Exorcist II: The Heretic Reviews

  • Jan 10, 2021

    0.5/5. Besides a couple of cool visuals, this sequel has nothing going for it.

    0.5/5. Besides a couple of cool visuals, this sequel has nothing going for it.

  • Nov 28, 2020

    I ended up leaving the film in half, an unnecessary and non-standard continuation offered in your first film.

    I ended up leaving the film in half, an unnecessary and non-standard continuation offered in your first film.

  • Nov 02, 2020

    While undeniably garbage and at times laughably incompetent, it does not really live up to its reputation as one of the worst films ever made, and if anything, lives up to its title: As a sequel, there is certainly something heretical about the film, which, as Boorman himself acknowledged, was meant to be "a kind of riposte to the ugliness and darkness" of the original, focusing not on evil but on goodness. In that sense, the film also lives up to its own central theme: "Does great goodness bring upon itself great evil?"—well, if by "evil" we mean the same sort of zealous rage from furious fanboys who felt betrayed by some of the Star Wars sequels, then perhaps Pauline Kael was right to criticize how Friedkin's film appeals to misogyny by exploiting and terrorizing a little girl.

    While undeniably garbage and at times laughably incompetent, it does not really live up to its reputation as one of the worst films ever made, and if anything, lives up to its title: As a sequel, there is certainly something heretical about the film, which, as Boorman himself acknowledged, was meant to be "a kind of riposte to the ugliness and darkness" of the original, focusing not on evil but on goodness. In that sense, the film also lives up to its own central theme: "Does great goodness bring upon itself great evil?"—well, if by "evil" we mean the same sort of zealous rage from furious fanboys who felt betrayed by some of the Star Wars sequels, then perhaps Pauline Kael was right to criticize how Friedkin's film appeals to misogyny by exploiting and terrorizing a little girl.

  • Oct 13, 2020

    is a film that did not need a franchise and still had. exorcist 2 is bad but not terrible has a confused script but the cast saves this movie a little

    is a film that did not need a franchise and still had. exorcist 2 is bad but not terrible has a confused script but the cast saves this movie a little

  • Sep 06, 2020

    A pior sequência que eu já vi na vida.

    A pior sequência que eu já vi na vida.

  • Jul 16, 2020

    I think the demon is playing with us, and made this one a comedy.

    I think the demon is playing with us, and made this one a comedy.

  • Mar 31, 2020

    Contrary to popular opinion, I found this to be a fine film. It's no masterpiece by any stretch of the imagination, but it's engaging and grandiose with its questions and ideas. Some of the devices in the film are more preposterous than others, synchronized hypnotism or whatever it's called, for example, is something that has never existed and continues not to exist half a century later, and something which I am confident enough to go on the public record saying will never exist, but something that was pawned off on an audience as quasi plausible. I'd actually be more inclined to believe in demonic possession than synchronized hypnotism, but the psychiatrist is portrayed as the sensible one and the priest who is chasing demons is the nut. Go figure. I'm not a fan of downgrading the demon from Satan himself to Pazuzu. When I first saw the film as a kid, I laughed and laughed and laughed. Pazuzu, how ridiculous, I'd thought. Turns out he is a real demon in Mesopotamian lore. He's still not the devil, however. Downgrading from Satan to Pazuzu is like going from a Ferrari to a Kia. The film falls apart to some extent in the third act. I feel as if some key scenes were left on the cutting room floor in the interest of freeing up some time, an unfortunate reality of filmmaking in general. If the writer hadn't at least written a couple scenes explaining the motivations behind the choices of the psychiatrist and Regan's aunt at the end of the film, he must have been a drunken mess trying to hurry the end along, because none of their behaviors which contradict their behavior in the first two thirds of the film are explained at all. The performances were fine, particularly Burton's performance as the foolhearted priest who is ready to take up arms against the lord of darkness...or Pazuzu, whatever challenge comes his way. Blair's acting is pretty mechanical, but she was 17 or 18 at the time, so it's excusable. On the positive side, which in my opinion consists of most of the aspects of this movie despite what the first two thirds of this review might suggest, the composition of most of these shots is appealing to me, some great NY locations, haunting locusts (minus the Pazuzu locust), interesting African locales. The pacing is pretty tight, not too fast, not too slow, and some of the ideas presented as it pertains to the very nature of good and evil and the associated not so subtle locust metaphors are interesting and far more clever than something I'd expect to see in such a detested film. This movie is not the turd on a plate that I was led to believe I could expect to be served. And honestly, that may be the second nicest thing anyone's ever said about this movie, however, the nicest thing ever said about the film was this: "The picture asks: Does great goodness bring upon itself great evil? This goes back to the Book of Job; it's God testing the good. In this sense, Regan (Linda Blair) is a modern-day saint — like Ingrid Bergman in Europa '51, and in a way, like Charlie in Mean Streets. I like the first Exorcist, because of the Catholic guilt I have, and because it scared the hell out of me; but The Heretic surpasses it. Maybe Boorman failed to execute the material, but the movie still deserved better than it got." The man who said that is some guy named Martin Scorcesse.

