night, Deadly Night Part 2 at the top of their rankings for Christmas horror films by default. But it got me thinking that maybe we need a bit more of a meditation on this series.

Have we really written them all off so quickly because one of them is the most meme-able? I like the first few films in the series as much as the next guy, but The Ricky Chapman Trilogy that kicks us off doesn’t go beyond the pale the way everything after does. 4 & 5 are Apocrypha to the Ricky Bible, but they introduce many weird, out-there concepts that make them enjoyable bad movies.

So today, I’ve taken the liberty of hitching up the man-eating reindeer to the sleigh to take a retrospective ride through the Silent Night, Deadly Night franchise and find out…well, you read the title, you can do the math. Starting with…

SILENT NIGHT, DEADLY NIGHT

Advertisement

The one that started it all and got a bunch of people in hot water. It’s funny to think that outrage culture has pretty steadily assaulted our eyes and ears with the dumbest of controversies since time immemorial. Still, it’s even funnier knowing this movie contributed to that outrage. But beyond the controversy, this film is actually…kind of good?

It’s the best shot of all the movies, so big props to Scream Factory for remastering it and restoring it to its fullest. It’s only a little meanspirited, which is good since it doesn’t get too heavy for its absurd concept. On top of that, the kills in the movie are exceptionally creative (antler impalings, Christmas light hangings, and sled decapitations, oh my!). My only problem is that Billy Chapman is no Ricky, he’s more serious and isn’t as much of a goofball.

I would say this ranked high up when I first started my rewatch but may go closer to the bottom of the list. Not for any technical fault of its own—just because it gets much funnier from here in…

SILENT NIGHT, DEADLY NIGHT, PART 2

Do I even have to say the line to know it’s the first thing that went through your head as you read the title? GARBAGE DAY!

Advertisement

Let anybody who told you Art the Clown is the best slasher villain to use a gun see this and watch them change their tune. Watching this is only enriched by not having seen the first movie, which makes it one of those sequels that is better than the first in the worst way possible. If you were unfortunate enough to watch both the first and second films in one sitting, like myself, you’d know that roughly half of the movie is flashbacks to Billy’s rampage. But that doesn’t stop it from being entertaining as all hell.

Ricky Chapman is an all-time great slasher villain and delivers some kills almost as good as the original. Eric Freeman may just be the best-worst actor of all time, which makes this movie one of the best-worst films of all time by proxy. Which makes the following film feel like a fall from grace, given its…

SILENT NIGHT, DEADLY NIGHT 3: BETTER WATCH OUT!

A.K.A. “The one with Bill Moseley in it,” because that’s the most remarkable thing about it. He’s not even a killer Santa in this one, but I guess mixing the motifs of “killer with exposed brain pan” and “Santa Claus with murder tools” might muddy the aesthetic waters. The final entry for our boy Ricky is kind of a sad whimper to go out on because this movie’s pacing is painfully slow.

It squanders a very fun concept (psychic girl is hunted by an evil Santa Claus she keeps having visions of) in favor of watching a lobotomized Ricky taking a road trip to his murder victim and killing people off-camera on the way. Worse, it squanders Bill Moseley, who doesn’t get to act outside of lumbering with a slack jaw. It’s the cinematic equivalent of dragging your sled up the hill again: tedious, no momentum, and no fun as you wait for the next weird ass thrill ride in the franchise.

Advertisement

SILENT NIGHT, DEADLY NIGHT 4: THE INITIATION

And the next weird ass thrill ride in the franchise is here! Why should this even qualify when it looks and feels like Springtime in Los Angeles, and people had just forgotten to take down their Christmas decorations for months? Well, three reasons:

  1. Spontaneous combustions caused by witches.
  2. Monstrously massive bugs everywhere, designed by Screaming Mad George.
  3. Clint Howard as the resident crazy homeless guy who walks in and out of the movie.

While Ricky may be gone and its status as a Christmas movie is dubious, it’s a trip of a film with one particularly hellish sequence involving a lot of slime-covered giant insects. Some complain about its ham-fisted thematic notes of gender inequality, sex, and exploitation…but are you actually going into Silent Night, Deadly Night 4 expecting strong themes? Just enjoy this one for what it is, which is a lot of classic ick-inducing Brian Yuzna filmmaking. If you liked the weird, psychosexual nightmare that was Society, you’ll like this.

SILENT NIGHT, DEADLY NIGHT 5: THE TOYMAKER

I was going to do another A.K.A. joke here, but I realized that the twist of this movie is so weird that it outclasses even The Initiation and needs to be seen to be believed. Rewatching this, I had forgotten exactly what the deal was with our mystery killer in the film and was mouth agape when the movie jogged my memory.

The Toymaker gives some very gruesome deaths and puts the Yuletide feeling of the film at center stage with a plot about murderous toys (not Demonic Toys, we swear, please don’t sue us Charles Band!). In fact, I would argue that since the effects in this movie and the violent kills don’t feel like a rehash of Society, it’s actually a major improvement on what 4 had going on. While four is slower-paced as it tells a (somewhat) more tempered story, five is aware of how goofy the plot is, with faster and funnier editing and some truly hilariously bad performances.

Advertisement

SILENT NIGHT (2012)

The final entry in the series is as plain jane of a slasher as they come but does manage to get the holiday aesthetics down pat, so even though it isn’t as wacky as the others, I’m including it in the ranking.

