Max-von-Sydow Movie Reviews

Read Ira Levin's book: five stars. Gripping, creepy, memorable. He puts you inside the mind of a sociopath. He writes women in grave danger (as in his later books also) and it will chill you. You turn the pages, helpless against the inevitable suspense.

Watch the 1956 movie that has Robert Wagner, Joanne Woodward, Virginia Leith, and Jeffery Hunter: four stars, an above-average thriller. It follows the book pretty well, and Wagner is menacing. The director does a masterful job with the unspoken elements of character and plot. Good musical score and sets, too.

This one with Matt Dillon and Sean Young? It is "dumbed-down" modern Hollywood tripe, below average. The acting and directing aren't very convincing, either. But mainly this is bad for the same reason the film version of "Sliver" is bad: Levin's brilliant writing is diluted into nonsense. Skip this unless you're a completist.

"A Kiss Before Dying" was already done well in 1956. So, why did they bother with this turkey remake? They could have made a fine film out of another Levin classic thriller, "This Perfect Day," instead!

The source material of this adaptation is rich enough to provides reels and reels worth of suspense: Ira Levin's novel of the same title which was first turned into a film in 1956 or so. The story of a charming but homicidal social climber preying on the daughters of a business tycoon is compact and sleek in its delivery of thrills and chills, much like Levin's other novel about imperiled women: SLIVER. However, just like the botched adaptation of that other novel, the second adaptation of A KISS BEFORE DYING also leaves a lot to be desired. While the weak film that SLIVER became can be blamed on faulty adaptation of the novel and not the performance of its lead actress (Contrary to a few but unfortunately potent reviews of the film, Sharon Stone delivers a performace that is appropriately low-key and vastly underrated), the equally ineffective film that A KISS BEFORE DYING becomes is primarilty the result of a lifeless performance by its female lead: Sean Young.

Sean Young is one of the most beautiful women in films today, and she has been quite memorable and effective in other films (BLADE RUNNER, THE BOOST, and most notably, NO WAY OUT). However, she is simply ineffective as the heroine of A KISS BEFORE DYING; the role calls for her to be driven and obsessed about finding out who murdered her twin sister. Unfortunately, the only "thing" she projects convincingly is disinterest. The success of this film turns on the degree of sympathy and concern we feel for her character. After all, her sister's murderer is really her husband (Matt Dillon, who is indeed effective), and the closer she gets to this revelation, the more danger she's in. But if she can't be bothered to appear interested, why should we? Our emotions are so disengaged that if a giant anvil were to drop out of the sky and land on Sean Young's character, we would simply sit there stone-faced, just like her.

What else could one want??? It's worth having in your collection, it's unfortunate it's not on DVD... also buy the book.

Read Ira Levin's book: five stars. Gripping, creepy, memorable. He puts you inside the mind of a sociopath. He writes women in grave danger (as in his later books also) and it will chill you. You turn the pages, helpless against the inevitable suspense.

Watch the 1956 movie that has Robert Wagner, Joanne Woodward, Virginia Leith, and Jeffery Hunter: four stars, an above-average thriller. It follows the book pretty well, and Wagner is menacing. The director does a masterful job with the unspoken elements of character and plot. Good musical score and sets, too.

This one with Matt Dillon and Sean Young? It is "dumbed-down" modern Hollywood tripe, below average. The acting and directing aren't very convincing, either. But mainly this is bad for the same reason the film version of "Sliver" is bad: Levin's brilliant writing is diluted into nonsense. Skip this unless you're a completist.

"A Kiss Before Dying" was already done well in 1956. So, why did they bother with this turkey remake? They could have made a fine film out of another Levin classic thriller, "This Perfect Day," instead!

The source material of this adaptation is rich enough to provides reels and reels worth of suspense: Ira Levin's novel of the same title which was first turned into a film in 1956 or so. The story of a charming but homicidal social climber preying on the daughters of a business tycoon is compact and sleek in its delivery of thrills and chills, much like Levin's other novel about imperiled women: SLIVER. However, just like the botched adaptation of that other novel, the second adaptation of A KISS BEFORE DYING also leaves a lot to be desired. While the weak film that SLIVER became can be blamed on faulty adaptation of the novel and not the performance of its lead actress (Contrary to a few but unfortunately potent reviews of the film, Sharon Stone delivers a performace that is appropriately low-key and vastly underrated), the equally ineffective film that A KISS BEFORE DYING becomes is primarilty the result of a lifeless performance by its female lead: Sean Young.

