Customer Reviews

Exorcist II - The Heretic [VHS]

5 star:		(40)
4 star:		(32)
3 star:		(38)
2 star:		(32)
1 star:		(63)

 

 

Sometimes, every once in a while, a movie sequel comes along that defies the odds. Sometimes a sequel or continuation equals or even surpasses what came before. Think of "From Russia With Love," the follow-up film to "Dr. No." Think of "The Godfather, Part 2." Think of "Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back." Do not, however, even consider "Exorcist II: The Heretic."

In 1973 "The Exorcist" scared half the world to death. The other half of the world didn't have a movie theater in their parts or they'd have been scared, too. You think people weren't waiting with eager anticipation for a follow-up? The film cried out for a sequel. Hollywood can't resist sequels. So, in 1977, Warner Bros. brought together what was left of the original cast, threw in Richard Burton and Louise Fletcher to boot, got noted filmmaker John Boorman ("Point Blank," "Deliverance," later "Excalibur") to direct, and produced one of the biggest bombs ever made.
I wish I could tell you what the film was about, but having seen it three times now, I still don't know.

I wish I could tell you what the film was about, but having seen it three times now, I still don't know. I do know that writer William Peter Blatty wanted nothing to do with it and that director Boorman tried to reedit it after its first appearance to make it into something watchable, but with no success. I also know that the sequel is about as far removed from the original as a sequel can get in terms of action, plot, tone, and characters.

Heck, as far as I could see, there wasn't even a real exorcism in the second movie, unless it went by in one of those moments I fell into a stupor in front of the set. Believe me, such moments will occur regularly in this film for most viewers, interspersed with stretches of stunned insensibility. For what it's worth, we have the complete version here on DVD before Boorman started tinkering with it. Nothing helps.

As I understand it, the story has something to do a priest, Father Lamont (Burton), being assigned to investigate the death of Father Merrin (Max von Sydow), which took place in the famous exorcism several years before. Sydow appears in flashbacks, so he, too, was induced into reprising his part in this follow-up film, sort of. The Cardinal who sends Lamont out on his mission is played by the great Paul Henreid ("Casablanca," "Now, Voyager"), of all people, apparently lured out of retirement for one last film. Pity it had to be this one. Anyhow, Father Lamont starts his inquiries by visiting the girl, Regan MacNeil (Linda Blair), now a young woman, who is supposedly free of her demonic possession but is being treated by a psychiatrist, Dr. Tuskin (Louise Fletcher), just in case. Regan and the doctor have this rig set up whereby the two of them put on connected headsets and delve into one another's inner psyches. Sort of like one of Mr. Spock's mind melds. That in itself seemed to me more demonic than anything the devil could conjure up.

Pressing on, the priest arrives and starts stirring things up with his questions and begins believing that perhaps Regan is still possessed, this time by an evil spirit of the air, a demon king of locusts or something. Which leads, in turn, to interminable sequences of African plains, phony-looking locust hordes invading African villages, a cameo appearance by Ned Beatty as a bush pilot, and a high spiritual leader named Kokumo, played by James Earl Jones in a role he must be at least a little embarrassed about today. He looks pretty silly in a bug costume.

In the meantime, back in New York, Regan is living in a lavish penthouse apartment while her movie-star mother is out on location (Ellen Burstyn was smart enough to sit this one out). Regan is being cared for by a lady named Sharon Spencer (Kitty Winn), who is back from the first movie. So, for almost two hours there's a lot of talk and a lot of locusts and
a lot of boredom, until finally, we're back in Washington, DC, and the old house of the demonic possession and it's cracking up and there's supposed to be an evil spirit or something somewhere and some people die and some people don't die and it ends. I'm sure there's a movie in here somewhere, but I couldn't find it.

Burton as the priest chews up the scenery in virtually every shot, even though he has nothing of worth to say or do. Like any great actor, that doesn't stop him. At no point in the story can I remember his smiling. He merely goes about his business grim-faced, wandering from scene to scene probably questioning as much as the audience what was going on and why he was struck in this turkey. Ms. Fletcher as Dr. Tuskin tries mightily to imitate her Academy Award-winning role as Big Nurse Ratched from "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" (1975), employing the same calm, even-tempered voice and sweetly deceptive demeanor she used before. Trouble is, here she's supposed to be an honestly sympathetic character, yet we can't help be reminded of the supreme villain she created with the same persona a couple of years earlier.

Then, there's the star, Ms. Blair, who simply shows up. Having grown into young womanhood, she is content to emphasize the fact by wearing a variety of negligees, and at one point she enters the doctor's office in what appears to be a wedding dress! Without a face full of grotesque makeup, she proves an unconvincing actress in this film, which may go a long way toward explaining why she was never asked to appear in any films of merit after this venture.

