Exorcist 2: The Heretic

Exorcist II: The Heretic

Exorcist II: The Heretic

Unlike many other cinema fanatics, I don't necessarily consider William Friedkin's "the Exorcist" an absolute masterpiece but at least it kept me fascinated throughout its entire playtime. I really had to struggle my way through this lousy sequel and it might easily be the most redundant film ever made. Due to a combination of several unfortunate aspects, this film is a complete failure but it hurts to see that a few, really good, aspects are completely lost, like the outstanding Ennio Morricone score and the ambitious skills of scriptwriter William Goodhart. Far too ambitious, actually. For some incomprehensible reason, the plot of this sequel focuses on unraveling the events of the original, expanding the terror's origin with environmental influences and occult African rites. Father Lamont (played by Richard Burton) is burdened with the investigation of Father Merrin's last exorcism (the one on young Regan, which cost him his life) and discovers that there's still a battle between good and evil going on inside Regan's body. The premise might sound okay but the elaboration is far too complex, incoherent and even downright uninteresting. The stupidity of several far-fetched themes results in very ridiculous lines and several "WTF"-sequences. "I will spit out a leopard"? What the hell does that mean? What's even worse is that the "horror" is totally ignored. Exorcist II is a completely bloodless film that doesn't even features some obscenity or grim moments. Say whatever you want about story-driven horror films, but a project that completely avoids action or gore is doomed to fail no matter how massive the cast and budget are. Speaking about the cast: I rarely saw a film that starred so many big names and delivered so few intrigue. Richard Burton overacts terribly while Louise Fletcher doesn't seem to care about the lines she's driveling. In fact, why would she care because even director John Boorman seems frustrated over this job? Many little details featuring in the movie actually show that Boorman regrets not having made the original in 1973, which would have provided him with an immortal status. The only decent performance is given by Linda Blair who – by the way – looks gorgeous here in her teenage years. She's sexy and cherubic looking at the same time and her appearance distracts you a little from the dreadful wholesome that is this film. Very much NOT recommended, folks!

Oh dear God, what crimes are committed in thy name. It's as simple as this: I don't think I have EVER seen a film which was quite as dire and ridiculous as Exorcist II. And that includes Plan Nine From Outer Space, by the way; I laughed harder with this. I had already been warned that Boorman's sequel was bad, but never in my wildest dreams could I have imagined that such a piece of unadulterated garbage could be humanly concocted. It has no redeeming features whatsoever, there is not a single thing in this film that makes it worthy, and that is no mean feat. From the first ten minutes, when that flashy light bulb thing appeared, you could see the thing going straight off the rails, but I was hooked because the film kept surprising me, just when I thought it couldn't become any worse, something happened that was unbelievably even more ludicrous than what had come before. Overall, I have to admit I had a good time watching it and laughing wholeheartedly at the disaster I was witnessing. I don't know what is funnier, though, the film itself, or the fact that some people seem to find it good, or actually better than the original (???). I'm sorry, people, I know everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that just cracks me up.

This movie is not to be missed. It is SO bad it goes beyond the laughable; you will stare at it with jaw agape in wonder that it could have been written by sentient human beings. The plot, if that's the word for it, is meant to be a sequel to The Exorcist, but it is devoid of logic and seeks only to shock. Admittedly The Exorcist did some of that too, but at least it was tied to a rational plot and characters. In this mess nothing is coherent, and the entire concept of some demon who is not the Devil but is called Pazuzu and flies around in the shape of a big locust while a great actor like James Earl Jones wears silly costumes and mouths absurd dialogue is so far beyond the rational it reduces the movie to self-parody. Richard Burton is here overacting with the turgid lines he's been given. Linda Blair seemed in a daze. The final scenes in which the entire house in Georgetown, the same one from the first film, gets wrecked and someone burned alive and swarms of locusts descend is just ludicrous. When it is over the viewer also will be in a daze - it is impossible to believe a plot this bad was ever approved and put on film. It is one of the worst films of all time.