Sean Young is one of the most beautiful women in films today, and she has been quite memorable and effective in other films (BLADE RUNNER, THE BOOST, and most notably, NO WAY OUT). However, she is simply ineffective as the heroine of A KISS BEFORE DYING; the role calls for her to be driven and obsessed about finding out who murdered her twin sister. Unfortunately, the only "thing" she projects convincingly is disinterest. The success of this film turns on the degree of sympathy and concern we feel for her character. After all, her sister's murderer is really her husband (Matt Dillon, who is indeed effective), and the closer she gets to this revelation, the more danger she's in. But if she can't be bothered to appear interested, why should we? Our emotions are so disengaged that if a giant anvil were to drop out of the sky and land on Sean Young's character, we would simply sit there stone-faced, just like her.

What else could one want??? It's worth having in your collection, it's unfortunate it's not on DVD... also buy the book.

When the son of a director makes a film about his father, you have certain expectations. Bias, yes, but also insight and facts that are otherwise unknown. George Stevens Jnr provides us with his father's behind the scenes footage and also the World War 2 film he shot of D-day, the liberation of Paris, and Dachau, since he was in the special coverage unit. (The war footage is actually badly edited, or is it that the material is still subject to the censorship of the military?, and accompanied by a Hollywood-type saccharine score by Carl Davis). Jnr tells us that he was bequeathed his father's memorabilia, yet when it comes to covering his Hollywood career, we get hardly anything new. Even the behind the scenes home movies are mostly tedious images of the actors waving to the camera. So then we are left with the movies Snr made, complemeted by present day interviews with some of the actors involved. Of these, Katharine Hepburn is particularly entertaining. George Stevens is admired in the same way as John Ford, a point driven home by iconic profile stills of Snr in a cowboy hat. Like Ford, Stevens style was simple. He boasted that he could manage any genre, though he never tried a thriller, and his contemporaries Howard Hawks, William Wyler or John Huston were just as versatile and also managed to add some individuality. So there hangs an air of suffocating self-importance to the films we see. What is interesting is that this air evolved. His career in Hollywood began as a cameraman and gag writer for Laurel and Hardy, and Hal Roach. The story of how he overcame the blue eyes of Stan Laurel that the camera didn't register is the promise of detail unfulfilled. And the action of Gunga Din looks fun. Hepburn may have hit upon the reason for Stevens loss of humour. She comments that she had fierce arguments over his abandoning comedy, which she felt was his true gift, and turning to more serious subjects, though Jnr makes the point that it was his war experience which contributed to this decision. I guess after Dachau, nothing is funny anymore. Jnr also tells us that his father watched Triumph of the Will alone in a screening room and then said it was the most influential of his life. (Interpret that as you may). What is mentioned in this doco but passed over quickly is Snr's notorious reputation for shooting multiple takes of the same scene at different angles, so that he could make decisions when editing, which the studios balked at because of the cost of film exposed. (In this way, he was the opposite of Hitchcock, who shot so that the film could only be edited one way - ie the way Hitch had storyboarded it.) However all this seems worth it when you consider the one-take long-shot of The Way You Look Tonight from the Astaire/Rogers Swing Time (a lesson in how to shoot a dance number), and the beautiful extreme closeups of Elizabeth Taylor and Montgomery Clift in A Place in the Sun. Millie Perkins from The Diary of Anne Frank tells us that during their shoot, Stevens always wore dark sunglasses and treated the actors in the way he wanted them to perform. Since they were all meant to be frightened, that doesn't sound too positive. Luckily for Perkins, her character was to be loved. The perceived failure of The Greatest Story Ever Told also deprives us of anything of his later film, The Only Game in Town, though the discussion of his disagreement with Cecil B DeMille over Joseph L Mankiewicz and the Directors Guild during McCarthyism is fascinating.

