User reviews

William Peter Blatty, author of THE EXORCIST, based the character of Father Lankester Merrin on the Jesuit scholar Teilhard de Chardin. In books such as "The Phenomenon of Man", de Chardin theorized a metaphysical concept he called the World Mind, an interpretation of Christian mysticism which sees all minds as joined and gradually evolving into a full awareness of Being as a single consciousness akin to the New Thought idea of Christ Consciousness--the "only begotten" extension of Universal Consciousness, or God. This idea, a synthesis of Christian and Asian religious concepts, is resonant with many unorthodox spiritual teachings from Theosophy to the psychology of Carl Jung. After de Chardin's death his papers were suppressed by the Vatican and his work was investigated on charges of heresy (his ideas being heretical by the standards of the Catholic Church.)

When Blatty declined to write Warner Bros.' sequel, John Boorman and his creative associate Rospo Pallenberg developed an original script from a treatment by playwright William Goodhart, the credited screenwriter. Boorman accepted the project as a means to artistically express metaphysical ideas in which he was absorbed. The link to Teilhard De Chardin provided an ideal venue. The story of Father Lamont's spiritual odyssey is specifically a meditation on the Grail Quest theme, derived from Celtic mysticism and Arthurian legend, which underlie a thematically-related sequence in Boorman's early work: DELIVERANCE, ZARDOZ, EXORCIST II: THE HERETIC, Excalibur and THE EMERALD FOREST, comprising an important cinematic exploration of the Quest as Initiatory path.

In EXORCIST II: THE HERETIC, the late Father Merrin's reputation has fallen into disrepute and Father Lamont (Richard Burton), suffering a crisis of faith, is ordered by the Cardinal to investigate "the circumstances surrounding the death of Father Merrin" and the legitimacy of the exorcism before Merrin's papers (his life's work) can be released.

The title character of THE EXORCIST was that of Father Merrin (Max Von Sydow); this role then passed to the younger priest, Father Karras (Jason Miller). Just so, the heretic in EXORCIST II is initially Merrin until, through young Regan (Linda Blair), Father Lamont makes contact with the mind of Merrin and in that psychic joining shares his vision. Thus Lamont's descent into (and beyond) heresy is an initiatory quest which deepens as he goes against the Church's orders and ultimately calls upon the demon for guidance to the "evil heart" of the mystery.

In the scene at the Natural History Museum, the attentively listening viewer will discover (in the full 117-minute version) that Father Lamont tells Regan about Teilhard de Chardin and briefly explains the World Mind theory. The science-fictional device called the Synchronizer allows the World Mind concept to be expressed in cinematic images. (Among the many differences between this film and THE HERETIC is that the original's emphasis is strongly verbal whereas THE HERETIC expresses its complex ideas almost entirely in visual and symbolic terms.) A distinction is drawn between the peace and unity of the World Mind and the insanity ("evil") and corruption of its opposite, the ego: a state of separation from consciousness which mimics the One-Mindedness of God or the Universe. In THE HERETIC, this imitation or false Christ is symbolized by Pazuzu, the Babylonian genie and locust god--one of many "heathen" idols demonized in the Judeo-Christian tradition. (The demon was named in Blatty's novel but not in the original film.) Its activity of separation masked as joining is symbolized by the locust swarm which forms a single-mindlessness ("a Locust Mind, if you will") in mockery of Whole (Holy) Consciousness (Spirit). The resulting psychic fragmentation is reflected in the mirror images which permeate the film. Regan represents an evolutionary step toward the "Omega Point", the healing of the separation; a forerunner of Kubrick's Star Child.

