After William Friedkin's Exorcist proved to be a smash hit with audiences, it would only make sense that a sequel would be produced. Released in 1977, Exorcist II: The Heretic was directed instead by British filmmaker John Boorman and welcomed the return of Linda Blair as Regan MacNeil, thus leading to a lot of hype at first. Unfortunately, not only were audiences appalled by the film's quality, but the film is often regarded as one of the worst films ever made. That being said, while its flaws practically make the feature to a fault, there is something worth appreciating in the film's earnest attempt to continue the storyline.
Set four years after the events of the first film, the now teenaged Regan MacNeil is still recovering from her former possession. After receiving technological psychiatric treatment, a self-doubting priest Father Lamont realizes that there is an undying bond between Regan and her former possessor. Where the first film was a straightforward possession, this film tries to delve more into the demon that Father Merrin attempted to compel named Pazuzu. Perhaps the biggest problem with Exorcist 2 is that its content is too surreal to be taken seriously, as the plot points like Regan's hypnotic therapy or Father Lamont getting spirited to Pazuzu's past feel more like something out of a parody of the original film. It doesn't help that most of the acting is either flat or laughably hokey, with Richard Burton in particular feeling horribly miscast as Father Lamont. It's saying how screwed up this film's production was that even Boorman himself became too sick to direct at one point, perhaps partially leading to how uneven and confusing the pacing and transitions are in the final cut.
However, as incoherent and laughable as the film is in execution, one major distinction it has from most cash grab sequels is that it actually tried to tell a unique narrative by delving into the origins of Regan's possession rather than simply rehashing the first film verbatim. Thanks in part to William A. Fraker's phenomenal cinematography, the gorgeous African inspired landscapes are a treat for the eyes and actually do a better job of showcasing the horror Father Merrin saw at the time and what Father Lamont witnesses through demonic possession. Also, the inclusion of James Earl Jones as the locust scientist Kokumo allows for some needed substance to the explanation of thematic elements, although some more screen time for the character would have been nice. In addition to Jones, Louise Fletcher perhaps does the best job out of the cast, since her overly concerned performance as Dr. Gene Tuskin paints a more reasonably frightened presence of events than even Kitty Winn in her early distraught performance returning as her guardian Sharon Spencer.
Now because the film goes into more of a metaphysical fight between the forces of good and evil rather than a simple exorcise, the biggest disappointment lies in it not delivering what fans were expecting. While this is definitely an understandable reason to deride the film, especially given how laughable its attempts at supernatural thrills are, what the film does offer in a surreal atmosphere is simply too fascinating to not appreciate. Much of that can be attributed to the chilling melancholy score provided by the legendary Ennio Morricone as well as some creatively spooky screams and chants throughout the soundtrack. Although not as effective as the previous film, Dick Smith's demonic makeup is still noticeably creepy on its own. Also, the reconstructed sets replicate the original house interiors to such a captivating degree that it makes the insanely climatic ending all the more impactful. In trying to understand what this film is attempting to do on its own, it is at least notable in tackling something different rather than just repeating the thrills of the previous movie.
Fundamentally flawed as it may be, Exorcist II is not as bad as its reputation says otherwise, since its fascinating concepts and earnest approach to supernatural mythos do make up somewhat for its weak acting and flimsy plot line. Maybe this film is worth more for curiosity's sake rather than those wishing for a stronger followup, but the fact that the film upset original author William Peter Blatty so much that we got the reportedly more faithful followup Exorcist III years later is a testament to how important this film actually is, odd as it may be. It may not be memorably frightening, but it is memorably strange all on its own.
Set four years after the events of the first film, the now teenaged Regan MacNeil is still recovering from her former possession. After receiving technological psychiatric treatment, a self-doubting priest Father Lamont realizes that there is an undying bond between Regan and her former possessor. Where the first film was a straightforward possession, this film tries to delve more into the demon that Father Merrin attempted to compel named Pazuzu. Perhaps the biggest problem with Exorcist 2 is that its content is too surreal to be taken seriously, as the plot points like Regan's hypnotic therapy or Father Lamont getting spirited to Pazuzu's past feel more like something out of a parody of the original film. It doesn't help that most of the acting is either flat or laughably hokey, with Richard Burton in particular feeling horribly miscast as Father Lamont. It's saying how screwed up this film's production was that even Boorman himself became too sick to direct at one point, perhaps partially leading to how uneven and confusing the pacing and transitions are in the final cut.
However, as incoherent and laughable as the film is in execution, one major distinction it has from most cash grab sequels is that it actually tried to tell a unique narrative by delving into the origins of Regan's possession rather than simply rehashing the first film verbatim. Thanks in part to William A. Fraker's phenomenal cinematography, the gorgeous African inspired landscapes are a treat for the eyes and actually do a better job of showcasing the horror Father Merrin saw at the time and what Father Lamont witnesses through demonic possession. Also, the inclusion of James Earl Jones as the locust scientist Kokumo allows for some needed substance to the explanation of thematic elements, although some more screen time for the character would have been nice. In addition to Jones, Louise Fletcher perhaps does the best job out of the cast, since her overly concerned performance as Dr. Gene Tuskin paints a more reasonably frightened presence of events than even Kitty Winn in her early distraught performance returning as her guardian Sharon Spencer.
Now because the film goes into more of a metaphysical fight between the forces of good and evil rather than a simple exorcise, the biggest disappointment lies in it not delivering what fans were expecting. While this is definitely an understandable reason to deride the film, especially given how laughable its attempts at supernatural thrills are, what the film does offer in a surreal atmosphere is simply too fascinating to not appreciate. Much of that can be attributed to the chilling melancholy score provided by the legendary Ennio Morricone as well as some creatively spooky screams and chants throughout the soundtrack. Although not as effective as the previous film, Dick Smith's demonic makeup is still noticeably creepy on its own. Also, the reconstructed sets replicate the original house interiors to such a captivating degree that it makes the insanely climatic ending all the more impactful. In trying to understand what this film is attempting to do on its own, it is at least notable in tackling something different rather than just repeating the thrills of the previous movie.
Fundamentally flawed as it may be, Exorcist II is not as bad as its reputation says otherwise, since its fascinating concepts and earnest approach to supernatural mythos do make up somewhat for its weak acting and flimsy plot line. Maybe this film is worth more for curiosity's sake rather than those wishing for a stronger followup, but the fact that the film upset original author William Peter Blatty so much that we got the reportedly more faithful followup Exorcist III years later is a testament to how important this film actually is, odd as it may be. It may not be memorably frightening, but it is memorably strange all on its own.