Read the Exorcist article and it's an interesting multiple-viewpoint thing (maybe leaning towards Schrader's side than anyone).
the film is visually wide-open, with a dramatic sense of landscape and a marvelous attention to the subtlest tricks of light. Moreover, this Beginning views demonic possession less as a singular occurrence — the terrors visited upon an innocent young victim — than as a contagion born in the hearts of men, able to cross oceans of time and space, infecting entire communities in its wake.
That sounds not a little like Boorman's Exorcist 2. They seen the movie, I wonder?
Two things: Carr from what I read in this article doesn't seem to know what the hell he's talking about, at least when it comes to filmmaking, and neither does the writer of the article, at least when it comes to Exorcist 2.
Chris J: Well if you reference the critical pans Boorman's film got when it came out, and even perhaps if you saw it with the stigma of stink bomb attached to it... then it might have carried over with it.
The charitable thing to say is he googled the film title and went along with the general consensus; if he actually saw the film and voiced that idiotic opinion then my opinion of him's dropped thirty notches, right there.