User reviews

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.

Following up one of the greatest horror films of all time, the sequel could not be further from the quality of the first film. Coming in at nearly 2 hours, you will feel every excruciating second of this lackluster film as you try to figure out why any of this ties into the original. The script could not be bothered to put in much effort, the effects team fell asleep at the wheel, and the writers found themselves producing an African documentary instead of a horror film. Until the last 15 minutes, there is nothing horrific, scary, or even unsettling. As a lover of films, and specifically a lover of bad films, this was nearly unwatchable and had me checking the time every few minutes in a fight to turn it off early. I cannot understand how they got this so wrong and I fear I may need it exorcised from my mind.

This was one of the funniest movies I saw in 1977. Burton was over the top (and perhaps on the bottle again), Darth Vader was miscast, and poor Linda Blair was obviously getting ready for roller-boogie roles.

Attacking grasshoppers are just what Washington, DC needs, I guess. Perhaps W would brand them as terrorists and by means of executive order, bring back DDT. Or he just could have Cheney scowl at them, and we'd have a major pollution problem due to billions of dead locusts.

Meanwhile back to the "plot" of the "movie"! It comes down to a fight between good and Eeee-Viiillll! May the latter win! Little did Richard know, when he was over-emoting that word, that he was providing a capsule review of the movie.

Avoid no matter what!

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!

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.

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.

The 1973 Exorcist is probably my favorite horror film, it's a film that I love and I always like to know or learn more about it, and even though I knew the sequel was bad, I didn't know it was SO bad. The existence of this film makes no sense, The Exorcist had already closed the story it presented to us, so I see this sequel as a clear attempt to build on the success of the first film.

About the film, as difficult as it was to reach the end, I resisted, and I can say that it is an atrocity on several levels and in different contexts, trying my best to give meaning to its existence with motivations and plots that are ridiculous from the start from them. There is no way to justify director John Boorman's decisions.

There are moments when you might laugh because they are so absurd and poorly produced that they are actually funny, like the scenes involving the hypnosis device (a horrible concept that gets even worse as the film progresses and becomes more and more pointless), but unfortunately they are moments, the film is not so bad that it becomes funny, they are just moments and laughable concepts, the rest is torture. The most interesting thing is to know that director John Boorman doesn't like the original, I mean, he doesn't like the original, which is a renowned film, but did he like this thing he did here?

The cast is very affected and they are not bad actors. Louise Fletcher had just won the Oscar for her excellent work in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, and in this film she is as expressive as a door. Richard Burton, who is a great actor, is terrible as Father Lamont, it seemed like he didn't know what he was doing, what's more his character is terrible and seems more like a madman who talks about demons all the time, I don't judge the characters who don't take him seriously. But the biggest bad highlight of the cast is Linda Blayr, totally affected by the stardom that the first film gave her (she was incredible in the first film), she is as bad as everyone else and even worse. And her character can feel what Father Lamont feels and even heal mute people, 4 years have passed and Regan has gained superpowers, how incredible, right?

All the ''horror'' scenes in this film have the opposite effect, it was supposed to be something tense, but it is laughable and has one of the worst visual constructions in the horror genre, from the makeup that is much inferior to the first film (where it is clearly a double instead of Linda Blayr... and what a horrible stunt double), even those grasshoppers or isolated exorcism scenes without minimally acceptable contexts. The plot progresses as if it had several ideas brought together in some way without continuity and coherence. Concepts that were formed in the first film, such as the demon being persistent and difficult to defeat, are completely forgotten, and here the demon not only disappears in the blink of an eye but also introduces himself by saying his name.

For much of the film I was asking myself, what is happening? How did they get to that level? Because nothing has the slightest logical coherence and justification for happening, and when it does, it would be better not to have it. The editing of this film is terrible, there are transitions and overlapping images that are really amateurish, and if you isolate it scene by scene and stop little by little, you realize that it doesn't make sense.

To be fair to the film and to Ennio Morricone, the film's soundtrack is good, but even if it is good, it is very poorly used, and is affected because it doesn't match the badness of the scenes where it is inserted.

Exorcist II: The Heretic is everything the first film wasn't, even though it was an attempt to capitalize on the original, how did they reach this level in just 4 years? One of the worst sequels I've ever seen considering the quality of the first film and one of the worst films I've ever seen too. I couldn't express half the contempt I feel for this film in this review.

I've never been so bored in my entire life as when I was forced to watch this film. Even if you manage to forget that it's the sequel to one of the greatest horror films, this is a real stinker.

It's hard to even describe the plot for this, although that may just be due to the fact that I was struggling to stay awake. Suffice to say that it doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense, and isn't very interesting either. All actors involved appear to be sleepwalking, with Richard Burton's performance being particularly funny.

I can't find anything to recommend about this at all, and I'm fairly liberal when it comes to bad films, and can usually find SOMETHING worth seeing about them. Not in this case.

