Fall of Epic
Epic Reine
The Winnie the Pooh IP expired awhile back so everybody is trying to get their hook into it. This explains that dumb Pooh horror movie that was released a few month back.
Narrative wise, it was the shits, I will agree. The story was less than even close to engaging and there was some major long form moments of really drab scenes of dialogue and in a really underdeveloped way. The only redeeming stuff was the action sequences which I think were alright, and Cage's performance deserved more focus on that. But I kinda agree, there really wasn't much of anything here to care about.Renfield belongs in here. One of the least enjoyable movies I've watched in a while
He took it to a whole new level of cringe in this one. Maybe the most annoying and face palming performance I've seen in film in....maybe forever?I knew it was gonna be bad when I read how large of a part Ken Jeong had. Aside from maybe the first couple seasons of Community, the guy is awful.
I see Hollywood still doesn't know how to use Iko Uwais.
Probably catch this one on a streamer a few months after it’s released.
“Exorcist II” has a cult following, just not one as vocal or deserved as “Sorcerer”. I think the best way to describe it is “a failure, but one that’s at least ambitious”.Since we don’t have a Bad Movies 1977 thread
‘The worst film ever made’? Why Exorcist II: The Heretic is truly the sequel from hell
How a director who hated the original, a befuddled Richard Burton and demonic locusts made a film so bad it had audiences’ heads spinningwww.telegraph.co.uk
Fun fact: Martin Scorsese liked this more than the original.
Also it’s kind of funny that William Friedkin made Sorcerer, which was an even bigger bomb than this although that was reappraised as a cult classic. That hasn’t happened for Exorcist II: The Heretic, except for Scorsese maybe.
Anyway, I feel like the newest Exorcist will get posted about in this thread soon enough.
It’s not good, but in the field of bad horror sequels it doesn’t come close to the lows of say, “Halloween 5” or those DTV “Hellraiser” sequels without Doug Bradley (and only one of the sequels with him is actually good)I was genuinely surprised to find out it was a moderate box office hit ($30 million on a $14 million budget. Which would be $151 million adjusted for inflation). I just assumed it was a massive flop given its “worst movie ever” reputation.
The thing about the first “Exorcist” is that everything about it is a perfect example as to why not everything needs to be a franchise-it works on its own, doesn’t need a sequel (audiences apparently laughed when the trailer for the sequel dropped), and is ultimately a story that works on its own. Also, one of the reasons “Exorcist III” works is that it goes out of its way for the most part to not feel a sequel. Outside of the studio mandated reshoots, it feels like it’s own movie (and was meant to be an adaptation of Blatty’s novel “Legion”), and it’s all the better for it.Yep and this is only the first of the trilogy. Can someone please make David Gordon Green stop making horror films? He wants to do Friday The 13th next. Could you imagine how bad his version of Suspiria would've been like?
It still will probably open well. Horror seems to be critic proof as Insidious: The Red Door and The Nun II showed. But, I imagine this drops lock a rock in it's second week and gets demolished by Swift. And then Five Nights At Freddy's will finish it off.