When the son of a director makes a film about his father, you have certain expectations. Bias, yes, but also insight and facts that are otherwise unknown. George Stevens Jnr provides us with his father's behind the scenes footage and also the World War 2 film he shot of D-day, the liberation of Paris, and Dachau, since he was in the special coverage unit. (The war footage is actually badly edited, or is it that the material is still subject to the censorship of the military?, and accompanied by a Hollywood-type saccharine score by Carl Davis). Jnr tells us that he was bequeathed his father's memorabilia, yet when it comes to covering his Hollywood career, we get hardly anything new. Even the behind the scenes home movies are mostly tedious images of the actors waving to the camera. So then we are left with the movies Snr made, complemented by present day interviews with some of the actors involved. Of these, Katharine Hepburn is particularly entertaining. George Stevens is admired in the same way as John Ford, a point driven home by iconic profile stills of Snr in a cowboy hat. Like Ford, Stevens style was simple. He boasted that he could manage any genre, though he never tried a thriller, and his contemporaries Howard Hawks, William Wyler or John Huston were just as versatile and also managed to add some individuality. So there hangs an air of suffocating self-importance to the films we see. What is interesting is that this air evolved. His career in Hollywood began as a cameraman and gag writer for Laurel and Hardy, and Hal Roach. The story of how he overcame the blue eyes of Stan Laurel that the camera didn't register is the promise of detail unfulfilled. And the action of Gunga Din looks fun. Hepburn may have hit upon the reason for Stevens loss of humour. She comments that she had fierce arguments over his abandoning comedy, which she felt was his true gift, and turning to more serious subjects, though Jnr makes the point that it was his war experience which contributed to this decision. I guess after Dachau, nothing is funny anymore. Jnr also tells us that his father watched Triumph of the Will alone in a screening room and then said it was the most influential of his life. (Interpret that as you may). What is mentioned in this doco but passed over quickly is Snr's notorious reputation for shooting multiple takes of the same scene at different angles, so that he could make decisions when editing, which the studios balked at because of the cost of film exposed. (In this way, he was the opposite of Hitchcock, who shot so that the film could only be edited one way - ie the way Hitch had storyboarded it.) However all this seems worth it when you consider the one-take long-shot of The Way You Look Tonight from the Astaire/Rogers Swing Time (a lesson in how to shoot a dance number), and the beautiful extreme closeups of Elizabeth Taylor and Montgomery Clift in A Place in the Sun. Millie Perkins from The Diary of Anne Frank tells us that during their shoot, Stevens always wore dark sunglasses and treated the actors in the way he wanted them to perform. Since they were all meant to be frightened, that doesn't sound too positive. Luckily for Perkins, her character was to be loved. The perceived failure of The Greatest Story Ever Told also deprives us of anything of his later film, The Only Game in Town, though the discussion of his disagreement with Cecil B DeMille over Joseph L Mankiewicz and the Directors Guild during McCarthyism is fascinating.

Sean Connery still has its charm, but he seems more like the aging high school football hero who has to live in the memory of his past glory. This film is a remake of the 1965 Bond film Thunderball. The original movie was much better in every way. The music in this film is very poor, the acting is mediocre and quite honestly the movie is way too long and dull. The changes made in the script don't help it, but rather hurt it. It is worth a passing glance if only to make you appreciate his other Bond films.

NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN was Sean Connery's return as Bond for one final shot as one of screens most famous heros. The movie is a little overboard on fun and silliness and is a very similar story to Seans most famous Bond movie THUNDERBALL. James Bond (Connery-still good) is somewhat retired and not as fit as he once was as the movie opens and is told to get in shape at a health spa if he is to continue his duties as a government agent. Meanwhile the fiendish criminal group S.P.E.C.T.R.E. has got plans to steal nuclear weapons from a NATO bomber and have their agent Largo hold the world ransom with the bombs. Bond must track down Largo and the bombs before it is too late and millions are killed. Connery is trying to fit in what was at the time the Moore era of Bond movies and while Connery still is a great James Bond despite his age, the Moore films were much more different then the older Connery capers. Moores' movies went for fun and stunts Connery's were serious and had more down and dirty spy action. The silliness abounds on many levels such as when S.P.E.C.T.R.E. sends a destructive oaf to kill Bond at the health club and ends up wrecking just about everything but Bond. Or the fact that Largo is nowhere NEARLY as menacing or mean as the Largo in THUNDERBALL. One true highlight of the film is the villiness Fatima Blush who is an outragously wild hit woman who wants to make sure that she gets Bond. I will give Fatima 1 star and the rest of the movie 2. This movie is fun and only fun nothing more. But if you want to see Connery's last shot as Bond in a film, this is it.

....when THUNDERBALL was such a classic? Plus it's overlong and we had already seen action aplenty before in all other Bond films. Even worse is the music score, and the climax is recycled into a more boring script lacking originality or great gadgets. What I also can't figure it is why does Connery look so much better in this film at 53 then he did in DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER at 41? He's thin, quick, agile, and still quick with the quips. When Barbara Carrera's Fatima Blush waterskis up to him in Nassau she apologizes with "I've made you all wet!", Bond replies, "Yes, but my martini is still dry." Who but Connery could get away with a line like that?

