nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Exorcist Sequel (Blumhouse)

pixelburp

This is news to me, and may have caused cold sweats in Mark Kermode (to name a fan)

Jason Blum & David Gordon Green are pairing up again to apparently take a stab at a "proper" Exorcist sequel. Like their Holloween films, this new film will apparently jettison and ignore the actual follow-ups to Exorcist - no great loss with II mind you.

Came up during an interview with Blum himself here below. I'll say one thing in Blum(house)'s favour; their reboots have been a cut above the rest and The Invisible Man was surprisingly excellent.

https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/the-exorcist-sequel-be-like-2018-halloween-reboot/

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

mikhail

I haven't seen their Invisible Man, but DGG's Halloween was excellent. I'll keep an eye out for this.

pixelburp

mikhail wrote: »

I haven't seen their Invisible Man, but DGG's Halloween was excellent. I'll keep an eye out for this.

I'm the opposite to yourself, and Invisible Man was excellent. It kinda went off the rails in the last act TBH - but up to that point? Hoo boy, the tension was fantastic and an easy nomination for best thriller of the last 10 years (it's debatable how many open scares it caused IMO, bar one fantastic one using a

pot of paint

).

It was close cousin to something like It Follows; both protagonists constantly checking around their shoulder, never feeling safe. The way Leigh Whannell would just slowly pan the camera, just to get an otherwise innocuous, empty corner of a room in frame? Chef's kiss right there.

Skerries

Exorcist III was a great sequel and should remain canon

Agent Coulson

The TV series was great and they could do a lot worse than getting Ben Daniels from it to star in this and Blumhouse is a good production company to make it.

Agent Coulson

Looks like a deal has been struck between Blumhouse and NBCUniversal/Peacock for $400m to make this a trilogy and original star Ellen Burstyn is to reprise her role from the original film.

pixelburp

$400 million? Yikes that's some money, even if it's spread over 3 movies (that in of itself is hugely presumptuous). It immediately makes me think this will be jump scares and 4 quadrant, franchise driven horror. My expectations just dropped a good bit

pixelburp

First trailer of this has arrived:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvpEy6nJu7Q

gmisk

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117563377#Comment_117563377

The first of that new trilogy from DGG was excellent...the other two were absolutely awful.

silliussoddius

I actually didn't mind the third one, it had it's issues but not liking the second one probably added to my enjoyment of it.

~Rebel~

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120896159#Comment_120896159

Yeah, same - loved the first one, hated the second one, and the third one was at least interesting and tried to do something a bit different. To mixed results, but for the 3rd film in any franchise like that to make some bold choices is to be applauded. It's also one that I enjoyed a lot more on rewatch when I knew not to expect a traditional Halloween Michael Myers movie.

And loved the invisible man, was one of my most pleasant movie-surprises of that year.

faceman

Trailer looks sh1t.

In this interview, director David Gordon Green said '“It’s not an Easter Eggy movie,” assures Green. “I had a lot of fun seeing what some of the old cast were up to [in Halloween], and making callbacks to all of the Halloween movies.” Green assured us that “The Exorcist isn’t that type of fun..”

Yet the trailer is full of easter eggs and alludes plenty of jump scares.

~Rebel~

The approach will be everything... I don't really want an Exorcist sequel, since anything in the style or tone of the original could never be made today. I mean, you could watch the first hour of that movie and think it was a straight drama about a doomed romance between Fr Karras and Chris MacNeil. It's so patient and so carefully constructed, you'd just never be allowed that time to develop the story and mood now.

So I don't expect something to come even close to living up to the original - but I hope that they'll at least do something tonally interesting with it, the way they did with the invisible man.

JKerova1

Looks like they are butchering The Exorcist just like they did with Halloween.

pixelburp

The problem with any Exorcist movie is that the original set the template, and since then every movie, TV show and comedy skit has used the same tropes, same FX, same everything without any interesting variations. Heck half the time it's even the same yellow monster contact lens worn.

