Review of Exorcist II: The Heretic (1977) by Tim B — 07 Mar 2010

Wowzers, I did not see this coming. Who knew a sequel to a world-famous classic could be this bad? Exorcist 2 tried to stray from the original which is fine and dandy by me, but somebody should've reminded them that it also needs to make sense in order for its differences to be respected.

Haters of the original Exorcist who thought it was too slow should check this one out, then they might see the original under a whole new light. Many scenes that go nowhere, a lot of dialogue that either didn't make sense and plot devices given with no explanation what-so-ever.

The demon's roots are traced back to a bug in Africa (?), the priest somehow has a psychic link to it all, and they use a hypnotic strobe light to reveal characters' past. If WHAT? just came out of your mouth while reading this, believe me; the same was spoken plenty of times by yours truly.

It doesn't stop there. Regan seems to also be psychically linked to Father Lemont, there seems to be one doctor running an entire hospital, the house from the original film seems to semi-possess folks at random and Regan really seems to be two separate entities.

I'm guessing this second entry tried to further explain a whole story behind Regan's possession (like why she's so special) and to be honest, it was more effective (and scarier) when it seemed to be just a random possession happening to a normal girl.

The whole Pazuzu business was a bad idea. It's a sequel to a horror movie, not an art-house post-modern experiment about souls and demons. What I don't get about John Boorman is that he comes from making a movie like Deliverance (with one of the most disturbing scenes of all time) and then bashes The original Exorcist for being 'gross.

' Helming the sequel, he tried to make it something different, but failed miserably. Some shots were impressive but honestly, this is all I can remember since I was too busy trying to figure the movie out and bashing it at the same time.

Linda Blair grew up, got hot and gave an adequate performance for this sequel. Richard Burton overacted big time and stretched out almost every word in his dialogue. He reminded me of The Gatekeeper from the Nightmare board games.

Louise Feltcher, surprisingly, came across as very likeable. HOW? Signs of a great actress. Kitty Winn returns and does alright, still didn't give two shites about her. Max von Sydow shows up again for about two seconds (two GREAT seconds!) and James Earl Jones shows up for about 10 minutes and looked like an idiot.

I will admit to enjoying Linda Blair's many forms of lighter dress and Boorman does give some cool artsy touches, but the artsy substance was too over-the-top for me to follow and too disrespectful for me to care.

Am I just not getting it? Or did the writer not get what made the orignal so good? I'm gonna go with the latter. Stay away, it might just make YOU throw up your pea soup.