This film isn’t the one that reinvents the wheel or brings any fire to mankind (outside of the literal flamethrower murders depicted in it), but it is a very solid slasher. It has a cast of fun character actors, particularly Donal Logue and Malcolm McDowell, with our lead Jaime King as a no-nonsense detective hunting down our slasher. I just wish it was as madcap and off the walls as some of its predecessors were.

FINAL RANKINGS

Which is the best, which is the worst, and are there any good films in this series?

Advertisement

I would argue that all of them (except for 3) are great horror flicks in their own rights, since not a single one of them (except for 3) is boring (3 is getting the worst spot, sorry if I’m being redundant, but it sucks).

If I had to choose a best one, it would probably be our 5th spot on the list as The Toymaker is a diamond in the horror rough that, while lacking the bad acting of Part 2, has a genuinely insane script and all the best special effects of the series. So, from best to worst:

  1. Silent Night, Deadly Night 5: The Toy Maker
  2. Silent Night, Deadly Night Part 2
  3. Silent Night, Deadly Night
  4. Silent Night, Deadly Night 4: Initiation
  5. Silent Night (2012)
  6. Silent Night, Deadly Night 3: Better Watch Out!

When you’ve got those cookies baking in the oven, the house smelling of pine tree, and the lights twinkling, let this list from nice to naughty help you make the right decisions on which campy horror movies to watch this holiday season.

From all of us here at Horror Press, Happy Holidays, and a Happy New Year everyone!

Continue Reading

Editorials

In Memory of the Video Rental Store

Published

on

Cinemas are for those who know where they’re going. But the video store? The video store is for the wanderers who are still looking. Or, were still looking.

From a very young age, I, like many people, was in the clutches of a business nobody even knew was doomed to collapse yet. At least, nobody I knew knew, and certainly, you didn’t know. We were children, and children rarely know much about themselves, let alone the intricacies of a market on the brink of an unknowing death at the hands of an unknowable, unfeeling force. A force that would take all the whimsy and love out of picking a film and replacing it with scrolling and idly zoning out as you watched the screen.

I learned quickly to love the video store. I hadn’t yet grown to love the comic books that would line the boxes in my room, or developed the skills to play with others, but I did have a video store on my block. It was a downright frigid spot in the sweltering heat of the summer, and that was all it needed to be.

The fatal weakness the store preyed on was that my eyes and heart were still perfectly big in proportion to my positively diminutive brain. I was enticed by every expertly crafted cover, every famous face I acquainted myself with. I ended up carrying names and voices belonging to the friends and enemies and loves and heroes I’d never meet.

And the terrors I’d never experience first-hand.

Advertisement

The eyes in paintings follow you sometimes, but the eyes on movie cases always follow you when you walk along the aisles. It’s the horror film cases that always seem to be watching you from between the shelves. Red eyes peering from the darkness. Monstrous eyes that seem particularly human and human eyes that call on the particularly deranged. The only lit spot on a face leering in shadow with wide eyes, wide maniacal stares and bloody hands and bloody weapons, bloody everything–

So scary that it would leave me rambling. And I’m a habitual rambler, always nervous, so you can only imagine how scared I was, even as a child, when my parents were there to assure me it’d be fine.

I can’t wash out how those images evoked a primal disgust and curiosity in me. I remember that the Saw movie covers did it to me quite a bit with their various severed limbs and torn-out teeth hanging by wires; the Texas Chainsaw remake had me standing in shock when I passed it in the store, the face of Thomas Hewitt staring back with void sunken features. Sepia-toned filth that leeched off the poster’s art and into my brain to leave stains so strong I can remember them as clear as day. Growing recognition that would turn into admiration.

And I kept running into these faces, even when I wasn’t in that video store. A man in the neighborhood who sold movies out of the trunk of his car frequented the same block as my grandmother’s apartment. He lured me over to browse the selection once, and there it was. My father took my hand and led me away, but that first glance at the stitched face would terrorize me for most of my childhood.

Cover after cover through flea markets, electronics retailers, and bargain bins in big box stores. Everywhere, that damned face. Good old Charles Lee Ray, Chucky. Killer dolls, which I only got glimpses of, were infinitely more terrifying than the films themselves. God forbid I saw one of the full-sized replica Chucky dolls in a store and froze up to have an asthma attack.

Advertisement

When I got older, eventually, I did what every idiot in a horror film does. I took the proverbial steps into the darkened basement to find out what was making that noise. I had to find out what I had been seeing glimpses of from the corner of my eye.

Far and away from the first video store that stole my heart, we had a Blockbuster in the town we moved to next. Twelve-year-old me snuck a copy of “Dawn of the Dead” in with some of the films we had rented, covering that pale, bloodstained half-face with a box of old candy off the shelf near the register, taking advantage of the fact that my parents were still browsing while I made my pick. The young cashier, whose face has melted into memory soup all these years later, still had one distinct feature on their face I could see: a smile. It could have been them being nice as usual, but part of me likes to think that they knew what I was doing and just wanted to give a little push to rebel.

I watched it a few days later in my room, nervously dancing around the fact we’d have to return it soon. And though I had to cover my eyes most of the time, and the volume had to be turned down low so that my parents couldn’t hear the carnage from the next room over, I made it through. And I wanted more now.

Now that I’m grown, I wish we had met earlier, horror; I wish I had gotten to know how fun the fear could be. How silly some of these things were. The joys of camp and goriness. The way you could put the laughter in slaughter and the sense of fun in fear. But that was the trajectory I had to be on, to feel equal parts “I’m scared, I want to go home” and “I’m scared, I need to know more.” I’m just glad that I caught those eyes watching between the shelves when I did.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Horror Press Mailing List

Advertisement
Advertisement