Good supporting cast includes Klaus Maria Brandauer as a young blonde haired Largo lacking the eye-patch. Still where's Adolfo Celi when we need him? Kim Basinger and Barbara Carrera may not have been the best Bond gals, but are they as always sexy. The best sequences in the film come from an opening war-game teaser, the battle with Lippe at Shrublands, and a great motorcycle chase. At least with Connery in the role the film has some class to it, helped with Kim Basinger and Valerie Leon in the cast. Aside from Connery the best performance comes from Barbara Carrera as the assassin Fatima Blush. She's clever, wicked, and has a love for deadly snakes. What's also missing is the ticking clock element of THUNDERBALL creating the worldwide panic. Thus there is no sense of urgency for Bond to save the world from the A-bomb.

So where does the film stand out? Irvin Kershner hot off the success of THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK brings some class to it with Carrera's Fatima Blush, the Domination video game, Basinger's dancing, the Health Club sequence, and the tango. The real let down is Edward Fox's terrible performance as M and a lousy music score.

Sean Connery still has its charm, but he seems more like the aging high school football hero who has to live in the memory of his past glory. This film is a remake of the 1965 Bond film Thunderball. The original movie was much better in every way. The music in this film is very poor, the acting is mediocre and quite honestly the movie is way too long and dull. The changes made in the script don't help it, but rather hurt it. It is worth a passing glance if only to make you appreciate his other Bond films.

NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN was Sean Connery's return as Bond for one final shot as one of screens most famous heros. The movie is a little overboard on fun and silliness and is a very similar story to Seans most famous Bond movie THUNDERBALL. James Bond (Connery-still good) is somewhat retired and not as fit as he once was as the movie opens and is told to get in shape at a health spa if he is to continue his duties as a government agent. Meanwhile the fiendish criminal group S.P.E.C.T.R.E. has got plans to steal nuclear weapons from a NATO bomber and have their agent Largo hold the world ransom with the bombs. Bond must track down Largo and the bombs before it is too late and millions are killed. Connery is trying to fit in what was at the time the Moore era of Bond movies and while Connery still is a great James Bond despite his age, the Moore films were much more different then the older Connery capers. Moores' movies went for fun and stunts Connery's were serious and had more down and dirty spy action. The silliness abounds on many levels such as when S.P.E.C.T.R.E. sends a destructive oaf to kill Bond at the health club and ends up wrecking just about everything but Bond. Or the fact that Largo is nowhere NEARLY as menacing or mean as the Largo in THUNDERBALL. One true highlight of the film is the villiness Fatima Blush who is an outragously wild hit woman who wants to make sure that she gets Bond. I will give Fatima 1 star and the rest of the movie 2. This movie is fun and only fun nothing more. But if you want to see Connery's last shot as Bond in a film, this is it.

....when THUNDERBALL was such a classic? Plus it's overlong and we had already seen action aplenty before in all other Bond films. Even worse is the music score, and the climax is recycled into a more boring script lacking originality or great gadgets. What I also can't figure it is why does Connery look so much better in this film at 53 then he did in DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER at 41? He's thin, quick, agile, and still quick with the quips. When Barbara Carrera's Fatima Blush waterskis up to him in Nassau she apologizes with "I've made you all wet!", Bond replies, "Yes, but my martini is still dry." Who but Connery could get away with a line like that?

Good supporting cast includes Klaus Maria Brandauer as a young blonde haired Largo lacking the eye-patch. Still where's Adolfo Celi when we need him? Kim Basinger and Barbara Carrera may not have been the best Bond gals, but are they as always sexy. The best sequences in the film come from an opening war-game teaser, the battle with Lippe at Shrublands, and a great motorcycle chase. At least with Connery in the role the film has some class to it, helped with Kim Basinger and Valerie Leon in the cast. Aside from Connery the best performance comes from Barbara Carrera as the assassin Fatima Blush. She's clever, wicked, and has a love for deadly snakes. What's also missing is the ticking clock element of THUNDERBALL creating the worldwide panic. Thus there is no sense of urgency for Bond to save the world from the A-bomb.

So where does the film stand out? Irvin Kershner hot off the success of THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK brings some class to it with Carrera's Fatima Blush, the Domination video game, Basinger's dancing, the Health Club sequence, and the tango. The real let down is Edward Fox's terrible performance as M and a lousy music score.

This movie, based on the novel by Stephen King, has such a great premise. Its underlying tones focus on the greed and self-love we all have in ourselves, and how the devil can prey on our every weekness, with something as simple as a baseball card. It fails however, in chopping up the novel, and deleting many scenes that could have made this a very important movie. If you can, watch the 3 hour directors cut that aired on TBS, which has more charcters (including Cora Rusk) and in which the sellings of leland gaunt are spanned throughout the whole movie, instead of just in the first half. Great performances all around (JT walsh a bit over the top), while Amanda Plummer shines and chills as the victim Nettie Cobb, who participates in one of the best cat-fights I have ever seen!

