User reviews

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.

Looking back it is easy to see that the making of this film was not a good time for the main protagonists. Director John Boorman must have still been reeling from the less than enthusiastic reception of Zardoz (1975), a real letdown after the box office success and critical acclaim for Deliverence (1972). Linda Blair, the plucky young teen from the original film had noticeably matured but was rumoured to have been into substance abuse and prone to extremely late arrivals on set whilst her co-star had problems of his own. Richard Burton, always a bit of a drinker, was reputedly drunk most of the time and clearly unhappy. Indeed it is suggested he had only taken the role (without reading the script?) in order to be assured of the part in Equus the same year. And what a difference a film makes. Acting by numbers here for Boorman, he is not helped by a director who was severely under the cosh with sustained opposition from Blatty and Co to even make the film. Opposition that even restricted the use of original locations necessitating almost everything to be made on set. So, not only are the leading couple less than happy but the very circumstances of shooting handicapped. It is a wonder the thing got made at all but no surprise that the over extended pretend Africa scenes are so poor or that the extended use of the ridiculous supposed hypnosis syncroniser made to take up so much of the footage. Probably only a couple of pluses here, one that Burton was brilliant in his other film that year and the Morricone score was well up to his usual standard.

Director Boorman went with a thriller apart from the original. He understood there was no way possible to match the shock of The Exorcist. However, Exorcist 2: The Heretic is actually a really terrifying film. Yes, it is more subtle in its' frights, but Morricone,s legendary score underscores it all, quite brilliantly. The photography alone is worth the price of admission. And YES, millenials and gen Z Souls, Warner Brothers made a very healthy profit on this sequel. Richard Burton, Linda Blair, Louise Fletcher, James Earl Jones, Kitty Wynn, Paul Henreid and Max Von Sydow truly bring their A game in this truly chilling sequel. Exorcist 2: The Heretic was, perhaps, ahead of its' time, with themes of ultimate good attracting ultimate evil. Now, most true cinemaphiles consider it a masterpiece, which it is. Exorcist 2 is simply creepy, in all the right ways......

I doubt most people who watch or have watched this film will like it. If they do, it surely can only be for the reason that it is so poor it keeps it interesting because you keep wondering what is gonna be ballsed up next. The score is momentarily enigmatic, Reagan's Theme being particularly good. The acting is mostly dire, though how anyone else would have acted with such poor a script I do not know. The plot developments are laughable, the cinematography interesting with an attempt to be artsy though first and foremost Boorman should have made sure the film had a good script and capable actors. Despite the numerous flaws this film has, there's something about it which will keep me returning to watch it. For any Blair fans out there, she has never looked better than in this film. Arguably the only reason to watch it, except to witness the poorness for yourself.

Exorcist 2 The Heretic is not as good as The Exorcist or The Exorcist 3, but is still and okay movie. It focusses more on Fr Merrin and his friend, as well as when he exorcised a young boy in Africa. This film is VERY dissapointing for fans of The Exorcist because this one trys to be a horror film, but fails, it's not scary and it's angles and cinematography is not brilliant. But after all of this it is still watchable. Some people will like this one better because it is more simple and less complicated and meaningful as The Exorcist. This film was very cheap and tacky, but still manages to be watchable. I wouldn't go out and spend £20 on a DVD version of it, but is worth watchign if it is on TV or if you find a copy going cheap. This one is far more for young children rather then the adult audience that the Exorcist was aimed at. It is still a good movie with some good acting in it. The script and film could have done with a lot of worth, but is certainly not as good as The Exorcist because it trys to be somthing it isn't, it takes away the scaryness of Pazuzu. Before Exorcist 2 people thought that the possesser of Regan was THE Devil, which would have been much better, but now this film has made it look like the whole thing must become cheaper. Still - watch it if it is on or going cheap at a shop, but it is still no match against William Peter Blatty's The Exorcist Directed by William Friedkin.

It was gratifying to read another reviewer imply what I've said for years...that if the film hadn't been made as "Exorcist II" it might have done fairly well. Problem being that if it hadn't been "Exorcist II" it likely would never have been made.

