#205: Exorcist II: The Heretic
Release Date: June 17th, 1977
Format: Streaming (Tubi)
Written by: William Goodhart
Directed by: John Boorman
1.5 Stars
Poor, poor John Boorman. What an impossible situation. He should have passed on this.
How does one follow up an instant classic, a transcendent film, with a sequel whose purpose is purely financial?
It’s a tough spot to be in.
There are some good ideas to be enjoyed in Exorcist II: The Heretic, if you can stifle your laughter during its most ridiculous and incompetent moments. I like the idea of a psychoanalysis of Regan, four years after her possession in the original film. Is she really free of a demonic spirit? Does she have residual effects or insights hiding in her subconscious? This idea could work. I also like the idea of returning a clergyman to far and distant lands to discover the origins of evil, the possible birthplace of Satan himself. It worked with Max von Sydow in the original film, and it should have worked better here.
But there are many things that don’t work in Exorcist II, chiefly that it cannot recreate the verisimilitude of the original. It proves to be a fatal flaw. It’s important to remember that in 1973, there were people who would not see The Exorcist because they believed the film itself was demonically possessed. That’s not an exaggeration. There were reports of people vomiting in theaters, and of others traumatized after watching it. Director William Friedkin had released a film of such visceral realism that much of the public wasn’t ready for it. Many believed what they were seeing on screen.
Watching Exorcist II: The Heretic, you have no such belief. The performances are pretty awful, the sets are cheap, and the technical aspects - the sound design especially - are unintentionally hilarious. I woke up this morning trying to do Pazuzu noises while making coffee.
I could go on dragging this thing, but to be honest, I had a good time watching it. People hated it back in 1977, both the public and critics. For the film buffs, it was an affront. How dare Warner Bros. make a film so shoddy, to the point that it could tarnish the reputation of the original? The first film was so groundbreaking, so challenging both technically and intellectually for its genre…and then you give us this as a sequel? And for the general public, the feeling was how dare they make a film called Exorcist that’s so not scary?
Both are fair criticisms. It thankfully did not tarnish the reputation of the original, but it is shoddy and not scary.
But it’s also not quite as bad as its reputation.