John Boorman's film doesn't spell itself out for the viewer any more than does Kubrick's 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY and there is no Arthur C. Clarke novel to "explain it all for us". Boorman intends THE HERETIC to stimulate intelligent and imaginative thought and speculation. Where Kubrick and Clarke's ideas (initially met with great perplexity) have long been sanctioned as worthy of consideration, Boorman's somehow flew over the heads of a viewer-ship which, threatened by the film's non-dualistic subversion of the original's simplistic "good vs. evil" formula, has for thirty years ridiculed a misunderstood artwork. The original mass audience which condemned the film on first release was fresh from making the relatively ghastly Italian EXORCIST imitation Beyond the Door a huge box office success because it gave them what they wanted and only what they wanted: puke, puke and more puke. And so like the swarming locusts, the mundane Philistine mentality endlessly repeats the hypnotic chant: "worst sequel, worst sequel, worst..." There is no actual "Director's Cut" of EXORCIST II: THE HERETIC. The 117-minute Theatrical Version is John Boorman's official cut.

During the disastrous initial release, Warner Bros. hastily issued instructions to theaters to remove specified sections of the film which had drawn audience hostility, without consulting the director. Under extreme pressure, Boorman subsequently prepared a third, more carefully edited version for the international release. The re-editing rendered a difficult and highly symbolic film incomprehensible to the horror-show expectations of the audience. The most significant deletion was the discussion of Teilhard de Chardin's World Mind theory, the central focus of the film.

This bastardized version debuted on cable in the United States and for a decade the film was available exclusively in this distorted form. The full-length version, unseen since the early weeks of the initial release, was restored in the late 1980's for home video and is currently available on DVD. Mercifully, the Butcher's Cut has been permanently withdrawn.

Given his experience with the film, it is unlikely that Boorman would involve himself in a new Director's Cut edition. Given the mindless disrespect shown the film, he seems to have washed his hands of it and its detractors.

Rating: EXTRAORDINARY.

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.

Do I recommend seeing the Exorcist II? You bet I do! It's so ridiculously bad, you're sure to enjoy yourself. You will laugh out loud at the hypnotism scene. Your sides will hurt at the priest's attempts to put out a fire with a crutch. And was Richard Burton possessed by William Shatner for this movie? One of the best bad movies ever. Someday they'll make a movie about this movie, I'm sure of it. The director didn't like the original Exorcist! Who hires a director for a sequel when he disliked the original? And this was the most expensive movie produced by Warner Bros. at the time? Where did it all go?

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.

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.

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!

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.

Grossly underrated, Exorcist II is one of John Boorman's finest films.

Rather than go for the spinning heads and pea soup that were featured in the first film, Boorman opted to go in a less horrific and more surreal and dramatic direction. Most people claim that sequels shouldn't be a rehash of the original, well this certainly wasn't!

The acting was quite good here. The cinematography as in most every Boorman movie, is exquisite. The score by Ennio Morriconne is terrific and sets a slightly different tone from the first film.

Overall, the film has a much broader feel to it, I think because the film takes place at many places rather than confined to the room of the first film. Also, there are some elaborate special effects scenes that are breathtaking. Everyone of them quite chilling.

This isn't really what I would call an actual horror film. It's a drama involving the supernatural. I'm not sure exactly what I'd classify this as. It's a genre all it's own almost.

See it with an open mind. Forget what people have said in the past.

You just might be surprised.

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.

"Eeee-villl" says Richard Burton, unconvincingly cast as a conflicted Man of the Cloth in this follow-up to 1973's "The Exorcist". He attempts to purge mind demons from possession-survivor Regan (a vaguely distraught Linda Blair). Louise Fletcher (as Dr. Tuskin, Regan's therapist) and Kitty Winn (returning from the original as Regan's guardian, Sharon) are both mediocre, but Burton surely fares the worst; unsuccessfully hiding his embarrassment behind a staunchly theatrical mask, his readings seem conformed to reach the high balconies, and his over-enunciation seems peculiar in these surroundings--he's angry when he shouldn't be, and vice-versa. It's been said that this film cost Burton the Oscar for "Equus" (released the same year). Perhaps it was the troubled production (the constant rewrites, and director John Boorman suddenly taking ill) that tripped up the actors. Blair doesn't thrive; she keeps her poise but stays aloof from the proceedings (she's also a grown-up young woman who seems to be playing down her age, for a 'cute' effect). Boorman had a vision here, but damned if anyone could figure out what it was. William Goodhart's screenplay makes an attempt to show that great goodness can be a magnet for evil (they are helplessly intertwined), and that Regan was possessed by the demon Pazuzu because she is a healer. Unfortunately, none of this makes for a scary thriller. The film is heavy-handed, "metaphysical" and occasionally awkward and/or unintentionally funny (when Burton goes into synch to reach Dr. Tuskin, everyone is frantic because she's breathing abnormally, so what does the assistant tell Burton? "Relax deeply!"). Boorman's original version (butchered after disastrous early showings) eschews Burton's opening narration and begins inside the Mexican church (not outside near the steps); it also features a corny but satisfying final tag involving Sharon and Dr. Tuskin in Georgetown. ** from ****

