The Doctors tell him that they can save her OR the baby.  He has to choose.
13 years later, he's raising his Daughter in Georgia and trying to get by.

She makes friends and spends the night with one...only to go missing.
Well, you know the Title of this one, so you can guess where this goes.

The girl is definitely NOT ready for Picture Day!
Well, it's a Legacy Sequel, so who can they get?

It is Ellen Burstyn as the Mom from The Exorcist, who got famous for her story, but lost touch with her Daughter (who has avoided this Series since Part 2).

She's happy to help out, even if her Billing might make you believe that she has a bigger part than she actually does.
Can a Priest, a Pastor and a bunch of other people (including Aunt Lydia from The Handmaid's Tale) save TWO girls possessed by a demon (or demons)?!?

Is this a very literal case of Sequelitis?
It may come down to Dad making another choice.

Will he make the right one?

To find out, stream the Film now.
Someone paid $400 million for this (and possibly only this), so they'd prefer if you did!
Truth time- I don't hate this.

Get out the pitchforks!  It's true!

Is this better than the original?  No. 
Is this better than Part 2?  Hell yes.

This Film got lots of flack.  I'm honestly not sure why!
Sure- I could point out that some people *probably* didn't like it, since it Stars *gasp* People of Color.  That's a given.

The Plot isn't bad.  I do like the Story, and it plays out pretty well.  I like the make-up.  I like the Effects overall.  I liked the Acting from all involved.  It wasn't just a rehash with new CGI and Actors.

Was it likely a shallow marketing attempt to shell out that much money for the Series rights?  Yes.
Should the Film be blamed for that?  No.

This one is pretty good at hitting the right notes for a Legacy Sequel (returning character, some familiar beats) and being its own thing.  If you somehow have NO emotional connection to the Series of Films, you can watch this on its own.

Would it be less hated if it was one of the many, MANY non-Exorcist Films about an Exorcism?  Probably.

Ultimately, it is a decent to good Film that got hit for many reasons (fair or not), got people up in arms about a random line from Ellen Burstyn joking about 'the patriarchy' and probably wasn't helped by the growing annoyance at these kinds of Films (like that last TCM Film or the Halloween ones or Jurassic Park: Fallen Kingdom...or The Flash...or Spider-Man: No Way Home...etc, etc.)

Honestly, give it a chance.  You may or disagree.  Regardless, just remember what all Films fear- going head-to-head with Taylor Swift!

A Film that will hopefully get a fair shake.  Again- I'm not saying that it is life-changing or amazing, but it is not the Worst Film of the Year by a mile.

Seriously, did that come up in THE Exorcist?

The other story is that Burton did this as a 'pay for a divorce' Film.  You decide which reason is better.
He meets up with Regan, who claims to not remember anything about the Exorcism.

The head Doctor- the late Louise Fletcher- has a way to help them both...
A 'synchronizer' allows her to join minds with Regan and see the night in question.

Screenwriting Tip- redo the finale of your last Film to remind the audience of that (better) Film and to reuse Actors whose characters are dead.

This is also not Blair in make-up, since she, understandably, didn't want to do that again!
The Film gives you some very weird visuals to, which makes up for the otherwise slow pacing and meandering nature of the Film.

Hey look- it's a Double Regan.  What does that mean?!?
The Film leans *really* heavily on this stuff as the effect of it is shown on Regan as Pazuzu begins to force his influence on her.  That and her joining minds with the Father...since, why not.

The Film tries to make a dramatic Scene where she is affected...while tap dancing at a Show.

Horror!
The Father- see above- links to Pazuzu and those affected by it/him in Africa in the past.  They are a swarm of locusts, which is both literal and metaphorical all at once.

It involves a man- James Earl Jones- who was once possessed by the Spirit but was exorcised.

This brought Father Merrin to him.

Just to note: Jones was heard, but not seen in the first Star Wars in 1977.  He was seen in this.
Since Blair was still turning down the make-up, Pazuzu fully possesses her...with glowing eyes.

Can the new Father save her?
Can this methodical Film come to a big, satisfying climax?

Well, a Townhouse collapses- because Demon- so...I guess so. 

 

Regan's Caretaker- subbing for her Mom, since Burstyn turned this down-dies and she leaves with the Priest.  I smell a sitcom...and zero follow-up.

The End.
A weird mashup of Genres that probably won't fully satisfy anyone.  If you're the Director and/or Writer, you'll say that you 'didn't give the Audience what they wanted.'  If you are the Audience, you'd say that you should *allegedly* throw stuff at the screen.

I was never that mad.  Besides, it was my TV- why would I ruin it?!?

The Film is an attempt to do something different, for better or worse.  Some Critics felt that the first Film 'exploited Blair' for Horror.  I think the bulk of Critics felt that this Film 'exploited her for a confusing Movie.'

Ironically, the genesis of rushing this Film out was to compete with stuff like The Omen.  No chance of that happening with the focus on Parapsychology, a World Mind and all of those damn Locusts.  Seriously, those things are both a literal threat and a metaphorical one- that's so lazy!