Stephen King adaptations are strictly hit-or-miss propositions, and this supernatural thriller from 1993 is definitely a "miss," based on one of King's lesser novels and starring Max von Sydow as the evil proprietor of a small-town antique shop named "Needful Things." That's the place where anyone can go to find the one thing they cherish the most, but of course there's a price for such priceless keepsakes. Yep, that's right ... von Sydow is Satan, and his customers pay for "needful things" with their souls. The sheriff catches onto this hellish predicament, and, well ... let's just say things go downhill from there, with von Sydow delivering sardonic wisecracks as he wreaks devilish havoc on the town. Lots of stuff gets blown to bits, by which time this movie has long since worn out its welcome. Harris and von Sydow do their best to liven up the dreary scenario, but this is strictly for die-hard King fans, and even then the recommendation is marginal. Not one I'd recommend. It's bad, real bad, but funny. A good laugh is all that this provides, but then again most King adaptations usually end up bad. For good King movies check out The Shining, Carrie, Salem's Lot, and Pet Sematary.

A Mysterious Stranger by the name of Leland Gaunt (Max Von Sydow). Who Comes to Castle Rock, Maine to Open a Curio Shop, that Seems to have Something for Everyone but Gaunt is Actually the Devil and He also trades for Souls, Asking his New Clients for Doing Favors for Him bu Starting Trouble by Turning the Locals against Eachother and then Setting a Chain-Reaction between Murder and Mayhem but the Local Sheriff (Ed Harris) is Set to Destory the Devil before Gaunt is going to Destroy the Whole Population of Castle Rock.

Directed by Fraser Heston (Alaska) made a Entertaining, Often Tongue in Cheek-Black Comedy. Which is Based on the Novel by Stephen King (The Green Mile, Christine, Hearts in Altantis). Screenplay by W.D. Ricther (Invision of the Body Snatchers-1978, Big Trouble in Little China) makes it Clever, Funny and Viciously Genuine Flick. Although before it`s Summer Release in 1993, Needful Things was Heavily Cut to Toned It Down from the Original Three-Hour Cut to a Two Hour Movie for Theatrical Release. The Film Wasn`t a Hit in Theaters, as usual, it did Better on Video. The Movie does have a Good Supporting Cast, Including:Bonnie Bedella, J.T. Walsh (RIP) and Amanda Plummer. The Performances of Sydow and Harris are Fine. Heston made a Special Cut for TBS Superstation-Adding most of his Original Cut for Television (Although, Just Cutting a Few Vulgar Comic Scenes from the Original Theatrical Cut), It`s Runs about Three Hours-Making Much More Sense to It. DVD is the Original Theatrical Release has an sharp anamorphic Widescreen (1.85:1) transfer and an fine Dolby Stereo 2.0 Surround Sound. DVD's only extra is a Trailer. Mostly Fans of Stephen King or Fans of the Actors in the Movie will find this Enjoyable. Watch for Lisa Blount, Which was She was seen very Briefly in the Original Release-In the Television Version, Her Role is much more Extended in the Special T.V. Cut. Also:Watch for Lochlyn Munro (Scary Movie, Unforgiven) in a Small Role as a Police Deputy. Grade:A-.

Judge Dredd is one of the all time classic comic-strips from 2000AD. The strip has moral ambiguity and a brutal view of the future, where the Law has to be instant and vicious. The Judges ARE the Law, there is no appeal or higher authority. Instead of pursuing this, the film ignores the whole point of bothering with the adaptation and turns it into a generic cop flick. Stallone removes his helmet, giving Dredd a character and personality(just), where Dredd should be faceless and emotionless. He has a 'romance', strictly forbidden for judges. Worst of all he shows mercy and compassion for those who break the law. The idea of Dredd disabling someone who shoots at him is absurd, or as Dredd would say,"The sentence is death." There would be no question of Dredd's integrity because there would be no evidence of him DOING anything else except Judging. What could have been a bleak, shocking, morally interesting action film has been turned into a vehicle for Stallone's posturing and 'Star Power'.

The first part (a.k.a. the first 15 minutes) are pretty cool, with Sly as some sort of human version of Robocop. But then the plot kicks in and he loses the flashy armor and weapons and such and it turns quickly into a Total Recall rip-off...except he's got a dopey side-kick. Art direction is nice, but they could do better than the bargain-basement CGI they popped for. Sly and Judge Dredd deserve better than this.