Discussing the film without thinking about the lurid details of its release (the laughter and booing from the audiences, or Boorman yanking the film from theatres after the first day to recut the whole thing) is a difficult task. "Exorcist II" has become, more than a film, a litmus test for sequels. In the opinion of some, no sequel has ever been this poor.

Which is unfair. Taken on its own, the movie is a curious mix of very inspired and very absurd moments and concepts. The casting is problematic and wildly uneven (Fletcher and Blair are fine, Burton is awful, and James Earl Jones steals the entire show). The script also veers from coherency to an almost surreal incompetence, sometimes in the same scene. And yet...

And yet, this is a very misunderstood film. John Boorman was a very brave and unconventional choice as director, and he certainly accomplishes some startling and innovative visual effects. He is also to be commended for attempting to examine the concepts of the original film (and novel) in a metaphysical and nonlinear fashion. I've seen both cuts of the film and find that they differ from each other very little in overall impact. The fatal flaw in either version is the film's complete failure to prepare its audience for any of this material. Audiences were led to expect a carbon-copy repeat of the original and were instead confronted with this arty, heavily psychological mood piece. Understandably, they were a little upset.....

In no way does it accomplish its goals nearly as well as "The Exorcist", but I find this a far more enjoyable experience than Blatty's own "Exorcist III", which seems to have all of the elements with no idea as to how they should be executed.

Infuriating, uneven, and quite beautiful. See it before you laugh at it.

If you expect something like the first movie you will definitely hate this movie. When i saw the score on 3.3 i thought this movie would really suck badly and i had very low expectations on it, but i wanted to see the sequel.

While the first movie had a scary atmosphere and was concentrated to only a few landscapes/areas and had just a single plot(Reagan was possessed by a demon and it should be exercised out), this movie is different on every point. There are lots of subplots, lots of great landscapes and feels much more like an adventure movie á la "The Mummy" than it's prequel. The special effects are very poor compared to today's standard, but I think the ending was VERY GOOD!

I hope they will make some slight adjustments to the script and remake it as they did with the original. This film had overwhelming potential to become a classic like its original, unfortunately the director of this movie had no experience of making horror movies and the end result feels like an adventure movie made with a horror movie script!

6/10

This was tagged from its release as 'one of the worst sequels ever'; and I get the feeling that this has now become such inadvertently accepted wisdom that people are afraid to watch and admit they actually liked at least 'segments' of it. If you are one of those people who hold this opinion because you think it represents all-around bad practice in the field of film-making, then I would disagree, but at least to dislike it for this reason has got to be better than simply hating it because it doesn't bear much resemblance to the original film, and you wanted more of the same.

The sequel is an 'origin' story, and not merely a rehash of the initial scenario. This affords Boorman greater scope, and boy does he take advantage of it. We get plenty of back-story about the cultural background from which the daemon Pazuzu sprang itself; and because much of the screen time is devoted to this, it's almost as if the story is being told to the audience from that perspective. It's harder to root for Regan here, because for so much of the time she's on the periphery of things. The watcher is instead forced to take roost with the side of evil; something which granted is not familiar territory for the masses, but you'd have thought they might've been able to accept it a little bit better than they did. Such a move has its obvious advantages, however, as it does give rise to plenty of stunning imagery. Locusts feature in ways which may be bizarre to some tastes, but are definitely fantastic to observe, and with the much heralded biblical connection I find it surprising and dismaying that people aren't willing to permit the director more in the way of 'artistic license', but oh well...

There is much philosophical debate about the balance of good and evil within the world; and the continuous struggle that is playing itself out, with some of our characters being the unfortunate victims. I liked the attempt to enrich the story because there's obviously a whole heap of subtext where religious matters are concerned and it raises the stakes if issues become apocalyptic, rather than being exclusively focused on one single family. The fresh themes and material that an expansion like this provides access to are practically infinite, and it was pleasing to me because I'm tired of seeing the same stuff being repeated over and over again, in follow-ups.