The Acting is mostly quite strong, even if some of the people- like Jones- are handicapped by the silliness around them (and how they dress).  Von Sydow is a nice addition and Fletcher is always good.  Burton is kind of a mixed bag, which makes sense if you consider half of the stories about him at this time.  Blair does her best here too, honestly.

If the Film was its own Story and not a Sequel to 'the scariest Film of all time,' it would probably be both less and better remembered.  It is not the 2nd worst Film of all time, not even in 1980 when the Book was written.

One last question- does anyone actually have this Book?

Next up, it seems like a logical thing to wrap up this Series, no?  All I've got left is the *other* cut of the Prequel.

At long last, I read another Book!

In all seriousness, that is basically the gist of this.  I kept forgetting to get around to read many of the Books that I have that were later turned into Films.  I got the Book you see below many months ago.

Hell, I watched the Film first in 2011!

So how do the two stack up?
What is different?  What is the same?

To find, let's (slowly, but surely) read on...
What's the same?: 
Both Films use the same basic Plot and beats.

A mysterious person is killing Priests (and one black kid) off-camera/page.
He or she does really bad stuff to us that is only described (and not shown in the Film).
Detective Kinderman suspects that it has to do with the Gemini Killer and...Father Karras.

Fun Fact: the Zodiac Killer (whom Gemini inspired) was a 'fan' of the original Exorcist.  He said so himself.
What's different?:
The Film is much tighter in terms of Pacing.

For instance, when Kinderman sees Father Dyer in the Book, it takes about 10 pages.  They banter about key stuff, but also nonsense.

In the Film, the Scene is much more brief.

Also, this is a random change: in the Book, he brings Dyer a toy bear with a funny shirt, but he brings him a stuffed penguin in the Film.

Why bother?!?
In the Film, Kinderman eventually sees Patient X (called Mr. Sunshine in the Book) and he can morph between appearing like Gemini and Karras.

In the Book, there is nothing that overt.

This is part of a larger feel of adding more mysticism.
A more minor, but curious change is that Kinderman's Partner (and other Cops in general) get way more page-time. 
Granted- they are always just sounding boards for Blatty's curious prose as the Detective.

Even so, it's a shame that they give Kinderman a 'token black partner' and stripped away all of his identity (and most of his lines).

Is that called The Winston?
Interestingly enough (to me) is the fact that Film's arguably most famous bit is implied much more than actually happens in the Book.

We hear that a Nurse was killed and about what happened to her.

In the Film, well, you know...

On top of *that,* the follow-up attack in the Detective's House doesn't happen in the Book- at all!
Now here, of course, is the biggest change from the Book to the Film...

The Exorcism!

Father Morning is made up specifically for the Film and serves as a very literal Deux Ex Machina (by proxy).  He stops the possessed woman from killing Kinderman at his home and tries to exorcise the Gemini from Karras.

Again- all of the more explicit supernatural stuff is in this Version.

In the Film, Karras lets himself be killed to end the whole thing.
In the Book, Gemini's Father dies of a stroke (not caused by him) and the spirit chooses to leave when 'its work was done.'

Yep, no random Priest to add in just to die in the Book.
Final Thoughts:
The Book is deep and cerebral.  There's lots of discussions about fate, humanity and all of that.

In other words, it is pretentious as hell!

Don't get me wrong- it's quite good.  It's just not the Horror story that the Film became.
It feels like a continuation of events that took place after 'The Exorcist.'
The Film is clearly a Sequel (and the only one that counts).

If you like the Film (the official or unofficial Cut), the Book is a nice companion piece that definitely has less 'pizazz' (or Pazuzu) than it.

If you like the Book, the Film is a more streamlined, but also expanded take on the source material.  There's plenty of stuff missing- including a bit where Temple argues with a double- that could have been in the Film.

Both are good, but the Film is perhaps a more brisk experience that gets you to the same place.  No, not Hell.
A few minor points off from the Book- it doesn't include the Cameos of Fabio, Alonzo Mourning or Samuel L. Jackson.  

Darn?

How come this Sequel isn't ever talked about?  Today's Film is Repossessed, the only Film that's a real Sequel to The Exorcist.  Yes, Exorcist 2 has Regan, but that's pretty much.  Yes, Exorcist III has Karras (sort of) and a new guy as the Detective, but he wasn't exactly the biggest part of that Film.  This one has Regan, Pazzuzu, new Karras and even less electro-shock therapy.  Sure, some may call this a Paroday of the Series, especially since it was released in the same year as Exorcist III.  The Plot involves Regan facing evil yet again, this time with a new Priest on her side.  Will she be able to conquer her literal demon this time?  To find out, read on...
As Regan is freed of her possession in 1973, the Demon vows to return.  Oh crap.
The Demon politely waits nearly 20 years before retaking control of Regan via the TV.

