Exorcist II: The Heretic (1977)

Why that bad? I liked this movie even more than first one (although it has a very high quality which had not been matched by any sequel) but I liked the different style of this one, with an interesting metaphysics background and the emotional evolution of the first movie's characters, especially Regan, not a possessed girl anymore but a feminine Messiah. I think the movie has some failures in its execution, with some cheesy scenes and dialogs and some overacted performances, especially Richard Burton. But the final result is amazing. I like the feeling of the African sceneries and that music theme sounding when Linda Blair is on scene. This movie has a positive feeling; it's the Good, opposite to the Evil shown in the first. It suggests that the Evil goes after good people (the nurse who heals the sick, Regan that seems to be special), and I like that idea. I think people didn't understand or didn't like that change, but, another "Exorcist" replica would have been better? Maybe for the box office, but what John Boorman did with this was a bizarre but quite worthy follow-up to the 1973 smash hit. I think it is commendable. Maybe it is not a masterpiece, I agree that it is not for the masses, it has a confusing history and slow, not easily digestible by everyone, but it has "something". Maybe what the director wanted for the movie but lost in translation. This very pretentious movie seems it could have been greater and better but finally results in a strange and sometimes complicated mixture of religious and philosophical theories, with some scares (not enough for the audience) and a great adventure film component. But whether you like it or not, something is certain, at any rate, it is a beautiful film to watch: visually exciting and musically captivating.

Fmovies: I was fortunate enough to see the extended, three-hour plus cut of this movie in its original preview run, and what I saw took my breath away. In its complete state, EXORCIST II: THE HERETIC could have very well been one of the best sequels ever made, worthy of mention in the same vein as ALIENS, GODFATHER 2 and even TERMINATOR 2. But in their corporate "wisdom," I have to assume that Warner Brothers figured that audiences were too impatient or too stupid to 'get' everything that the movie was trying to say, so they yanked creative control away from John Boorman, and recut it into the disjointed monstrosity that most moviegoers have had the enormous misfortune to see.

I dream that someday Mr. Boorman will be able to restore it and release a deluxe DVD edition that will leave both film buffs and critics alike absolutely speechless...and I mean in a GOOD way. Assuming, of course, that the vital footage has not been lost forever. Until then, this version deserves every bit of the ridicule it has received and then some. Die hard fans of the featured actors may still want to catch it, because the discerning eye will be able to tell from the performances of Burton, Blair, Fletcher and Kitty Winn that there's a lot of "between-the-lines" material that is missing, thereby rendering great performances from everyone involved into massive attacks of something resembling cinematic Tourette's Syndrome.

And even with the way it was wrecked, regardless of popular opinion, I still consider the score to be among the best that Morricone has ever composed for any film, (with his absolute best a tie between ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST and THE UNTOUCHABLES.)

I liked this when it came out and I still do. The bad press on it began immediately, and all the reviewers jumped on the bandwagon; only one of the reviews seemed to correlate with what showed on the screen. I think the time was wrong for mysticism, and maybe for religion: the sixties had ended, and the mode of fantasy then in favor was space fantasy, full of technical detail. A couple of decades later, the climate is different: "Stigmata", which has a story not unlike that of "Exorcist II," and looks and feels so much like it that it might almost be the same film with different actors morphed in, didn't get good reviews but wasn't laughed out of theatres either.

Most of the people who like "Exorcist II" tend not to have liked "Exorcist I" much, and vice versa. Blatty himself said in one interview that it didn't work because the director was a Protestant, and in another interview that it was because he wasn't a believer. To me the second film shows more spiritual feeling than the first, but no interest at all in the Church, and maybe in some minds that equates to unreligiousness.

The first "Exorcist" purported to be about possession, but most of its imagery was of a young girl being raped: by her mother's party guests, by doctors, by priests, by a crucifix. "Exorcist II" actually is about possession, among other things, and culminates in the interesting idea (excised after release but later restored on video and DVD) that people who have been possessed and purged of evil can go forth to heal all the others who are similarly afflicted. I happen to think that's an inspiring idea for a story.

But then I like mystical thrillers, and apparently most filmgoers don't--or didn't then. The first "Exorcist" was not one; this is. The images in the first film, when they don't involve repulsive bodily detail, have no metaphysical resonance; they're relentlessly physical, often sexual, and when the demon itself appears, it's in the form of the actual, literal statue. By contrast the images in "Exorcist II" have deliberate metaphysical implications. I doubt that they were worked out thoroughly; it's more as if Boorman were playing with them, in the same way he lets the light play through the stylized sets and behind the actors. The scenes of possession capture the sense of historical accounts of the phenomenon more than those in the first film, which is too much distracted by physical threat and sexual aberration.

Like "Exorcist II" or no, take it seriously or no, I was and am puzzled why more people were unable to enjoy its appeal to the eye and the ear (the music was pretty too), let alone to the imagination. I think perhaps they couldn't allow themselves to enjoy it: that they had to deride it and be seen to deride it because what it said, or the way in which it was said, was something that they had just learned to reject or that contradicted something they had just learned to believe.

It must be admitted that the film is unsatisfactory dramatically. The fantastic incidents of the first film, besides being reduced to the most prosaic physical terms, were fitted within a sequence of conventional, punchy, easily playable scenes; one cared about Ellen Burstyn's problems in a movieish way, and through her Linda Blair's. In the sequel Blair doesn't have the scenes to play, and her inexperience as an actress keeps one from feeling involved with her; Bur

Exorcist II: The Heretic fmovies. 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*~

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?

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!