There are certainly anomalies to be found which don't make sense within the real world as we know it; but why shouldn't this be allowed in a genre that asks most of us to give power to things beyond our experience as a matter of course, anyway? Plus, as mentioned, a great deal of time is spent ensconced right at the source of things myth and legend. I can forgive concepts and happenings that would otherwise look silly if we are at least presented with a reason for them being there; and the movie does that. Those individuals that didn't catch on first time should at least make the allowance of watching again; because if you try not to be taken over by incredulity, you'll find that occurrences have actually been explained. Some of the acting might also be hammy; but again, what develops leads right to the edge of hysteria, so why shouldn't Burton and others give their performances as if they are on the brink of spiralling out of control?

Time and time again I find movie fans and users of this site from all over grousing about how there's no originality left, and how most sequels are cheap cash-ins. Yet what happens when a work appears that contravenes those standards? It gets derided and ultimately ignored. Well, you reap what you sow. Ambitious movies which open only to be met with scorn and indifference are why studios don't take chances anymore. I'm not claiming that 'Exorcist II' gets it right 100% of the time, because it doesn't, but it's brave in its choices, and that I admire. If you refuse to open your mind to this movie, then it's your loss. I for one am happy that I got the chance to experience it.

It is almost impossible to top one of the greatest movies of all time. The first "Exorcist" made a giant impact on everyone who saw it. Linda Blair was hot and scores of directors followed the path that "The Exorcist" lay. "Exorcist II: The Heretic" is far from part one, but not quite so bad as is sometimes said. For one, Richard Burton is in it, and plays a troubled priest. Second, Linda Blair returns, now a few years older, attractive, but still deadly. Third, anyone keen for the mystique of the late 1970's will come to love this movie. There are some great shots portraying the sign of the times. And, finally, the really good moments are just enough to make up for some really bad parts of the movie. In my case, "The Heretic" got better the more I watched it.

My Take: Insanely ridiculous and over-the-top, but actually original and interesting.

You'd expect any horror movie that would be as superior as "The Exorcist" will be followed by a sequel a few years later. Well, it does. "Exorcist II: The Heretic" was long regarded as a terrible sequel, mainly because of its use of hypnotic deceptions, which soon results in to confusion. The ear-piercing dialogue (that might give Ed Wood a run for his money) surely doesn't help, and the film was eventually laughed at during its first run in theaters. But EXORCIST II, despite its most obvious flaws, is an interesting film. A failure to be sure, but almost something that has to be seen to believe.

The film picks up four years later. Linda Blair is great reprising her famed role in a more adult form. Richard Burton, as a priest who investigates the death of Father Merrin from the first film, gives a nearly good performance, keeping stalwart all throughout the film.The other cast members are still well worth watching. The special-effects, missing a little from the first film, is creative. The shots are done in an outlandish fashion and Ennio Morricone score, the best element in the film, is superb.

By the looks of it, the main reason why critics don't like this sequel is that they had enough in the original. The original was gruesome, but well-pressed in to the novel. Boorman's different take is indeed alienating and utterly bizarre, nothing like that frightening and accessible horror classic.

Despite many bad reviews about this confusing and utterly incomprehensible sequel, I still sort of liked it. And it actually made me like "The Exorcist" even more.

Rating: *** out of 5.

Only a backstabing fool would criticize this movie! So your dissapointed! That doesn't help...it hurts! To be a true critic, one must be willing to be flexble!

To me, all the critics of this movie, so far, are not true critics! I've heard less criticism from 3 year olds...not because they're ignorant....because they are still at an age where their focused on the positive events, not on the negative! Your a bunch of Winers... like babies! "Well baby baby sucket your thumb, all the way too Mexico...While your there..don't forget your underwear!

For all the non-critics, I enjoyed this movie, because I viewed it through rose colored glasses! Criticism aside, I thought Linda Blair did a fantastic job of carrying Her character, all the way to the very end! STP.

