Derogatory, indeed, but "trash" is a term that critics began to helm beginning in the '30s and '40s. To me,…
Exorcist II: The Heretic
It's four years later... what does she remember?
Bizarre nightmares plague Regan MacNeil four years after her possession and exorcism. Has the demon returned? And if so, can the combined faith and knowledge of a Vatican investigator and a hypnotic research specialist free her from its grasp?
As a sequel to The Exorcist? - Yes, it's a dismal failure.
Viewed as a stand-alone, loopy, mystical/sci-fi/horror hybrid dragged along by a manic Richard Burton performance? - It's actually quite fun.
Somehow I missed out on(avoided...) seeing this until very recently, but finally got my opportunity to view it on the big screen as part of the BFI's John Boorman retrospective.
Seen in a Boorman context alongside the likes of 'Excalibur' and 'Zardoz', it made a lot more sense to me than as a direct sequel to 'The Exorcist'.
I also think that my expectations had been dragged so low due to constant critical derision over the years, that anything - at least - watchable would've impressed somewhat.
What I found was a flawed, but entertaining oddity.
John Boorman makes a terrible sequel to the Exorcist but an excellent 'Italian' horror.
Geoff T's Hoop-Tober 3.0 Challenge
'77 Occult Horror Double Bill #2
Exorcist II: The Heretic (1977)
How do you make a sequel to one of the greatest horror movies of all time? Certainly not like this, that's for sure. It's no secret that this is one of the most reviled horror sequels of all time. Critics and audiences hated it, William Friedkin DESPISED it, and John Boorman (who I actually like as a director) disowned the entire thing. Despite it's abysmal reputation, I thought Exorcist II would at least be fun as a separate, ultra-bizarre occult shocker.
I was wrong. This is borderline unwatchable. All it did was make me hate locusts even more.
The Heretic takes place a few…
Film #6 of Neglify's Scavenger Hunt 19
Task 2/31: blah blah Joe Briggs something something
The Exorcist is possibly the best horror movie ever made. No one was ever going to like the sequel no matter what. Period. The fact that this is what they came up with, did not help.
It vaguely resembles parts of the original, familiar faces, the cinematography sort of matches, particularly in the Africa sequences. The opening scene was really creepy. As it progresses, you start to realize how completely incoherent the story is going to be. There is a telepathy brainwave gizmo, the demon from the first one can control locust swarms, the demon can also apparently materialize Linda Blair doppelgangers at will, there…
Satan has become an embarrassment to our progressive views.
Holy shit... what the hell is going on here? You get the feeling that director John Boorman and screenwriter William Goodhart never actually watched The Exorcist... or read the book... or the screenplay. Maybe someone told them what happens in the film, who heard it from someone else.
The film is stuck in this 1970s new age psychology which flies in the face of the original film that managed to feel steeped in old world mythology. I usually like it when a sequel or remake tries to do something different, but right from the start when Regan gets hypnotized and synced to her doctor... so they can share memories...…
One of the best worst movies ever made. Such commitment. Such certainty. Such inspiration. Such awe-inspiring fearlessness.
And we're watching, watching, as it all comes crummmmmbling dowwwwwwn
I avoided watching this my entire life, and rightfully so. This is the worst horror sequel of all time. Good thing Legion exists, so we can forget this trash was ever made.
#horrorctober Film 10
Richtig miese Fortsetzung. Billigkulissen, ein Hauptdarsteller ohne Charisma und eine lächerliche Geschichte. Katastrophe.
A sequel not up to the original. Plot: Bizarre nightmares plague Regan MacNeil four years after her possession and exorcism. Has the demon returned? And if so, can the combined faith and knowledge of a Vatican investigator and a hypnotic research specialist free her from its grasp?
"I understand now."
My tolerance for surreal imagery is significantly higher when it's surreal enough, visually stimulating enough, to counteract all the dumb shit surrounding it. I think that's what's happening here. I think.
Awful, just awful..
What a terrible sequel that does no justice whatsoever to a classic masterpiece of horror.
A massive step down from a horror classic. It has some interesting ideas, but a terrible execution.
Taking place a few years after the original, it probably wasn't a good idea to revisit it with scenes set in that period, as they realy don't look the same as the scenes from that film. Like the original, this one takes a look at old mythology with new wave technology, but take a step that gets realy close to science fiction, due to a machine that allows speople to share memories. The way the machine worked had promise, with lights eerily flashing. But in te film it doesn't quite work, due to a cinematography that looks bland and more suited of a B-movie.
I applaud the film for going a different direction from the original, but it's plot is all over the place, boring and incoherent.
In the future I'll watch or rewatch all the other Exorcist films but I had the urge to see this again; to be honest I have watched this probably more times than I should have in my life. As I have said here and elsewhere in the past, the perfect description of the film is when Father Lamont (a sometimes sweaty and sometimes in a trance Richard Burton) states, “Utterly horrible... and fascinating.” I honestly couldn't come up with a better way to encapsulate the film. Most people despised the film when it came out and many still feel that way now, although I've seen some passionate defenses and even the likes of Scorsese have praised it. Me, it's still…
All the films mentioned by name in Kim Newman's definitive encyclopedia of horror films, Nightmare Movies. Well worth a read.…