If only there were groups like the PTC around back then to warn her!
Two things to note about this Film....

First- the Film is full of many dated jokes and bits of Casting.  For instance, this Oliver North gag and this extended Cameo by The 'Body by Jake' Guy.
Second- the Film is full of many quick sight gags that are actually clever.  For instance, this bit with Handicapped Parking Spots and Blair reaching across a split-screen to hang up a phone.
I should note that the Story is framed in a Flashback via Leslie Nielsen telling said Story to his class.  How the Priest appears for a Rap Number is anyone's guess then.
Nielsen's Priest is not up to the task of exorcising Regan again, so they'll go with Plan B...
A Televised Exorcism with some Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker Parodies.  Timeless stuff!
A load of sight gags happen at the Exorcism after Nielsen shows up.  There's even a version of the same joke they'd use in Dracula: Dead and Loving It a few years later.

Ultimately, the power of Rock (and dated Parodies) wins the day.  Seriously, how many people get this one?
When one Student questions the Story, he's doused in a double dose of projectile vomit from Blair and Nielsen.  That Student- Willie Garson.

On the plus side, it still isn't Sex and the City 2.  The End.
Okay, the fun is over.  Repossessed is obviously a Parody of The Exorcist.  It is interesting that they made it a Sequel.  Did they do it when Blair made herself available?  Did they realize that the Story of a young Girl being possessed by a Demon isn't going to be that funny?  Whatever the reason, it was a good call.  The Film does Parody key elements of the 1973 Classic- the Vomiting, the tossing of Holy Water and the shaking Bed, just to name a few.  To the Film's credit, the riffs on those bits are pretty good.  This is from the Airplane School of Comedy- constant jokes that fire quickly.  Don't find a joke funny- here's another 5 seconds later.  That helps the Movie cover up its weaker and more dated material, since it passes by so quickly.  You still need to have more winners than losers for it to be a completely-winning formula.  The results- most of the Film is so-so.  I hadn't seen this Film in Years- back when it was on all the damn time on Comedy Central.  I was expecting to like this one alot less than I did.  It's not great, but it has some good moments.  Repossessed is often overlooked for a number of reasons.  It was Directed and Written by the guy who brought us Meatballs 4, Starred the Lead from Return of the Killer Tomatoes and it opens with a fart joke based on THX Sound.  All fair reasons, really, but...it is still worth a look for its random and usually-funny gags.
Next up, I get back to the actual Horror I was planning to do.  Sleep well.  Stay tuned...

I'm not sure that I remember this Sequel!  Today's Films is Return of the Exorcist, a 1975 Film from Italy that has many Titles.  Amongst the list, there is Cries and Shadows, The Possessor, A Scream from the Darkness (in Italian), Naked Exorcism and Lucifer 3: The Angel Cursed (in Spanish).  

To note, my Version is a rip of the UK VHS Version, which is somehow billed as the THIRD Exorcist Film.  Despite Legion not being written until 1983 and even Exorcist II coming out in 1977, this one is 'the third one.'  

I'm sure that it was an issue of the Film being released later, but still!  

The Director has an interesting Filmography as he started with stuff like this and Mark of Zorro (with George Hilton aka Jorge Hill Acosta y Lara) before ending up doing lots of Adult Films under a different name.  How do you go from an Exorcist-style Film to The Nymphoniac, The Transexual and The Stud?  

The Plot is all kinds of a mess, but I'll do my best to sort it out for you.  If that fails, I'll just make fun of it some more.  To find out how crazy this thing is, read on...
This lady looks super-casual in this Cult Den.  

It must be the Feng Shui.
This guy- not Richard Lynch this time- is running some sort of Cult.  

I sure hope that this goes somewhere...
It all leads to this guy being possessed...before they go back and then show us how it happened.

That's...one way to do it.
It happens when he sees a naked lady and then takes a picture of her.  He finds a medallion that is apparently evil.

Get used to this lady being naked- it happens alot!
 I just want to point out how silly this guy looks.  

Is he Andy Gibb?
I sure hope that you pretend that this is as interesting as in The Exorcist.  

Please?  

Pretty please?!?
Kind of like The Exorcist, the Sister takes the amulet and dives off of a nearby cliff.  

Of course!
...only for a new guy to get it.  

Pointless and stupid sacrifice for the win!  The End.
Confusing, dull and bad.  Let me be honest: the Film is so forgettable that I got the Cult Guy and our 'Hero' mixed up.  They look alike, especially in glorious 240p.  

Thanks, VHS Rips from England!  

I couldn't figure out how he was leading the Cult and then possessed against his will.  The real answer isn't a whole lot better, of course.  

Possessed by a spirit from a Medallion found after seeing a naked Ghost Lady- why not?!?  This one is just plain not good.  It is super-forgettable, super-trashy and just plain not interesting.  

It is so bad that even the Film Stock is rejecting it!
Next time, I cover THE REAL Exorcist Sequel.  For real this time, guys.  Stay tuned...