Exorcist II: The Heretic

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!

Wow. What can one say? Boorman went from Deliverance to this? Okay, in addition to being completely hilarious, this is also the most pretentious movie ever made, (aside from The Matrix Reloaded). Good thing Burstyn sat out for this turkey. Please tell me that I didn't see James Earl Jones in a big locust suit. Please tell me that I didn't see Oscar Winner Louise Fletcher being groped by a matted Linda Blair stand in and moaning (I am not making this up) in such a way that would make Ron Jeremy take notice. And what in the name of all things good and holy is a "Synchronizer" and what does it have to do with anything at all? Why is Africa made of fiber-glass? Why is Richard Burton made of stone? Oh, God. They couldn't have made this worse if they had scripted it so. Oh, wait...they did. Well, for all its faults at least it's not a desperate attempt by a major studio to milk whatever money they can out of a pre-existing hit by combining a-list actors, and a controversial visualist director, with a hastily prepared screenplay that shares little of the spirit and intelligence of its predecessor, producing a boring, although often laughably pious bastardization of something far, far greater. Oh wait....it is. If you're a fan of bad movies, you have reached Zen here. If you're a fan of the original Exorcist, run, just run and don't look back. Run with your arms flailing into the night as the preview audiences surely did in 1977.

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.

Inside this terrible film is an excellent film screaming to get out. There are moments of real power and and frightening beauty, but they are drowning in sludge. One wonders if this mixture is a result of conflict amongst those making the film, or of Boorman simply not being able to keep his grasp of a vision.

I don't consider the original Exorcist to be "scary", but I do like it thanks to the terse editing and restrained direction. Though I've never really warmed to John Boorman I did find Exorcist II to be his most interesting film.

As a sequel it's thematically detached from the first and creates it's own new mythology and imagery. The events from Exorcist are referenced extensively and Regan, now 17, has multiple flashbacks to her bedroom. Father Lamont, a rogue priest played by Richard Burton, investigates the case in an effort to find out what really happened to Father Merrin by involving himself in Regan's therapy sessions. A muddled plot about curbing the spread of evil and the divinity of our teenage heroine fills up the rest of the film with regular cutaways to Africa where Lamont researches the recent history of Pazuzu (not the Devil, as most believe).

Nothing, repeat NOTHING in this film is even remotely intelligible. Towards the end there are dozens of unexplained elements. On top that there is some hilariously stupid dialogue. How did some of this stuff get approval? I would flat out refuse to say "Oh, I was possessed by a demon. But it's okay, he's gone now," upon meeting a new friend. When the credits finally roll you'll be scratching your head, unable to make head nor tail of what you've just witnessed.

What it does have going for it however is absolutely stunning photography. Only a few 70s set designs date this film aesthetically. The shots of African sunsets and the rock churches are amazing and the general dark, silhouetted appearance of the dialogue scenes create a wonderful, moody atmosphere.

It's a shame that Linda Blair's career collapsed after this. After getting involved in several bad relationships her acting career went down the toilet and she's never starred in anything as up-market as this ever since. She's such a cutie in Exorcist II and, as a bonus, hardly ever wears a bra.

As a sequel to a classic it's a bit of a let down, but as a stand-alone weirdo melodrama it's nothing if not interesting. Do check it out, but keep in mind everything I just said.