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 is Exorcist II: Pazuzu Boogaloo. This is Roller Disco Exorcist. There is so much period placement in this film that you can actually feel your knee bumping the rounded white plastic edges. This is not a real movie. The people who made this movie were too high on 1970s drugs to make a real movie. This movie is worth watching if only for the dumbfounded comparisons to the original Exorcist that you will make in your head. The original Exorcist was made in the early 1970s, when there was still some residual intelligence left in the culture. Four years later everything had gleefully turned to stupid, and Exorcist II reflects that change.

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.

This turkey is full of gems for fans of bad movies. To be fair, they didn't just try to do a re-hash of the first film, attempting instead to tell of Father Merrin's original encounter with the demon. Unfortunately the result is an incoherent mess.

The film consists of long boring hypnosis scenes and the equally mind-numbing African shots. But there is still a feast of bad acting to enjoy, with Linda Blair and Kitty Winn giving abysmal performances. But even they are overshadowed by Richard Burton's hammy efforts. The script is ludicrous, and the cheesy theme music that wafts through the film would not be out of place in the Emmanuelle movies.

After a couple of hours with nothing even remotely suspenseful or scary happening, we are treated to a 'what the hell was that all about' ending. One of the best bad movies ever.

Favourite scene - Fr. Lamont's fire-fighting efforts in the basement - priceless.

The fact that so many pulled no punches against this very good film at its premiere –as some still do, speaks volumes about our unjustified preconceptions and expectations, dictated by media, marketing and perceptual bias.

This reminds me of other equally unjustified cases from film makers and/or franchises that tend to create the same kind of expectations in some of us. It happened with the sequels to the Matrix, which are both excellent, and also with practically every film by M. Night Shyamalan after The Sixth Sense.

As long as some audiences impair their own sensibilities by prioritizing comparisons of books, music pieces or films instead of fostering their own ability to appreciate a work of art on its own, the message delivered by the work will go over their heads and be lost.

Fortunately, time can heal generational misconceptions. Boorman is a very good director, and this is a film rich in imagery, philosophy, and thought-provoking themes. That they were able to create it even after going through what was obviously a bumpy production process makes it perhaps even more valuable.

Of course the film is not technically perfect, due precisely to those difficulties. But you can tell when something comes from the heart because that doesn't matter at all.

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.

I'm always more curious to see the movies that are unanimously panned by critics and audiences alike, because half of the time I end up finding out that these movies aren't that bad. "The Exorcist II" is not one of those movies. It really is 180 degrees from its suspenseful predecessor. I've read reviews from critics that hated Richard Burton's performance, saying that he was awfully over-the-top. I actually feel that Burton's performance is one of the film's strong points. Despite the goofy plot, he maintains a straight face. And after reading that he was drunk during part of the shoot, it's pretty impressive that he can deliver such a convincing performance. The rest of the cast is good as well. Linda Blair looks cute as a button. But at nearly two hours, the movie goes on way too long. What else can I say? This movie is just plain dull! I stopped following the plot after a while, not because it got too complicated, but because I didn't care anymore. Let's just say that I just finished watching the movie a couple days ago, and it's already on sale on Amazon.com. That alone shows you how much I appreciate this movie. (3 out of 10)

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.