This just looks like more of the same kind of oogly-boogly, possessed children clichés you'd expect from a lazy copycat - only it's "officially" a sequel? And hopefully it's just how the trailers are cut cos the jump scares are lame. Cult classic exorcist 3 still has the best jump scare put to film IMO; tightly edited, with the scare itself efficient and less a carnival scare...

https://youtu.be/zH8ynu0jRvY

Tony EH

The original film has always been a fine movie. It benefits greatly from Freidkin's no nonsense approach and the fact that every one on the screen takes the ludicrous story very seriously, so therefore you do. But there hasn't been a truly good exorcist movie made since 1973. Boorman's sequel is a laughable example of what not to do and 'The Exorcist III' loses the run of itself, despite the decent turn by George C. Scott as Kinderman (unfortunately they couldn't get Lee J. Cobb to reprise the role). Other entries have generally missed the mark in some way or another.

I've no doubt that this effort will be another stab in the dark, flailing about and completely failing to capture what made 'The Exorcist' so great in the first place, which was relative restraint. Something that's usually abandoned in subsequent exorcist movies. I've said it before, when talking about 'The Pope's Exorcist', the best Exorcist film has already been made and it will never be topped probably.

Drumpot

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120989362#Comment_120989362

Can you think of a good/decent sequel to a really old franchise/movie that worked?

Off the top of my head “the thing” comes to mind. While the prequel didn’t break any new ground and had its flaws I thought it did a decent job of connecting the two in a way that didn’t feel completely off.

I think that legacy movies/franchises are always at a disadvantage because fans benchmark them against originals and have certain expectations. Take “Solo” for instance. This was actually a really good sci fi adventure movie , but it bombed relative to what a quality sci fi should do (especially when you look at avatar, don’t get me started). If that wasn’t SW universe I wonder if it might of done better or maybe it wouldn’t have done much because SW logo is what made it known. But the hate it got “not my solo” was nothing to do with the entertainment of the movie, just the fan’s expectations.

Prometheus and Alien Covenant also come to mind. Solid horror movies, beautifully made and while they have their flaws, the baggage of being alien movies hurt them more than had they been stand alone movies. I mean as soon as some people heard they were alien movies ‘I don’t want to know the backstory to the space jockey” there was hate. I’d love more horror movies like them because they are unique in this day and age. But I digress.. As always ….

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120993958#Comment_120993958

Mad Max Fury Road? It came a long time after Thunderdome, but by all accounts managed to immediately rocket itself to the top of the list of Best Mad Max films (IMO obviously), if not one of the best action movies of that decade.

Re. The Thing, that's such an odd fish. Both admirable in trying to tell a story that was always there for the telling, but also totally crippled in being almost in awe of the original film. Not to mention having its FX somewhat ruined by the insistence of CGI monsters. Props for the ending though, absolutely no attempt to rewrite the story, and ended precisely where the original film started.

Tony EH

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120993958#Comment_120993958

Blade Runner 20 whatsit? I thought that Villeneuve's film was a very good sequel that didn't mess up the original. Or as Pix says Fury Road. But I consider that to be a reboot rather than a continuation of the 80's trilogy. #notmymadmax 😄 I have absolutely 0 interest in a film about Theron's character though.

Other than that, any reboot/prequel/sequel for a series that was dormant/long dead has been either meh or a failure really. Was 'Tron Legacy' any use? Can't remember myself.

On 'Solo', I thought it was cash in trash, by and large, that should never have been made in the first place. Not because of its story, or visuals, or whatever. But because it was about Han Solo and in the space of 2 hours we had all we know of him and his accoutrements from previous movies thrown at the screen. If that movie had been about Woody's character instead, or any other new character really, I would have liked it more probably. As it stands, I get its failure completely and, in fact, predicted it to be such when I first heard about it. Nobody wants to see a film about Han Solo without Han Solo in it. I'll give it this though...that Ron Howard managed to make a, somewhat, watchable yarn out of that mess is testament to his skill as a film maker.