"Exorcist II: The Heretic" is rated R for reasons that continue to elude me. The movie contains no sex, no nudity, no profanity, and very little violence. In fact, when it's over you'll wonder if it contained anything. I can only assume it was given an R rating for its subject matter, demonic possession, but even there it's hard to say who was being possessed by what. This is a very strange movie, indeed.

Video:
The screen presentation is mediocre in a 1.74:1 size, enhanced for widescreen TVs. I say "mediocre" because there's nothing about it that sets it apart from a good video tape. Definition is average, color bleed-through is average; color brightness is average; color realism is average. About the only good things to say in its favor are that it is free of much grain and reveals no issues of age deterioration. Thank heaven for small favors.

Audio:
If the video presentation is only average, the audio is doubly so. It's a standard monaural soundtrack that does little to impress except convey the dialogue of its participants. Expect no kind of dynamic range or frequency response that might make anything on the screen come to life; and, of course, expect nothing from your rear speakers.

Extras:
Don't expect anything of interest here, either. The major bonus item is an alternative opening sequence that adds a couple of minutes of explanation to Father Lamont's biography. It helps to explain why he was performing the initial exorcism shown in the movie and why he was called to investigate Father Merrin's death. In addition, there's a brief cast and crew listing that provides a few filmographies. Completing this mini package of materials are thirty-one scene selections; a widescreen theatrical trailer; spoken languages in English and French; and subtitles in English, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Japanese, Chines, Bahasa, Thai, and Korean.

Parting Shots:
Are there any compelling reasons for watching "Exorcist II: The Heretic"? Well, there's Richard Burton's voice. He had a magnificent speaking voice, and just listening to the man reciting gibberish can be intoxicating. And, believe me, he has plenty of gibberish to recite in this film. Then, there's...uh.... Let's see, there's.... Oh, forget it. There are no reasons for watching this film.

The Exorcist is a masterpiece of horror and a winner of two academy awards (for best director and best adapted screenplay). This sequel won an award too. It was voted as the second worst film of all time at the Golden Turkey Conventions. Why is this? I love this movie! It wisely keeps the storyline of the first going (unlike William Peter Blatty's The Exorcist 3, which completely departed from the original story). It also has three returning cast members from the first. It has Kitty Winn returning as Sharon Spencer, Max Von Sydow as Father Lancester Merrin, and, of course, Linda Blair as Reagan MacNiel.
The plot takes place in many different areas around the globe, including Africa, India, Georgetown, and New York. The beggining scene involves a young woman who is being possesed and needs an exorcist. Father Phillip Lamont (Richard Burton), a good friend of the late Father Merrin, attempts to exorcise the woman, but she commits suicide using a bunch of candles. We then get to see how Reagan MacNiel (Linda Blair) is getting on with her life. She is now doing dance compititions nearly every day, and sees a psychiatrist (Louise Fletcher) as well. Reagan remembers her possesion, but refuses to talk about it with anyone, and they all assume that she doesn't remember (even at the end of the first one, Chris MacNiel, her mother, said she didn't remember, but I think she was faking). Father Lamont is instructed by the Cardinal (Paul Henried) to investigate the death of Father Merrin (Max Von Sydow). Lamont goes to the hospital where Reagan stays, and questions her doctor, asking if she remembers anything. The doctor dosen't want to ask Reagan, because she's afraid that it will trigger a shock, and Reagan will attempt suicide. However, they use a special mind machine to dive into her head and see. What they do see is a man (James Earl Jones) fighting a tiger. Lamont finds out that that man is Cacooma, who was once possesed by Pazuzu, and exercised by Father Merrin. Desperately, Lamont attempts to track down the man and question him.....
Exorcist 2 The Heretic is a brilliant movie. Why it is so hated by review criticts is beyon me. It has an interesting style, brilliant camera movements, and gorgeous music (Reagan's theme is beautiful). The movie seems to have a bit more of a plot than the first (although the first is terrific), and a better story going for it. Linda Blair is great as 18 year old Reagan, and Fletcher is good as the no-nonsense doctor, but Richard Burton's performance is a little bit cheesey ("I saw it- it was horrible, utterly horrible") but he's still fun to watch. Although Von Sydow dyed in the first film, he's here in flashbacks, and footage of the exorcism in Africa. This one isn't really scary, although I don't think the intention was to be scary. Also, the 118 minute version is MUCH better than the 110 minute version. The 118 minute one goes deeper into the charecter's developement, and includes a different ending. I do not know why this movie hasn't gone onto DVD yet, but this VHS is bad. The color is drained, and the picture is mudgy. But, it's the only version available, so LIVE WITH IT!!!!
If you enjoyed Exorcist 2 The Heretic, I would also recommend The Exorcist, Damien Omen 2, Jaws 2, and Halloween 2.
Exorcist 2 The Heretic is Rated R For Some Violence, Brief Language, Brief Gore, and Small Nudity.
PS If you found my review helpfull, please vote for me!!!!!
Brett Michael Roberts