Woah! A good STALLONE FILM! I HAVEN'T SEEN ONE SINCE ANTS! This film is a true classic! Sure you see his face, but doesn't that make him more human. The film doesn't need a good story, cause the action is all fun. I wish more films could be like this, great action, and a story to match.

No movie could live up to the volume and sheer impact of "The Exorcist," so one has to have some respect for John Boorman for trying. However, this respect soon dwindles when one realizes that the claustrophobic and moody atmosphere as well as the "documentary-realism" that the original carried seems to have been lost on Boorman. He instead opts for psychotherapy and change in locales to push the idea that Regan was not picked at random for the subject of possession, but was instead victimized because she has the ability to heal. Father Merrin too, it seems, was as much plagued by demons as was Regan. Still, this movie does offer answers to questions about the backgrounds and motivations of the characters that weren't fully explored in the first film for those patient (and cerebral) enough to parse the often wordy, fragmented and obscure dialogue. Original cast members Linda Blair, Max Von Sydow and Kitty Winn return, and are joined by newcomers Richard Burton and Louise Fletcher as they try to get to the bottom of the struggle inside of Regan. This video is recommendable only to those who have seen the first installment and have a hunger--for either carnage or knowledge--that wasn't satiated by the first masterpiece. If, however, you are searching for more psychological terror and genuine seeds of discomfort (something the original provided in abundance), look elsewhere, for you won't find it here.

I have viewed EXORCIST 2 on several occasions just to see the reason as to why it's constantly referred to as the worst sequel ever made. Although I certainly agree with the film's inferiority to the classic original, I don't agree with it's constant crucifying.

First things first, I think that one of the reasons so many people walked out of this film during it's theatrical run was due largely to the film's lack of shock sequences. The original EXORCIST was full of them; head spinnings, regurgitations, doing bad things with holy relics. The sequel offered none of the above, not even the occasional cuss word and alot of people were left unsatisfied and angry.

My biggest problem with EXORCIST 2 is in the make-up effects. The original had frightening make-up effects that transformed the innocent beauty of Linda Blair into a hideous creature from hell. Her face was scarred and mutilated, sweaty and slimy, with colourless eyes and chapped lips. Truly terrifying. The make-up in the sequel is too made up, too neat. It doesn't even come close to the same frighening level. Another factor is the voice effects. The demon in EXORCIST 2 sounds like an old woman. It's predessesor used an amplified demonic voice which not only spoke English but also in Latin and in many scenes, there were several overlapping voices, making it seem that Regan was possessed by a legion of demons. The overall effect was as chilling as the nasty visuals. The sequel fails to deliver on that level as well.

Another factor is the silly use of the "synchronizer" machine. All of that mumbo-jumbo about some mysterious machine that is able to hypnotizes 2 individuals at the same time and one is able to see the other person's dreams, blah, blah, blah is simply too over the top unbelievable. I think the film would have worked better had they just resorted to good old fashioned hypnosis.

All of that said, EXORCIST 2 is still a very attractive looking movie. The special effects and cinematography are excellent. Even those who despise the film have commented on the visually stunning set pieces- The sweeping views of the African landscapes; the surreal images of the locusts swarming an impoverished African Village; doves flying over Regan's Penthouse balcony; and last but not least Linda Blair's exquisite and radiant beauty. The film's score is also quite good. As a matter of fact it's quite beautiful, especially Regan's theme. The tune wouldn't leave my mind for several days after I watched the film. I also liked the idea behind Regan's possession- she's some kind of Godsend, a healer who Satan wants destroyed. However on the negative side, the whole scenario is executed to such a ridiculous extent that we end up being annoyed instead of moved by the whole experience.

There are 2 versions of EXORCIST 2. There's the original theatrical version presented on this DVD and there's also a version Boorman released after the films critical attack. The version they ALWAYS showed on TV here in Toronto was the latter and it's the version I'm used to. I personally think it's a definate improvement over the original theatrical release. The alternate opening is included on this DVD but the alternate ending is not which is disappointing because the second ending is far better. Although no less confusing, it's edited to an extent that it flows better and all of the bogus dialogue after the collapse of Regan's former residence is gone. What I found ridiculous about the "original" finale is that you have a house collapse into nothingness, you have a fatal car crash, a fire, a swarm of a million locusts, yet no one on the block seems to notice. The street is absolutely empty. Come on people, not even a " Bertha, what the heck is going on next door??? or "Why did I just see a million angry grasshoppers fly by our window????" Nada. At least the director's final cut ended with Regan's "locust" dance so we don't get a chance to ask all of these relevent questions.

