Moving on from features which go in new and often humorous directions from the original story, it's time to take a look at those inevitable sequels which follow popular or acclaimed releases. With so many book franchises lined up it should be easy not to screw things up that much, right? After all a cash grab rehash is a rare occurrence... yeah. Sarcasm aside, the line-up we have here doesn't ever get too ridiculous although the results do vary wildly. It's interesting that they all use that old trick of delaying the story for a few years to go off on new tangents and recast certain characters. Some might actually be good, which is just a crazy idea.
Kicking things off Damien: Omen II does trip and stumble a little, and it's not just because of that awkward wording in the title of the film. Richard Donner's first evil child outing still holds up as a tense and atmospheric shocker. There are uneasy build ups, eerie dark room scenes, the moment with several sheets of glass as well and of course the worst children's party ever amongst. A real classic, ripe for a sequel. This time around things seem a little tame and all but one of the victims who fall into the Satanic plot go out in ways that don't have the same kind of bite.
The film as a whole isn't necessarily poor but it just seems rather pedestrian, vehicle accidents and icy lakes all lack that punch this all head originally. The Beast himself as a teenager (Jonathan Scott-Taylor) never has the kind of creepy edge which came with his portrayal as a child, though his performance isn't too bad. It just worked better when he had that butter-wouldn't-melt look on his face. The plot itself is fine setting up Damien's rise to power through economic means as a Thorne Industries agricultural program moves into questionable new directions and the allies of evil reveal themselves.
Scenes involving an ancient painting showing the Anti-Christ begin to seem a little ridiculous with people declaring that 'the boy must die' immediately on seeing it. The whole thing also starts to feel a little Final Destination in places as the gimmick deaths pile up and the actual horror and suspense is drained away. It's watchable overall but ultimately nothing special. Wasted potential is the biggest problem, since this was always part of a series. Knowing there's a third part afterwards doesn't help the feeling of lower stakes I suppose, but the same could be said of any series.
While the Omen series follows the original stories as far as I'm aware, Psycho II drops the novel entirely which was deemed at the time not to be commercial enough. However it works better than you'd expect. With shots lifted from the original Hitchcock classic being transferred into high contrast '80s colour and an accompanying Jerry Goldsmith score, it starts to come together. The big reason a lot of this works is still Anthony Perkins, who remains as affable as ever in his performance as a now cured Norman Bates. I have heard Christopher Walken was considered and this might all have been a... rather different made for TV movie.
After being deemed not responsible for all those murders he's released from care - in the face of protests in the court room. But not to worry a doctor will turn up at the motel when he feels like it for a couple minutes of chit chat, what can go wrong? It's a very eyebrow raising setup to say the least in terms of psychiatric help, but it means that Norman is out in the real word. Is he still crazy or are there just vengeful parties out to get him put back inside unjustly? That basic premise gets this all moving, and to be fair it's a decent enough plot which works thanks to a lot of slowly paced suspense scenes that at least try to emulate the first film's style.
Let's be honest the viewers watching this are all waiting for him to go to pieces in a twisted way, which adds another layer of anticipation to everything. It's not a great success by any means but I'd still call it a fair effort that at least tries things on its own terms instead of aping the original at every step. There are also some new additions like the sleazy new owner of the Bates Motel (does Dennis Franz play jerks or jerk cops in every film?) and some odd goings in the basement and other rooms of that house on the hill. It's an entertaining mystery thriller, not a sacrilegious rehash.
Moving onto another series, Dracula Prince of Darkness is about as faithful to the source material as the Hammer series ever was, which is to say it's still a pretty loose adaptation. But a few good moments have been taken straight from Bram Stoker including a bug eating hospital patient and Dracula's method of turning his victims via his own blood. In the whole course of the franchise scenes like this which they actually use the novel are fleeting, but there are still things to like. The story we do get follows up years on from the original film's events (like all those featured in here) conveniently setting it in a time when vampires are seen as superstition.
But of course eventually more foolish travellers visit the Christipher Lee's castle, another vampire killer has to get to work, and more red paint is spilled. In the opening they make the odd choice to include flashbacks of Peter Cushing in the climax of the first film. It's nice to have a recap of course, but it just shows the kind of style and energy which has been lost here. They do at least have Andrew Keir from the movie version of Quatermass and the Pit at least, doing his part as a stoic priest reluctant to believe that evil has returned and getting odd looks from the local villagers who don't appreciate is attitude.
Elsewhere the rest of the cast from Rasputin the Mad Monk do a fair job as the latest visitors to vampire country. Though if you've ever watched these two as their intended double feature the reused elements beyond the actors are a bit distracting. It's a cheap and cheerful production style I suppose. The real problem this series always has is still here; Dracula is less a character and more just a simple monster. He gets no lines at all this time around, which could be the intended script or it could be Lee's refusal to read it depending who you believe. But while it's not great second chapter overall this is probably the last sequel to be worth any real consideration until Scars of Dracula which ditches all continuity.
Ending this on a higher note, The Exorcist III sticks more closely to the original source material. Most of the time at least. Legion was written as a murder mystery complete with a detective hero who briefly appeared in The Exorcist. After talks with John Carpenter, William Peter Blatty decided to direct it himself. I'd have liked to see Carpenter's version personally. But on the subject of different versions, studio interference meant the story name was changed and additional footage was added so it would be more in line with the new title. Still, despite knowing someone had stuck their oar in nearly everything here works, which is more of a shock than some of the jump scares here.
Yes there are jarring moments when a priest arrives to excise evil raising a lot of questions of how and why, but this is still a very sinister and creepy piece of work on the whole. It looks great and has some effective set pieces, and not just the blood soaked moments as the inclusion of a dream sequence shows. As a horror feature it's got a lot to like, but the rest of it works pretty well just as a film. The bulk of the plot involves Lieutenant Kinderman (George C. Scott) investigating the possible return of a serial killer from many years prior, leading him to a mystery patient at the local hospital 'high security' ward.
His performance is a bit over done but it's a great character. The dialogue between his friends and the hospital staff is really fun too, with plenty of cynical quips. Blatty's sense of humour and his love of wry banter features heavily in a similar way to The 9th Configuration. The best stuff is courtesy of 'Patient X' played by Brad Douriff, who gives a great turn as usual. Their battle of wits has a lot of tension well before the supernatural craziness starts to be introduced. I hate to say this but some parts have aged better than the original film, and while some parts can be shelved under rehash what works is the new direction as a hunt the killer style plot. Not all the continuity works, and it's odd to hear Kinderman talk about his friendship with Father Karras with such intensity when they met so briefly. But as a self contained thriller it's a great venture into the world of evil.
(PART 3 OF 4)