This movie really wasn't that bad. It was a little slow and long but I think that adds to the creepyness. I have nostalgia for this movie because I remember seeing it as a kid and I liked the Africa scenes, the locusts and the sound of the hypnosis machine. I think its actually a pretty smart and artistic movie. Not the best but I enjoy it every now and then. Also Linda Blair has grown up a lot in this movie.

I can understand why both professional critics and audiences loathe this film. I've just watched both the original Exorcist and this sequel in a row. The first one is a classic that pushed the boundaries of horror filmmaking and is a major influence on today's filmmakers, both because of its morbid tone, special effects and eerie soundtrack, and deserves no further comment.

However, I think Jason Boorman did a beautiful film with "The Heretic". A beautiful and eerie soundtrack from Ennio Morricone (who never disappoints), solid performances by the main characters (specially Linda Blair and Richard Burton), and special effects which are still impressive today (specially the beautiful matte paintings by Alfred Whitlock, who never disappoints either). The story was captivating, I found interesting the mixed use of technology, modern psychiatry and religious myth in a way that has never been reproduced since, and the explanation that demons tempt exceptionally good and talented people actually makes sense.

The one fatal mistake both Boorman, the producers and Warner Bros. Did in the first place (an original sin, if you may) was attach this film to the Exorcist franchise. This is a completely different film, altogether in tone, pace and theme from William Friedkin's celebrated flick (which may have a "happy" ending, but still leaves a bitter taste in your mouth with the sacrifice and tragedy necessary to achieve it, and still haunts the audience and leaves them in awe with the power of evil, and how much it takes to defeat it). Boorman did a "feel-good" film which actually resonates better as a drama or Sci-Fi flick, and doesn't even fit in well in the horror category.

Early on, Boorman and the producers should have realized they had a gem which didn't fit the Exorcist lore and made the necessary changes (specially characters and the title) to make it a standalone film - I honestly believe it would have fared better with both critics and the audience this way. The director even recognized later on (which is obvious) he didn't deliver what the public expected from an Exorcist sequel. Unfortunately, we know well that's not how Hollywood works, and that executives would try to fare on the first film's success at any cost, to the point of tagging a film as a sequel even if it has nothing to do with its intended predecessor. Such narrow-minded thinking didn't even reach their main objetive, resulting in a critical and box office failure.

Offbeat sequel that does have some things going for it: some heady, trippy flight dream sequences, a memorable Ennio Morricone score, a grown-up Linda Blair looking amazingly cute (and hot), some impressive effects, and a great scene involving a puddle of nails. On the other hand, it has one of Richard Burton's least convincing performances, some silly and/or campy moments (including a bloodless "stoning" and Burton as an ace rock climber!), and a pointless, meandering story that ends up repeating the first film. On the whole, an interesting misfire. **1/2 out of 4.

Loose sequel that sought to continue taking advantage of the pull of the success of the legendary film the Exorcist.

Although it has some visual successes, and some that a moment of terror achieved, it does not stop leaving us with a feeling of emptiness and indifference.

The technical invoice is very good that no doubt and the direction of Boorman is not bad. The problem is that the story seems to go around in several directions without ever knowing to which point to go.

At times it seems a drama, in others a psychological trhiller and in others a, do not know, musical? Anyway, seeing Linda Blair back is interesting, because she has become a very beautiful and sexy woman, (often cleavage), but her presence is not enough to lift the flight of a film that sinks irretrievably, for a single but Unforgivable error, which does not cause fear, and being the Exorcist, as it costs to swallow it.

In summary:

The best: Linda Blair, growing and distilling a morbid almost mortal, the sequences in Africa with Max Von Sidow, the best of the film, his technical bill, umm Richard Burton ?.

The Worst: It does not scare, without more.

There's three types of films in this world: the good ones, the bad ones and the ones that leaves you with so many doubts you can't tell if it's good or bad. Deeper in these classifications there's another level: the films that are so terrifying you won't even want to see (a good challenge to some) and the ones you've heard so many bad things about it that you don't wanna see at all. "Exorcist II - The Heretic" falls into this very last category but after years of delay I decided to go ahead and see what's so bad about it. And what did I get: a good film, actually, but far from the greatness of the 1973 classic.