I had the misfortune of actually seeing this bomb when it was released into movie theatres in 1977. I still recall endless streams of people exiting, muttering, "what garbage!" and complaining about how chillingly dismal this film is. Now, re-watching it after 25 years, I can affirm positively: this is one of the worst films ever made.

Linda Blair is a blowsy, boring, catatonic actress. Her scenes are beyond wretched. But the absolute clincher of bad is Richard Burton, delivering an incoherent performance in which this notorious over-actor overacts to the point of hilarity. There are several scenes which call for him to use subtlety in dealing with the fragile Blaire. Well, subtlety and Burton simply do not mesh on the acting screen and he screams lines which should be phrased delicately and demurely. You will laugh out loud at how pathetic a display Burton puts on. His scenes with Blair and Fletcher will cause you either to wince or double over with laughter.

If you are one of those types who revels in large budget monstrosities, this is your baby!

must see TRUE CULT trash with an A-LIST budget , HORRIBLE writing , HILARIOUS dialog , SOME pretty good acting (LOUISE FLETCHER) , some GOOD cinamatography and LAUGHABLE effects . MULTIPLE viewings REWARD the adult readers of NATIONAL LAMPOON (the magazine) crowd . lots of mis-placed FUN . enjoY.....OH , and LINDA BLAIR had a GREAT BODY

There are so many negative reviews below, why? Because this is awful. It is the worst film I've seen and I've seen a lot of rubbish (including Rats:Night of Terror and The Nostril Picker).

I can handle bad films, a film like 'The Zombie Dead' really doesn't stand a chance and isn't expected to be good. The Exorcist 2 follows one of the most haunting movies made. Yet, somehow seems to completey ignore every foundation it was made on. Gone is the documentary style, lost are the on set effects, replaced by a crazy (yet cheap) mind control machine, some Locusts, an awful story and a weird dance.

I would have put a spoiler warning in there, but the only way to spoil this film is by watching it.

Someone below wrote "It is star-studded, gripping and coherent.". I think they may have watched a different film, possibly The Exorcist 3. Interestingly Blatty (writer of Exorcist 1) created a 'non official' trilogy about faith, the second being 'The Ninth Configuration' and the third being 'The Exorcist 3' which was originally not a sequal to The Exorcist but a book called 'Legion'. Still check Exorcist 3 out, it's much better than this tripe.

I was completely mesmerized after watching the original Exorcist film- -so much so that I went out and got the novel, written by William Peter Blatty. The original exorcist was like a supernatural detective story. Oftentimes, the viewer was caught between the belief that the main character (Reagan) was truly possessed, or that she was just a severely disturbed little girl.

However, despite the fact that most people don't expect a sequel to ever surpass the original film, this movie does much, much worse. The movie starts off with a grown-up Reagan, the main character from the first movie. Tormented by memories of her past experiences, Reagan seeks psychological help through the use of a device that helps people to see each other's thoughts and/or mental and physical experiences. Along with the "magical mind device," Reagan is assisted by a not-so-helpful, equally troubled priest named Father Lamont, played by Richard Burton.

Of course, at this point I need to go further into the plot-line, but to be honest...that's kind of difficult. Other than saying that the same demon (Pazuzu, god of sickness and pestilence)who possessed Reagan in the first movie returns with a vengeance and that Reagan and Father Lamont try desperately to oppose him, nothing else in this movie makes much, if any sense.

The director tries to diverge from the first film by using occultism rather than Christianity to combat the demon, but the actual methodology used is ambiguous. Not to mention, the magical, psychological device that Reagan and Father Lamont use to mentally contact one another is just plain stupid.

I also must agree with past critics by saying that the majority of acting in this film is overdone. What's more, as an African-American, I was a little annoyed with how the few blacks portrayed in the film were mostly shot in Africa, where even the westernized, supposedly Christian Africans acted like a bunch of wild, overzealous shamans. Even in America, the nameless black cab driver who, along with some of Reagan's friends is attacked and injured by the demon is never remembered when the police ask, "Ma'am, was there anyone else with you guys when the car turned over and set on fire?"