Considering that "The Exorcist" is considered a classic and made a bazillion dollars, it's amazing that this sequel is as inept and stupid as it is...and it IS a truly terrible film. It makes you wonder, as any boob with as big a budget as this film could have made a good film and had no right to make one this bad!! The film picks up several years after the last one. Most of the original cast are gone but Regan (Linda Blair) is back. Now she's a seemingly well-adjusted and shapely young lady who loves working with disabled kids(!). An annoying psychiatrist (Louise Fletcher) works with Regan and assumes that all the publicity about her possession can easily be explained away using science. At the same time, a totally nutty priest (overplayed badly by Richard Burton) investigates the case and is certain possession did occur--and wants to be certain that Blair is not repossessed! Where this goes next is pretty dumb...no, it's INCREDIBLY dumb. It turns out that there is some sort of African demon named Pazuzu (or something like it) and the film just gets dumber and dumber. Badly made scenes involving the demon and locust swarms look amazingly silly and the plot goes very, very, very far from the original film--a bizarre choice, that's for sure! But if that isn't enough, there is an ear-piercing shrill sound that simply made me want to gouge my eardrums out to make it stop! At this point, I was ready to scream....and it never got any better! Too many dumb and annoying scenes and an African tie-in that made no sense--why did the script go this way?! The film is the trifecta of badness--horribly written, directed by a chimp and badly acted. An annoying and dumb film from start to finish and this is saying a lot considering that it was re-edited several times to even get it to this level of badness!

"Exorcist II: The Heretic" was an A-list effort at every stage of production and no expense was spared by the studio in making not just a sequel but an event. Director John Boorman sought to create a vast tapestry of science & mysticism so large it would not only expand "the Exorcist" mythology but engulf it entirely. And despite some flaws, he succeeded brilliantly with a superlative cast and state-of-the-art special effects. This was one of the most ambitious and antiscipated films of 1977 and on its' 30th anniversary feels as fresh and relevant as the day of its' release, with themes of redemption, sacrifice, the triumph of good over evil and the importance of spirituality in the shared human consciousness. From the surreal African landscapes to the dizzying heights of ultra-modern New York, from the present and into the past you will journey with director Boorman as you unlock the mystery behind demonic possession in order to glimpse the future and what lies in store for humankind because of the exorcist.

As the most of the commentators argued here, this film has some serious flaws which make it very hard to comprehend. The story line is inconsistent, the acting disjointed and inadequate, not to mention that it represents a new conceptual whole, essentially detached from its predecessor. Still, it has certain qualities - some original visual effects, photography, great atmosphere (especially the scenes in Africa). Also, put in a broader context, this film manages to capture a part of intellectual ambiance of the late seventies, introducing ideas and concepts that were then considered pseudo-scientific and fanciful, only to become legitimate subject matter of serious research, two decades later. The collapse of humanity into one group mind (obvious references to de Chardin's notion of noosphere, drawn by father Lamont), the parallels between insect (locust) and human society regarding the spread of destructive/violent behavior (check mass psychology, research on swarm intelligence, the popularity of Steven Johnson's 'Emergence' etc.) So, for those of you expecting horror movie chills and thrills - you should skip this one. But for those of you interested in how quirky scientific ideas inspire pop-culture pieces like 'The Heretic' - it is highly recommended.

OK so maybe this movie wasn't as good as the original, but honestly ask yourself Is it possible to create a movie as good as The Exorcist without recreating it? I think not. It had in my opinion a very good plot. I thought it was very cool how they went into detail about the past of Father Merrin while still focusing on what Regan is going through, and I'm glad they didn't do the same monster. I really liked how they set Father Lemont up to have to choose between the angelic Regan and the sinful Regan,and speaking of Regan Linda Blair was awesome. Going back to the end, I love how even though they looked the same and were dressed the same she managed to make the costume work, and make it look like an innocent sort of dress for one, yet at the same time the evil Regan looked sexy in the same dress!All in all I thought it was a darn good sequel and give it a 7/10!

Poor John Boorman. He has all these great ideas, but whenever he tries to put them to the screen, the result is so damn goofy you can't tell whether you're watching a metaphysical drama or a slapstick comedy (for more on this, see "Zardoz"). His "Exorcist" sequel is miles below the original if you're looking for scares, but miles above it in terms of actual storytelling, plot, character development, etc. It's full of interesting ideas (the most interesting being the idea of pure goodness as a magnet for evil), and Regan turns into an angelic heroine out to stop the demon that once possessed her. But Boorman's wacko imagery, while fascinating in places (the doves, the locusts), tends to get a little TOO wacko, to the point where you can't help laughing (the hypnosis machine, Richard Burton putting out a fire with a wooden crutch, James Earl Jones spitting up a tomato). If you can accept the fact that this is a completely different movie than the original, you might find that it's a pretty good movie on its own. Fantastic acting from Burton, a wonderful score, and some truly gorgeous visuals, especially the climactic scene in the house, make it one of the most underrated movies of all time. Even if some scenes leave you falling over with laughter.