After a few years of ownership, I have now come to the conclusion that owning SUBURBAN COMMANDO on DVD is cool.

Any people who disagree will be swiftly executed.

Accepting the Synchronizer: A defense of Exorcist II: The Heretic.

There is a moment in John Boorman's Exorcist II: The Heretic where Richard Burton looks directly into the camera, right at the audience and exclaims. "Utterly horrible... yet fascinating!"
Well said, Richard Burton, well said, for unknowingly you have just described one of my guiltiest pleasures to a T.

Let's remember 'The Exorcist' for a moment, shall we?
That title has become synonymous with pure terror. Chances are you've heard someone say at some point "Well, it wasn't as scary as The Exorcist!" I mean, it's practically become a certified figure of speech, and rightfully so! William Friedkin's 'The Exorcist' is one of the greatest films ever made with its disturbing themes, nightmare-inducing visuals, heart-pounding suspense and top-notch acting. It's a certified classic and will be remembered for generations and generations to come.

On the other hand we have 'Exorcist II: The Heretic'.
"Well, it wasn't as bad as Exorcist II!" has become an almost equally common figure of speech. People shudder at the thought of Linda Blair cheerfully exclaiming 'I was possessed by a demon but it's okay! HE'S GONE NOW!' or a machine whose rubber headbands and blinking lights trigger complete synchronization between two human minds, of James Earl Jones turning into a leopard, Linda Blair getting her locust funk on as she pantomimes an African ritual and so many other moments of sheer absurdity.

It's the third most hated thing ever committed by man, right after the holocaust and the genocide in Rwanda.
And personally I think it's quite possible that Exorcist II: The Heretic is third only because of a two place margin of error.

'So how CAN you defend it, smart-ass? What can you POSSIBLY like about Exorcist 2?!'

It's unabashedly entertaining.
Of course it's stupid, of course it shows an amazing lack of respect for the masterpiece that is The Exorcist, of course it is a bad film but not entertaining?
Let me repeat what I said earlier; James Earl Jones turns into a leopard.
JAMES. EARL. JONES.
TURNS INTO A LEOPARD.
HOLY FUCK.
THAT IS AWESOME.
Not to mention Ennio Morricone's fantastic score.
It's tribal, wild and probably the best thing about this movie.

The film actually follows a lot of the rules of making a good sequel. The story is original and not a re-hash of the first film (whether said story is GOOD is a whole other thing entirely) and it offers new insight into the story (although the insight it offers is dubious, at best).
The stone-age psychology of the film only makes it better as a straight-faced Louise Fletcher (Who as Nurse Ratched I still haven't forgiven for One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and therefore do not trust as a person) babbles excitedly about technology so laughable it's awesome.

There is one thing you must do to enjoy Exorcist II.
Accept the synchronizer.
That's right, accept a double flashlight connected to two rubber headbands that joins human psyches. Just think to yourself 'Oh, how technology has advanced.' and think nothing more of it.
That is the first step towards actually accepting Exorcist II not only as a complete failure but a spectacularly fascinating failure. You must accept it as what it is. It's not perfect... or good at all but it IS ambitious, interesting and, as said before, amazingly entertaining.

In the trailer we see the familiar steps from the first movie, a place that has sparked so many nightmares for me that I can't keep count, and a threatening voice asks us 'Do you dare walk these steps again?'
Well, we did but as it turns out those steps lead to another destination then we expected. To a world of drunk Richard Burtons and mind synchronizers, of tap-dancing Linda Blairs and tomato-spittin' James Earl Joneses.

Many times have I taken these steps, these cracked, misshapen and badly crafted steps, overcome with glee.
Never once have I looked back.

I won't give it a star rating because I don't know whether to give it a two or a ten, a three or an eight, a fifty-two or a thirty, an E=MC² or a π so I give it the dubious rating of being Exorcist II and that's all there is to it.

A short comment on Robert Bresson's PICKPOCKET

Robert Bresson's Pickpocket is an amazing exercise in tension in storytelling.
You feel the anxiety, the fear, the hopes, the dreams of a thief while sitting in your seat biting your knuckles.
The visuals and montages of a thief perfecting his craft seem almost like one artist's homage to another.
The dialogue implies that the characters almost seem to grasp what it is that they're doing, that they really are petty thieves, yet fall short to see the big picture. However the film looks at it through a veil of romance and a dirty window at the same time, never condemning their acts yet letting us know that even though we root for the characters, even though we claw the backs of our hands bloody with suspense, hoping they succeed every time, that what they are doing is a crime and a petty one at that. When walking out of the film you argue with yourself whether what they did was a necessary evil to survive or simply a selfish crime.

Until I see it again I won't write more than this but expect a detailed review in the forthcoming weeks.
This is a film filled with beautiful images, tension (as mentioned before) and has the advantage of containing one of the most romantic scenes ever put on film.
I highly recommend it, one of the greatest films I've seen in a long time.