This film is a complete mess. Nobody seems sure what to do with the preposterous material. The always underrated Linda Blair actually rises above a script that seems to have been written under the influence of illegal substances. Some of the worst performances of all time are in this film, as well as some of the worst lines ever uttered on screen. The only person who seems well adjusted in the film is Regan. Yet, all the maladjusted adults spend most of their time trying to make her crazy, in the guise of helping her. None of it makes any sense, and it ultimately becomes laughable. Watch for the goofy, wired helmets and the flashing light bulb "synchronizer". You'll be holding your sides from laughing. I may be wrong, but I don't believe that was the intent of the filmmakers. It's a horrible film. But it is the only film that has completely wretched performances from Kitty Winn (looking rather butch), drunken Richard Burton, dreary Louise Fletcher, laughable James Earl Jones; with screeching African natives and locust and flashing light bulbs and the ability to see into another person's mind by wearing a Tom Swift looking head contraption. It's beyond boring and dull. Just a really bad film.

Oh boy, this one is a doozy. Way worse than the first one could ever be. The most boring and pointless and then a musical number? And this bore just kept going. It's so bad it's downright awful. You've been warned.

Wow, this film is a total classic! That is, for being so awful! This film really is very poor, but will always have status in my video collection because there is no other in it that is as poor as this! I watched and I watched and you think, 'Alright, it's going to get going in a minute' and then the film finishes!! Honestly - you don't believe it until it's over! All I'll say to everyone is - you must watch it! You can't appreciate the good until you've seen the bad! And this is very bad!!

It's hard to imagine how, proceeding from the greatest horror movie of all time, adding in towering talents that include no less that Richard Burton, along with Louise Fletcher, Max von Sydow, James Earl Jones, Paul Henreid and John Boorman, a film could possibly turn out bad. But oh how bad it is.

Pazuzu, the demon who terrorized young Regan MacNeil in the classic predecessor, has become essentially a giant grasshopper that drives locusts, and apparently entire film studios, mad. Linda Blair must have been truly possessed to have rendered such a heinous performance. She actually may be the worst actress alive. And nothing, not even the massive talent squandered on so thin a story, can redeem this hopelessly lost horror of a movie.

It's four years later, and what does she remember? Apparently everything except how to act. It would be 17 years before anyone attempted another sequel, but 1990's Exorcist III is infinitely better. My suggestion: pretend this one doesn't exist, and enjoy the trilogy, minus one.

When I saw this in the theater, everyone there wanted their money back, including myself. We were moaning and groaning through this entire debacle. I have no idea what they were thinking, and how this garbage was approved. Terrible script, terrible acting, you name it, if it was terrible, this movie has it. The movie made money on opening night, but after word-of-mouth got out, those with any sense listened to those who saw and didn't even bother. And no, it's not a so bad, it's good kinda movie. I guess it was unreasonable to think that even trying to do a sequel to one of the greatest horror movies of all time was just a non-starter. It was so bad that I refuse to watch another sequel, prequel, or anything else trying to make money off the name of the original epic film. The original Exorcist movie needs to be left alone and stand on its own for the rest of time.

Good grief! Why was this one made? The first Exorcist movie was sheer cinema magic. The second was a waste of money and talent. This movie is what gives sequels a bad name. It was not so much the acting that was below standard - I don't think anyone could have made such a muddled script look good. This looked like it was written by a committee of accountants. (Nothing personal against accountants, I am one. I also know I have no business writing a script.) Richard Burton was one of the best actors of his generation. If you based his career on this movie, you would have thought him a hack. He might have needed the cash and therefore just slept his way through this. I recommend avoiding this unless you have a thing for pain. Linda Blair went on to a career that seemingly matched the quality of this movie. Yes, this movie is scary, but not in a good way. It is scary they actually released this.

The original THE EXORCIST with Ellen Burstyn and Max Von Sydow is not a masterpiece, but it's still a great movie. What a great way for ruining its reputation, with such a terrible and awful sequel! There are even much worse sequels out there (SON OF THE MASK, all of the POLICE ACADEMY movies, the last two JAWS movies are the prime examples) but judging on the badness of this movie that it's not a glowing endorsement!

EXORCIST 2 THE HERETIC hasn't got any redeeming quality at all. The direction by John Boorman, who is among the best directors of 1970s' thrillers, was close to asinine. The acting is pretty terrible, especially by Richard Burton that does nothing but overact all the time and behaving nastily. Louise Fletcher lacks charisma at all, and even James Earl Jones' performance and a small Max Von Sydow cameo (for giving us the connection between this film and its predecessor) couldn't have saved this movie at all, because their characters are so badly written that both Jones and Von Sydow look very bored and disengaged as well. And the soundtrack is very creepy and nightmare inducing, and then there was the scene of the african plains with that shrilling scream that was so painful to hear that I felt like my head was exploding!!! I am serious when I say that this is one of the few movies that caused me pain and it was fault of the movie!