It's really tough to succeed when you predecessor film is considered the best horror film of all time, it's impossible. Friedkin's classic was revolutionary, groundbreaking, shocking and human at the same time, it had everything that a horror film needs, in my opinion. Above all, it was believable, you could and can care about those characters. This sequel was totally unnecessary except to Warner Bros. who saw a great way to use the film as a great money grabber (and they succeed it, no matter what people think this film made money but was trashed by public and critics in terms of quality). No matter how many rewrites they have to do to make this decent it would fail anyway.

However, somehow I enjoyed this film. The bomb didn't exploded after all. Once again, we have the story of people trying to save the life of poor Regan (Linda Blair) from the destructive forces of evil. This time faith and science, represented by a priest (Richard Burton) and a doctor (Louise Fletcher), will have to join forces to fight against an supernatural and powerful enemy. Along with storyline there's an investigation that finally reveals to us what happened to Father Merrin (Max von Sydow) in that room years earlier.

It's pretty enjoyable to watch their drama in fighting back the problems but as a horror film is quite laughable, it's not scary and it's very problematic (no mention to Father Karras at all; the scenes in the desert are very boring; the conclusion was so confusing I didn't know if I should laugh or cry). They should've go easy on the locusts, there was too many and go on without making James Earl Jones appear dressed as one. John Boorman is not an horror director and I saw that as a big problem for this film, he didn't have the rhythm for this project; Friedkin is the same thing but he managed to do it with perfection (even if he had to fire a gun on the set just to get the right reaction from the actors). The final result is a script without originality, confusing and with far too many stories to focus.

In a way I'm disappointed for not being disappointed, the pubic overreacted to this. Good performances can be found here (Burton mainly), the cinematography is wonderful and there's enough space for good moments.

Never intelligent and memorable like the classic film, "Exorcist II" is just an easy entertainment to save you from a boring day. To some viewers it can be a decent film, to others it can be just like when Burton says about Regan's possession "Horrible, horrible...but it's fascinating". 6/10

This is a curious film. Like many adoring fans of "The Exorcist", I was eager to watch this film, to see a follow up to my all time favourite. I went and bought it, sat and watched it, then stormed off saying it was the worst film ever. Then I found myself thinking about it afterwards. I also found myself strangely drawn to watch it again.

I now keep watching it, and am considering buying the recently remastered soundtrack. This is so bizarre, as it is a bad film. The acting ranges from the overdone (Burton) to the ridiculous (Winn). However, there are some very good performances from Fletcher and Blair, and though some of their lines are weird, I think they do the best they could with the material they were given.

I would seriously like to urge everyone to watch this film. The only thing I ask is that you don't compare it to the original. I think that is why a lot of people don't like it. It's not fair to compare them as they are very different. Anyway, watch it! It's a simple enough watch.

No pun intended - no really! And it is not my fault that ... they can be irritating to some viewers! One of the audio commentaries even ... pointed them ... I mean that out! So it definitely is not me! Just saying - there is a dream walking sequence where they especially are way too distracting ... considering one is supposed to feel afraid or scared. Just saying - still I found this interesting.

But only the directors cut works - and even that has some issues or flaws or whatever you would call them. And all that while you have Ennio Morricone do the soundtrack .. how can the movie be bad you ask? Well ... the shorter cut ... doesn't really make the ... cut. Sorry, but it just is a fact ... well for most that is, so let's call it a fact.

Also this has some interesting and good choices in actors. But even our lead is struggling here - or at least it feels like he is. Maybe the script was confusing, maybe it was the strange dream invading stuff ... which I personnaly was not very fond of .. but seem to float some peoples boat (like you can hear in the audio commentary ... from a critic I think).

This may be the weakest entry (though some would give that title to the David Gordon Green ... well let's call it sequel ... it still is in the lore ... even though it was not meant to be called Exorcist .. which is crazy considering the cast and the story ... anyway, if you consider watching this, do not forget: Directors/longer cut! Only way to go.