As far as 'Prometheus' is concerned I thought it was one of the dumbest big budget Sci-Fi movies I've ever seen and 'Alien Covenant' wasn't any better in that regard. They looked nice, but that was about it. However they just don't line up with Alien in any real way. In the end, all they served to do was to help destroy the Alien story further. In fact, even further than those silly "vs" movies did a few years earlier. For me, Alien stays a trilogy.

Also, I don't think audience reactions to these attempts were simply down to "hate", as it were. Just disappointment, major or otherwise. They're not great movies, really, and they're also trying to stand on the shoulders of giants. I don't blame people for turning their backs on them.

pixelburp

Oh shoot yeah: Blade Runner 2049 ... how could I forget that? Honestly, I actually prefer the sequel, even if obviously being a follow-up the original's required watching for anyone coming to the 2017 film. The 1982 film was more mood piece than actual story, operating purely on "vibes" as the kids say; the sequel took the style, modernised it without losing that 80s cyberpunk feel (in of itself a miracle) , added a compelling story & worked in a twist very much in keeping with the original "Is Deckard a Replicant" urban myth. Also, it was the first indication Dave Batista was a good actor.

Ridley Scott recently said he had a choice to direct 2049 but as it happens, scheduling conflicts with Alien Covenant meant he couldn't take the job. Now there's a bullet dodged; as much as I retain a fondness for Scott his latter work has been poor.

Drumpot

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120993974#Comment_120993974

Dont know what it was about the Mad Max reboot but it didnt do it for me at the time. Maybe I will give it a rewatch, maybe I just wasnt up for it at the time.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120994138#Comment_120994138

When a movie has such negative perception before its made, its going to have to do more, then a movie that original by default. This is my point, most of your arguments are connected to the franchise as opposed to the movies themselves.

Fysh

Both NuAlien films fail for me because they have deeply stupid characters and plots that rely heavily on Idiot Ball moments - so while they look pretty, for me they are poor SF films whether they have an Alien badge or not.

If viewed as franchise vehicles, they also fall foul of the same mistake Lucas made with the SW prequel trilogy - that by insisting on answering a beguiling mystery from the original film, you cannot help but make the universe smaller and less interesting than it was when nobody knew the answer, and therefore many things were possible. No story of the Space Jockey's origin is ever going to be so compelling that it is more interesting than not knowing. Which is not to say "don't make them!" or whatever - but rather that such a film is innately the equivalent of Deep Lore in videogames. Which I generally find tedious and unrewarding, but mileage varies and all that.

johnny_ultimate

To keep this on topic: the new Exorcist film looks like generic horror rubbish. I didn't mind the first in the Halloween reboot series, but DGG and co badly fumbled the two sequels so I'd have little confidence in their ability to tackle this.

To keep this off-topic: Solo is rubbish even if you ignore the SW-ness of it all. Hyper-bland and immediately forgettable - 'a Ron Howard film' if ever there was one.

Fysh

I'm trying to remember if I have watched any of the existing Exorcist sequels and am drawing a blank. I'm somewhat curious about a fanedit of Exorcist 3 called Legion that purports to bring it closer to Blatty's original intentions, but even at that... Could I be bothered? Probably not.

The Exorcist feels to me very much like The Omen - a well-received first film whose horror is as much in what it says and implies about the universe around us as anything else, that producers then decided should have sequels which utterly fail to understand how to wield or recapture that feeling.

I haven't seen the DDG NuHalloween trilogy as, regardless of the promise the first chapter might have held, Ends appears to have comprehensively fouled the bed and there's already no shortage of dreadful Halloween sequels so why would I waste my time with more of them?

The fact that this new trilogy is another horror franchise that really has one very good film at the start and not a whole lot else, and yet Blumhouse & DDG are going straight to a trilogy of follow-ups rather than trying to make one good film first, suggests to me that I'm going to get nothing out of these films. It'd be nice to be wrong, but let's see.

johnny_ultimate

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120994499#Comment_120994499

Legion is actually now the director's cut rather than a fan edit. It started as a fan edit but there's since been an official edit. It's available on the (excellent) Arrow Blu-Ray of the film. I watched it last year I think over Halloween. Nobody will be mistaking it for a masterpiece, but it's certainly a significantly above-average horror sequel (granted, that's a low bar to clear) with some genuinely interesting and effective sequences in it. Certainly worth a gander compared to the vast majority of horror sequels.