Overall, I recommend avoiding this film at all costs. You will waste your time sitting around for almost two hours, waiting for a plot that never really comes together. In my opinion, watching the first, unedited version of the Exorcist, along with reading the novel are the best entertainment you're ever going to get.

Well what can I say. I truly believe this to be the biggest sequel rip off in the history of movie making. I, as one of the other reviewers below, after seeing 3 and 4, watched this again. Ok I admit I didn't watch the whole thing. I realized that my first thoughts of this movie when I saw it in '77 were right on the money. There is a reason why they pulled the movie back and cut out 8 minutes. Unfortunately no amount of cutting or editing could help this mess.

3 and 4 were pretty good but of course there is only one Exorcist. Nothing has compared favorably since.

I tried to give it zero stars but Amazon won't let me. If I could give it a negative number I would. I'll never be able to get that time wasted on this movie back. There ought to be a law.

When the whole world tells you a film is absolutly awful and you take the time to watch it and are hypnotized from fade in to fade out. This is what happened 20 years ago when I took the time to watch this film because I admired Boorman's POINT BLANK so much. Unbelievable!! If Boorman had just made a movie called THE HERETIC without the pretense of being a sequel to THE EXORCIST it would have a bigger following then it does now. This film is a delirious flood of images and ideas about the collective subconscience, good and evil, and is more a critique of Blatty and Friedkin's documentary approach to the original film then a sequel to it. Just as Boorman's films ZARDOZ and EXCALIBUR are dreamlike abstractions where the acting and plot are secondary to the visuals THE HERETIC does not play on our expectations of things that go bump in the night. BOO! He is more interested in the things that connect our dreams to our souls and our souls to the dreams of the rest of mankind. Pretenious? Maybe. Absurd? Certainly in spots, that is undeniable. But this movie is original, daring to be original when making a dull rehash of THE EXORCIST would have given Boorman the biggest audience of his career. Forget THE EXORCIST when you watch this film. Watch it for what it is. One of the greatest fantasy films ever made and one of Boorman's best.

No pun intended, but this movie is so bad, it'll make your head spin! "Exorcist II: the Heretic" is dated, forgotten, and, most of all, atrocious! To say this is a great movie defies common sense, and all of the five/four star reviewers lack common sense. For good cinema, see "Brokeback Mountain!"

Linda Blair reprises her role as Regan in "The Exorcist II: The Heretic." Directed by John Boorman, the film finds everybody's favorite possessed little-girl growing up as a teen. Now under the care of a nurturing psychiatrist (Louise Fletcher) and Sharon (Kitty Winn), her live-in nanny from the first film, while her mother is away (a.k.a. Ellen Burstyn didn't want to do the flick), Regan leads a seemingly normal life until a priest (Richard Burton) sent to investigate the events of the first film shows up and stirs her inner demons. Slowly but surely, Regan becomes aware of some new-found powers and a connection to the past that leads the film into Africa, where it all began.

Forever cursed as an inferior sequel, "The Heretic" is no doubt subpar compared to the first, but that's not to say that the film is not without its merits. Fact of the matter is that the film is host to several solid performances in its cast, most notably Linda Blair, who plays a very charming and very likeable teenaged version of her signature character. Louise Fletcher, who had won an Oscar for playing the cruel and unusual Nurse Ratched in "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" one year prior, does a complete 180 and anchors the film with heart and compassion. Like Ellen Burstyn in the original, you believe she loves and has a bond with Regan. Richard Burton is solid as the troubled Father Lamont and you'll spot a young James Earl Jones as well as Max Von Sydow, also returning from the first film.

The film's biggest problem is in its script, which, aside from not making sense at times, doesn't give its characters much to do. The first half of the film is fleshed out rather well and even takes the opportunity to dip into the past, almost like a prequel to the first (27 years later, two very mixed up prequels would emerge) but by the time the film reaches its conclusion, the story comes unraveled with an ending that flat out stinks and has little to no relevancy to the rest of the film. It's a shame, really, as some solid characters are established and the film seems bound and determined to destroy their credibility. The direction by Boorman can't be blamed. The man turns in a solid show and it is obviously the story - which was reportedly re-written five times, that serves as the film's downfall. Apparently, even in the 1970's, horror films fell victim to studio interference.

While it attempts to reach the class of the original film, it ultimately fails. In the end, "The Exorcist II: The Heretic" is a film whose ideas are more interesting than its execution. You'll enjoy seeing some familiar faces and nods to the original, and while it's certainly not a terrible film by any means, it is one that simply can't hold a candle to its original.