This movie has all the ingredients for a truly awful and dreadful movie: badly acted, poorly directed, written by a Jack Russell and with many scenes that make no sense whatsoever. No wonder this movie bombed and it was panned by EVERYONE at the time (including the critics and the few that liked the original THE EXORCIST in 1973) and also it's not a true sequel and a substandard movie as well!

It appears the devil has returned. in the form of this movie. The Exorcist II: The Heretic is a sluggish, sparse, scattered and monotonous film. It has none of the awe-inspiring scenes from the original and instead relies on lacklustre acting and sub-standard puppets to scare. The only thing barely chilling are the flashbacks from the original considering the action scenes in this one look as though they were shot in a blender.

This story is about Regan (Linda Blair) four years later who has no recollection of the demonic presence who possessed her in the first film. Since she doesn't have the bloodied make-up on when the devil starts squatting her mind, it's hard to tell whether her zombified acting is part of her performance or not. Unfortunately she uses her own coarse vocals in this one making the original demon's voice seem soothing and giving her no finesse when she babbles those colourless lines. For some reason, unexplained, she goes to Dr. Gene (Louise Fletcher), a psychiatrist even though she continually states she has no problem. So Doctor Gene uses her magical hypnosis machine. Which is a box with two light bulbs and two dogleashes attached to it. So Regan and the good doctor put on their dogleashes, round their heads, and stare at the pretty blinking lights for an hour (no time elapsed) before getting lost into a deep trance where she is lucky enough to see herself in the former movie. Regan comes out of the ordeal fine but doctor Gene who gets her heart squeezed, suffers from a cardiac arrest and sees someone violently killed emerges completely fine and still doesn't believe Regan was possessed. Just one of the abysmal scenes and an example of dismal characterisation. The whole monosyllabic script seems as though it was written by a senile old man who continually forgets he just said the same thing 5 minutes ago. Father Lamont (Richard Burton) comes into the picture as the priest who harasses Regan insisting she's the devil. He- like any other logical person would do, goes to Africa to find the demon who thinks is within Regan, more script flaws (if there was one). Regan remains balmy, Father Lamont is stupefied after every pointless event and Dr. Gene gets more skeptical as increasingly bizarre things happen. I guess it is scarcely scary, I mean Linda Blair dances in it, the (hardly) special effects are horrifyingly bad and the ending will put you into tears upon the realisation that you actually paid to see this atrocity.

P.S. (If you're reading this Rod G, I did write it)

I don't know why we need this movie as a sequel for the excellent first Exorcist. There is nothing to do with the first Exorcist. This movie is all about "Locusts", so what? What is the matter with locusts? It's just too intentional to try to make connection with locusts. When you see the first one, you will realize there is nothing related to the first one in this movie. When I saw a flying locust in the Regan's room, I just smirked. Get the first one and just think there are no sequels for the Exorcist. Save your money for something else.

When a film as great as the Exorcist is made, a sequel is inconceivable. Well, apparently not. This is a cheap cash-in which clutches onto the plot of the original in sheer desperation. The direction is all over the place is an attempt to distract you from how bad this film is and to make it seem weird. It makes it seem crap. James Earl Jones, you were Darth Vader dude! You were Mufasa! What happened in between? Oh well, at least they never made a third..... doh!

For once, I'm nearly lost for words. This is, quite simply, one of the worst films I've ever seen. Nonsensical drivel involving Richard Burton (why?), Louise Fletcher (why?), James Earl Jones (yup, why? again), Linda Blair (no why here), and a cameoing Max Von Sydow (contractual obligation, perchance?), and a plague of locusts from Africa. The first and third instalments of the trilogy (so far) are good, but this is dreadful. Wasn't Linda Blair a tad too young to be wandering round in a near-transparent nightdress? Surely she wasn't yet 18?

Avoid like the plague... (bad pun...)

Not so lost for words as I thought, eh?

I am not exaggerating!! This movie lives on in my mind as the worst that I have ever seen! (Sorry, I don't usually speak in exclaimation points but I can't avoid it while speaking about this movie!) Some people seem to be able to enjoy it FOR its badness but not me. It wasn't funny, just ridiculous. I sat in the theater many years ago feeling completely stupified. How could they have turned such rich source material into this pile of trash? I don't know and I don't want to know. It could only have been done intentionally for some sinister reason. Did the filmakers have some kind of vendetta against the studio? Were they trying to force it into bankruptcy? Was Boorman possessed by,...oh, I don't know,... SATAN?!

Jhon boorman should be hang for this movie.what tremendous waste of originl cast.its a larger crime compared to murder someone.he should be punished.

While undoubtedly the worst sequel I have ever seen (it's like if Alan Parker's "Bugsy Malone" was released as "The Godfather Part 2") The Exorcist 2 is at least highly entertaining on the Bad Film scale. That acting! That god-awful African village sound stage! The boop-boop mind- meld device!

But my recommendation to really enjoy the movie is to take a shot every time someone says "Kokumo". It appears that the screenwriters never tired of the name.

FUN FACT: Richard Burton was actually playing this game while making the movie, which explains why he appears to be practically comatose for the last 20 minutes.