EXORCIST 2 is definately NOT for "original" EXORCIST loyalists because you will only religiously dislike it. However, if you have an open mind and view it solely as entertainment, you might find plenty to like. It offers dazzling visuals, breathtaking scenery and some surreal imagery. Not perfect, but definately NOT THE WORST MOVIE EVER MADE.

This movie continues the story of Regan McNeil and her troubles with the evil spirit Pazuzu. Regan (Linda Blair) is older now (and looks very pretty) and is seeing a therapist to deal with her horrible experience that took place in the first movie. A priest (Richard Burton) is sent to investigate the death of Father Merrin (the exorcist in the original movie) which he must question Regan. James Earl Jones even makes an appearance in this movie as an African who was also possessed by Pazuzu. This movie has great visuals, decent special effects, a great soundtrack, and an interesting continuation of the Exorcist saga. The ending will suprise you because you will never even imagine what happens. The only glitch in this movie is it may run a little slow for this era and the acting isn't up to par, but if you enjoyed the first one you must see this one to see what happens to poor little Regan.

This is a great giallo horror film, and Dario Argento has finally returned to full form with this latest effort. The fact that this disc is not only a full-frame version of the movie (making it look like a cheap 70's television show, with grain and "stretched" framing) but is also probably a R-rated cut of the film-- and we'll never knoiw because Artisan gives absolutely NO information on the film's specs and there is NO extra features on the disc-- is really disapointing. This is a poor bare-bones DVD release of a spectacular new horror thriller by one of the masters of the genre. Too bad Artisan once again fail to recognize greatness when it's right in front of them and dish out crap like this to customers who want better DVD products for their money. For Argento fans and DVD collectors, this is just another slap in the face by Artisan Entertainment. Be careful when buying Artisan DVD's from now on. You usually don't get what you pay for (I.E. see the recent Ginger Snaps Artisan DVD compared to its Canadian counterpart that actually HAS extra features to see what I mean). A truly pitiful DVD release of a great horror film. That's why I gave it a 2.

THIS REVIEW IS OF THE DUTCH RELEASED UNCUT VERSION.
Ok, Ok, it's lightyears behind DEEP RED and SUSPIRIA but hey, it wipes the floor with TRAUMA.
I must say that my reaction to this film was so mixed that I immediately had to watch it again and I'm glad I did. Firstly, if your an Argento-file then you'll be happy to know that the murder scenes are graphic and gory but the film really looses out with it's atrociously dubbed voices and some miscasting in the major roles (Von Sydow excluded). Whilst this can be mainly overlooked, to a point, I also found the killer's identity to be blazingly obviously from my first viewing (something I don't like in an Argento movie) and the silly ending where all is revieled to be both unconvincing and particularly weak (I mean, this is Argento here). Also, whilst the film looks fine (don't expect the hallucination-inducing lighting of SUSPIRIA here), it looks like it was shot by the makers of the german horror/thriller ANATOMIE and not by a master like Argento.
Overall though, this is ten times better than the horribly inept TRAUMA and will satisfy many hungry Argento-files on those dark, rainy nights.

A long awaited release, since the not-so-hot, "Phantom of The Opera", and "Stendhal Syndrome".

Argentophiles Unite! Dario somewhat goes back to his roots here, with his earlier masterpieces, such as "Suspiria", "Profondo Rossa"(aka: Deep Red), etc. Although this one does not achieve the caliber those ones did, it's still a decent movie in it's own right.

It has some touches of his earlier "giallo's", but drags on a little, due to the acting, which is'nt so hot. Except for the great Max Von Sydow, and a decent performance by old-time Argento, and Italian Cinema great, "Gabriele Lavia".

Like I said, the movies a little slow in places, but it will keep you guessing until the end, of who the killer is, or isn't? It is a pretty clever script and contains various twists until the very end.

I'm in the US, and was subjected to the horrible Artisan release of the movie. But soon obtained a region-free, Pal to NTSC format player, at a very good price mind you, from right here at Amazon,then got the UK version from MIA. All I can say is WOW!!. You can't even compare the difference. First of all it's in beautiful Anamorphic Widescreen. Something Artisan said their US release was going to be, but gave us the crap we were sort of subjected to buying instead. It has a decent selection of xtra's, and that's just disc one. Disc 2 has the documentary, "Dario Argento: An Eye For Horror", also in Anamorphic Widescreen.

Buck for buck, I would say, if you live in the US or Canada, try to find a player this is 1) All region. (Although this particular disc is all region anyway, but there are many other titles worth seeking out besides this release that are Region 2) and 2) Scrap this [stuff] from Artisan and get this UK import fro MIA. You'll be glad you did!

