Customer Reviews

Exorcist II: The Heretic (Widescreen)

5 star:		(26)
4 star:		(17)
3 star:		(22)
2 star:		(19)
1 star:		(33)

 

 

The infamous sequel to the one and only horror box-office smash is not as bad as its reputation, but it might have faired better if the powers-that-be hadn't tried to duplicate the success of the original. The premise is interesting: four years later, a priest, Father Phillip Lamont, (Richard Burton) is asked by the Cardinal (Paul Henreid) to investigate the work of Father Lankaster Merrin (Max Von Sydow), particularly his last exorcism and unexplained death. The reluctant clergyman tracks down Regan MacNeil (Linda Blair), now a young woman, who is still under psychiatric care, where her doctor, Gene Tuskin (Louise Fletcher) is trying to retrieve the girl's repressed memories of her possession. Still plagued by nightmares, Regan agrees to undergo hypnosis, aided by a machine that can transfer her thoughts and images into another person's mind. Both doctor and priest discover that the demon Pazuzu that had possessed her is still attempting to take over. Due to the transfer of thoughts, Father Merrin's past work and warnings takes us on a trip to Africa, back to the house in Georgetown, and into a swarm of giant locusts. It is revealed that the victims of the ghastly entity's torture are healers -and therefore saviors of the world. The music, by Ennio Morricone, especially Regan's theme, is beautiful and haunting. Director John Boorman extensively recut the film several times, due to the scathing reviews of critics and public alike (the latter of which threw objects at the screen during its viewings), but the film was quickly withdrawn from the theatres. Restored to the original cut on video and DVD, the visuals, effects and music are top-notch; unfortunately, the screenplay and the clashing of images make the film somewhat incoherent and hard to follow. The competent cast tries gamely, but despite the hypnotic gaze and voice of Burton, Fletcher's warmth and Blair's energy, and the rest of the performer's efforts, they become increasingly lost in the perplexing imagery. If you think you can handle the puzzling presentation, you may find it worth a look.

...if not THE worst movie. As I was watching this it was hard to come to grips with how far askew a sequel could be. This movie seems little more than a reason to rehash the first movie and it seems the protaginists are simply 'looking for trouble.' Just about the only bright spots in this is the rather gritty, realistic areas that must have been filmed on location, seeing Regan again (not necessarily hearing her), and seeing Louise Fletcher (see Regan). The dialogue here is simply not any good, but the worst part is the story. I'm sorry... WAS there a point to this movie? No, I mean beyond the financial aspect. Didn't think so. This is without a doubt the biggest let down in a sequel ever, but beyond that may be one of the worst movies ever, no, really. Think how the Lost World tainted Jurassic Park, not multipy that by 100.

I don't really understand why people keep saying this is a bad movie. It's much better than Exorcist III and the prequel, and it's definitely better than a lot of horror movies made in these days. I'd give it 6 stars if such a scale is allowed.

This film has a notoriously bad reputation, largely garnered from having disappointed the huge expectations of legions of fans of the first Exorcist movie looking for more of the same.

But instead of taking the obvious and easy path, the makers of this film bravely dared to take things in a totally different direction this time. I would say that part of the reason for many people's disappointment is that the resulting film falls more into the category of Science Fiction rather than Horror. And with its emphasis on the mind, instead of reminding me of the first Exorcist film, this one reminds me more of another Sci-fi film also starring Louise Fletcher, called "Brainstorm".

From reading the other reviews here, I see that although fans of the first Exorcist movie bitterly hate this one, it seems that there is also a strong minority who do lke this one, and many of these people even PREFER it to the first. I am one such person.

Yes it is definitely a B-movie, but AS a B-movie I think it's quite good. The story manages to incorporate some very diverse elements and it has some uniquely atmospheric parts in Africa that I love. Yeah I'm not too crazy about the ending and the whole "good locust" thing is kinda chintzy. This film does have its limitations. -- Hence only 3 stars from me. But I hear that there is another edit of this film out there which is more satisfying, and I hope that we will also see it on DVD someday.

So in conclusion, if you're one of those fans of the first film desperate to see possessed Regan spewing forth more pea soup, you should STAY AWAY from this movie because I guarantee you WILL be disappointed. But if you've got an open mind and are ready for a more unconventional story with a dash of Sci-fi, you just might enjoy it.

Two hours of utter rubbish featuring a half sober Richard Burton wandering to himself ''I onced played played Hamlet at the Old Vic''.
This very silly film is badly shot, badly acted and is not remotely scary. The Locusts look like they were recycled from Star Trek!

This film was better than I expected it to be.I really don't know why everyone trashes it.Even though it is no where near as good as the original it still offers a good story.The plot is unbelievable well thought out it is either pure genius or crap.A priest has to investigate father Merrin's death which leads him to Regan who is having bad dreams and hallucinations.She is watched by a relative and shrink.The acting isn't all that great and neither is the dialogue, but the plot is just so interesting.(SPOILERS)The device that helps the two get n'sync is real interesting.The African flashbacks are so intriguing it could be a sign that this is a hidden gem.The dream sequence with Regan on the balcony is shot beautifully.It really answers alot of questions that were unanswered from the predecessor.I hated the bug that the camera kept following though.You decide whether it is good or bad.(6/10)

"Very enjoyable in retrospect, and a big improvement on its source material."

