Exorcist II: The Heretic

Some people say this movie is horrible, though I actually found it quite entertaining. I think the problem is the high expectations. The expectations for the movie were so great that there was just no way that it could be achieved. People habitually compare Exorcist II to the original exorcist movie, but as it's own movie, it is actually better than most horrors out there.

The scientific part was actually quite interesting to me, and the metaphor was excellent foreshadowing. Linda Blair has grown since the first exorcist, and was very good as an actress.

While not as scary as the original, this movie was filled with mystery and suspense. I recommend this movie to most fans.

7/10 ~*StaRz*~

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.

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.

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.

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.