Tony EH

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120994220#Comment_120994220

That may be true. But in movies of this sort it's impossible to separate a sequel or a prequel from the franchise it's trying to be part of. The movie itself wants to be part of the series, so naturally audiences are going have certain reactions based on that. These aren't stand alone movies and in a number of ways, looking at them as such it would render them lesser. In fact, if you take something like 'Prometheus' out of the Alien series, it's flaws would be even worse.

Tony EH

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120994187#Comment_120994187

The story in 'Blade Runner' is rubbish really. It's paper thin, to put it politely. In fact, I nearly put it on my overrated movies list (one that nearly gave some people a coronary 🤣 ) in the "Overrated and disappointing films" thread. But I love that film. It's amazing to this day in spite of its meh plot. But I really liked what Villeneuve did with hos sequel and love the way he didn't lean into the Deckard is a replicant bullshit that Scott was trying so hard to push in subsequent cuts of the 1982 film. I've always hated that nonsense. It just doesn't add up when you watch the actual film. He's clearly a human battling against physically superior "androids". It was one of my fears (if one can have "fears" about something as stupid as a film) that the sequel would solidify that Deckard replicant silliness. I think Villeneuve circumvented that extremely well.

And...phew...considering how poor Scott's output has been in recent years, we can only be grateful for "scheduling conflicts".

o1s1n

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120896999#Comment_120896999

I remember watching that on Channel 4 very late one night in the early 2000s and did not know about that jump scare in advanced.

Feck me, almost shat myself. Got caught out by it completely and utterly. I don't think a jump scare has ever had such an impact, it's amazingly done. Still wince to this day waiting for it to arrive!

Drumpot

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120994871#Comment_120994871

I will park our other discussion as we won’t agree that.. Ever… 😂

I thought Deckard was a replicant in the new one?! Oh I wasn’t paying attention or maybe I forgot and it was K, is it worth a rewatch or is it a one time watch kind of movie?

I know Dune is a reboot but I definitely think it’s done a super job.

I get this isn’t exactly on topic but the sentiments for this excorcist movie is that it’s gonna be a messy piece of sh*t so it’s Kind of relevant.

Somebody mentioned “legion” do they mean the tv series (loved it) or the movie legion or was it some fan cut of a movie that is called legion?

johnny_ultimate

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120995106#Comment_120995106

'Legion' is another name for Exorcist III. The original Exorcist author William Peter Blatty and William Friedkin were originally meant to make a third Exorcist film, but the project fell apart and Blatty adapted the script into a novel called Legion. But Blatty himself then made it into a film, released as Exorcist III. The original version had significant studio interference (notably adding a big exorcism finale that wasn't originally planned), and while Blatty was still involved it strayed from his original vision. But fans initially had a go at restoring the original version, before an official 'director's cut' version was released on Blu-Ray a few years back. Some of the original footage was lost though so stills and other bits fill in gaps where original material isn't available. But this is the 'Legion' version of the film.

Mark Kermode explains it all in the video below:

https://youtu.be/59Jtdr0PcRM

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120994910#Comment_120994910

Oh yeah, every time I think I know when it's coming - then get it wrong.

It was also a really neat little use of the Kuleshov Effect, in using the cut to the headless statue to infer the nurse's fate; proving you really don't need gore for horror to be shocking.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120994220#Comment_120994220

You like the Synderverse, and hate Mad Max: Fury Road? Seriously, what's wrong with you and why do you hate fun? 😂

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120995106#Comment_120995106

No Deckard isn't a replicant in the sequel. Or to be more accurate:

It doesn't come up at all. He did somehow manage to get the Rachael pregnant - who was herself a replicant - so whether Deckard was himself a robot too was kinda immaterial in the sequel's story; the real headline being that the replicants could in theory reproduce as we do.