    Contrary to popular opinion, I found this to be a fine film. It's no masterpiece by any stretch of the imagination, but it's engaging and grandiose with its questions and ideas. Some of the devices in the film are more preposterous than others, synchronized hypnotism or whatever it's called, for example, is something that has never existed and continues not to exist half a century later, and something which I am confident enough to go on the public record saying will never exist, but something that was pawned off on an audience as quasi plausible. I'd actually be more inclined to believe in demonic possession than synchronized hypnotism, but the psychiatrist is portrayed as the sensible one and the priest who is chasing demons is the nut. Go figure. I'm not a fan of downgrading the demon from Satan himself to Pazuzu. When I first saw the film as a kid, I laughed and laughed and laughed. Pazuzu, how ridiculous, I'd thought. Turns out he is a real demon in Mesopotamian lore. He's still not the devil, however. Downgrading from Satan to Pazuzu is like going from a Ferrari to a Kia. The film falls apart to some extent in the third act. I feel as if some key scenes were left on the cutting room floor in the interest of freeing up some time, an unfortunate reality of filmmaking in general. If the writer hadn't at least written a couple scenes explaining the motivations behind the choices of the psychiatrist and Regan's aunt at the end of the film, he must have been a drunken mess trying to hurry the end along, because none of their behaviors which contradict their behavior in the first two thirds of the film are explained at all. The performances were fine, particularly Burton's performance as the foolhearted priest who is ready to take up arms against the lord of darkness...or Pazuzu, whatever challenge comes his way. Blair's acting is pretty mechanical, but she was 17 or 18 at the time, so it's excusable. On the positive side, which in my opinion consists of most of the aspects of this movie despite what the first two thirds of this review might suggest, the composition of most of these shots is appealing to me, some great NY locations, haunting locusts (minus the Pazuzu locust), interesting African locales. The pacing is pretty tight, not too fast, not too slow, and some of the ideas presented as it pertains to the very nature of good and evil and the associated not so subtle locust metaphors are interesting and far more clever than something I'd expect to see in such a detested film. This movie is not the turd on a plate that I was led to believe I could expect to be served. And honestly, that may be the second nicest thing anyone's ever said about this movie, however, the nicest thing ever said about the film was this: "The picture asks: Does great goodness bring upon itself great evil? This goes back to the Book of Job; it's God testing the good. In this sense, Regan (Linda Blair) is a modern-day saint — like Ingrid Bergman in Europa '51, and in a way, like Charlie in Mean Streets. I like the first Exorcist, because of the Catholic guilt I have, and because it scared the hell out of me; but The Heretic surpasses it. Maybe Boorman failed to execute the material, but the movie still deserved better than it got." The man who said that is some guy named Martin Scorcesse.

  • Mar 28, 2020

    Exorcist 2 tries to explore some interesting philosophical and theological concepts. But it's lost behind a jumbled plot that often makes no sense and pseudoscientific/sci-fi stuff that doesn't fit in an Exorcist movie at all. I also don't know why they thought all that grasshopper mythology was a good idea but hey at least if you've ever wanted to see James Earl Jones dressed up as a giant locust here's your chance. It doesn't help that the acting is pretty bad across the board either. Richard Burton was obviously hungover the whole time, Linda Blair is gorgeous but couldn't act her way out of a paper bag and the rest of the cast mostly look like they just want to get their paycheck and go home. Music is pretty good though. I'll give this movie credit for having some interesting ideas but unfortunately they don't work, at least not together. 5/10.

    Exorcist 2 tries to explore some interesting philosophical and theological concepts. But it's lost behind a jumbled plot that often makes no sense and pseudoscientific/sci-fi stuff that doesn't fit in an Exorcist movie at all. I also don't know why they thought all that grasshopper mythology was a good idea but hey at least if you've ever wanted to see James Earl Jones dressed up as a giant locust here's your chance. It doesn't help that the acting is pretty bad across the board either. Richard Burton was obviously hungover the whole time, Linda Blair is gorgeous but couldn't act her way out of a paper bag and the rest of the cast mostly look like they just want to get their paycheck and go home. Music is pretty good though. I'll give this movie credit for having some interesting ideas but unfortunately they don't work, at least not together. 5/10.

  • Feb 27, 2020

    Continuações ruins e desnecessárias

    Continuações ruins e desnecessárias

  • Jan 25, 2020

    Not the complete and utter disaster it's widely regarded as...but it does get a little too close. Exorcist II does have enough interesting concepts and some truly effective visuals to keep it afloat, but it also never comes together as a satisfying motion picture. Probably most damaging of all, director John Boorman (who I consider generally a better director than William Friedkin) doesn't seem to have any intentions of making it scary.

    Not the complete and utter disaster it's widely regarded as...but it does get a little too close. Exorcist II does have enough interesting concepts and some truly effective visuals to keep it afloat, but it also never comes together as a satisfying motion picture. Probably most damaging of all, director John Boorman (who I consider generally a better director than William Friedkin) doesn't seem to have any intentions of making it scary.