I would give the Artisan release 1 star for the presentation of the movie, (pan & scan), and 4 stars for the movie itself.

The UK Import from MIA, I would give an overall 5 stars, which reflects why I gave this 5 stars in my rating of this movie, certainly not for the US release, sorry.

If the Artisan release is your only choice, then get it, just because it's an Argento movie, and that's about it. Otherwise go for the gold and get the UK MIA release. CIAO!!

This is a great giallo horror film, and Dario Argento has finally returned to full form with this latest effort. The fact that this disc is not only a full-frame version of the movie (making it look like a cheap 70's television show, with grain and "stretched" framing) but is also probably a R-rated cut of the film-- and we'll never knoiw because Artisan gives absolutely NO information on the film's specs and there is NO extra features on the disc-- is really disapointing. This is a poor bare-bones DVD release of a spectacular new horror thriller by one of the masters of the genre. Too bad Artisan once again fail to recognize greatness when it's right in front of them and dish out crap like this to customers who want better DVD products for their money. For Argento fans and DVD collectors, this is just another slap in the face by Artisan Entertainment. Be careful when buying Artisan DVD's from now on. You usually don't get what you pay for (I.E. see the recent Ginger Snaps Artisan DVD compared to its Canadian counterpart that actually HAS extra features to see what I mean). A truly pitiful DVD release of a great horror film. That's why I gave it a 2.

THIS REVIEW IS OF THE DUTCH RELEASED UNCUT VERSION.
Ok, Ok, it's lightyears behind DEEP RED and SUSPIRIA but hey, it wipes the floor with TRAUMA.
I must say that my reaction to this film was so mixed that I immediately had to watch it again and I'm glad I did. Firstly, if your an Argento-file then you'll be happy to know that the murder scenes are graphic and gory but the film really looses out with it's atrociously dubbed voices and some miscasting in the major roles (Von Sydow excluded). Whilst this can be mainly overlooked, to a point, I also found the killer's identity to be blazingly obviously from my first viewing (something I don't like in an Argento movie) and the silly ending where all is revieled to be both unconvincing and particularly weak (I mean, this is Argento here). Also, whilst the film looks fine (don't expect the hallucination-inducing lighting of SUSPIRIA here), it looks like it was shot by the makers of the german horror/thriller ANATOMIE and not by a master like Argento.
Overall though, this is ten times better than the horribly inept TRAUMA and will satisfy many hungry Argento-files on those dark, rainy nights.

A long awaited release, since the not-so-hot, "Phantom of The Opera", and "Stendhal Syndrome".

Argentophiles Unite! Dario somewhat goes back to his roots here, with his earlier masterpieces, such as "Suspiria", "Profondo Rossa"(aka: Deep Red), etc. Although this one does not achieve the caliber those ones did, it's still a decent movie in it's own right.

It has some touches of his earlier "giallo's", but drags on a little, due to the acting, which is'nt so hot. Except for the great Max Von Sydow, and a decent performance by old-time Argento, and Italian Cinema great, "Gabriele Lavia".

Like I said, the movies a little slow in places, but it will keep you guessing until the end, of who the killer is, or isn't? It is a pretty clever script and contains various twists until the very end.

I'm in the US, and was subjected to the horrible Artisan release of the movie. But soon obtained a region-free, Pal to NTSC format player, at a very good price mind you, from right here at Amazon,then got the UK version from MIA. All I can say is WOW!!. You can't even compare the difference. First of all it's in beautiful Anamorphic Widescreen. Something Artisan said their US release was going to be, but gave us the crap we were sort of subjected to buying instead. It has a decent selection of xtra's, and that's just disc one. Disc 2 has the documentary, "Dario Argento: An Eye For Horror", also in Anamorphic Widescreen.

Buck for buck, I would say, if you live in the US or Canada, try to find a player this is 1) All region. (Although this particular disc is all region anyway, but there are many other titles worth seeking out besides this release that are Region 2) and 2) Scrap this [stuff] from Artisan and get this UK import fro MIA. You'll be glad you did!

I would give the Artisan release 1 star for the presentation of the movie, (pan & scan), and 4 stars for the movie itself.

The UK Import from MIA, I would give an overall 5 stars, which reflects why I gave this 5 stars in my rating of this movie, certainly not for the US release, sorry.

If the Artisan release is your only choice, then get it, just because it's an Argento movie, and that's about it. Otherwise go for the gold and get the UK MIA release. CIAO!!