-- Jake Euker, F5 (WICHITA, KS)

This sequel was a poor attempt to follow up on Regan, who has grown up a few years. I got lost from the beginning.
There was no plot or even anything remotely scary compared to the first one.
Unless you want to see a mature, beautiful Linda Blair, this would be the only reason to buy this film.

Linda Blair is back in the Exorcist II: The Heretic. Becoming a fine young adult and very pretty. In a very important role, returning as "Sharon" is Kitty Winn. You may remember her in the first film, The Exorcist (1973) as the mother's house assistant. I will not tell you anything about the plot accept that, yes, they do go back to the house in Washington DC. A fine cast includes Richard Burton as "Father Lamont", Louise Fletcher, Paul Henreid and Ned Beatty. Max von Sydow returns as "Father Merrin". This DVD is the 117 min. version with scenes and footage that was originally excised from the film. It's all here. The third film is THE EXORCIST III (1990) with the return of Jason Miller. Linda Blair was a possessed housewife in the comedy-spoof film, REPOSSESSED (1990). A fourth film, EXORCIST: THE BEGINNING (2004), a prequel, will be released September 2004.

ok, i dont know why but when i read review about exorcist II the heretic, i found them not good. i wonder why. this movie is good, one of the greatest sequel. of course, its not the original exorcist, but its still good

I have viewed EXORCIST 2 on several occasions just to see the reason as to why it's constantly referred to as the worst sequel ever made. Although I certainly agree with the film's inferiority to the classic original, I don't agree with it's constant crucifying.

First things first, I think that one of the reasons so many people walked out of this film during it's theatrical run was due largely to the film's lack of shock sequences. The original EXORCIST was full of them; head spinnings, regurgitations, doing bad things with holy relics. The sequel offered none of the above, not even the occasional cuss word and alot of people were left unsatisfied and angry.

My biggest problem with EXORCIST 2 is in the make-up effects. The original had frightening make-up effects that transformed the innocent beauty of Linda Blair into a hideous creature from hell. Her face was scarred and mutilated, sweaty and slimy, with colourless eyes and chapped lips. Truly terrifying. The make-up in the sequel is too made up, too neat. It doesn't even come close to the same frighening level. Another factor is the voice effects. The demon in EXORCIST 2 sounds like an old woman. It's predessesor used an amplified demonic voice which not only spoke English but also in Latin and in many scenes, there were several overlapping voices, making it seem that Regan was possessed by a legion of demons. The overall effect was as chilling as the nasty visuals. The sequel fails to deliver on that level as well.

Another factor is the silly use of the "synchronizer" machine. All of that mumbo-jumbo about some mysterious machine that is able to hypnotizes 2 individuals at the same time and one is able to see the other person's dreams, blah, blah, blah is simply too over the top unbelievable. I think the film would have worked better had they just resorted to good old fashioned hypnosis.

All of that said, EXORCIST 2 is still a very attractive looking movie. The special effects and cinematography are excellent. Even those who despise the film have commented on the visually stunning set pieces- The sweeping views of the African landscapes; the surreal images of the locusts swarming an impoverished African Village; doves flying over Regan's Penthouse balcony; and last but not least Linda Blair's exquisite and radiant beauty. The film's score is also quite good. As a matter of fact it's quite beautiful, especially Regan's theme. The tune wouldn't leave my mind for several days after I watched the film. I also liked the idea behind Regan's possession- she's some kind of Godsend, a healer who Satan wants destroyed. However on the negative side, the whole scenario is executed to such a ridiculous extent that we end up being annoyed instead of moved by the whole experience.

There are 2 versions of EXORCIST 2. There's the original theatrical version presented on this DVD and there's also a version Boorman released after the films critical attack. The version they ALWAYS showed on TV here in Toronto was the latter and it's the version I'm used to. I personally think it's a definate improvement over the original theatrical release. The alternate opening is included on this DVD but the alternate ending is not which is disappointing because the second ending is far better. Although no less confusing, it's edited to an extent that it flows better and all of the bogus dialogue after the collapse of Regan's former residence is gone. What I found ridiculous about the "original" finale is that you have a house collapse into nothingness, you have a fatal car crash, a fire, a swarm of a million locusts, yet no one on the block seems to notice. The street is absolutely empty. Come on people, not even a " Bertha, what the heck is going on next door??? or "Why did I just see a million angry grasshoppers fly by our window????" Nada. At least the director's final cut ended with Regan's "locust" dance so we don't get a chance to ask all of these relevent questions.

EXORCIST 2 is definately NOT for "original" EXORCIST loyalists because you will only religiously dislike it. However, if you have an open mind and view it solely as entertainment, you might find plenty to like. It offers dazzling visuals, breathtaking scenery and some surreal imagery. Not perfect, but definately NOT THE WORST MOVIE EVER MADE.