What's wrong with this movie? (spoilers to follow) 1) Nurse Ratched's fantastic new psychiatric device are two strobe lights. 2) Linda Blair fondles Louis Flecther's breast. 3) Richard Burton appears to be looking for the bar. 4) The fact that the church sends Merrin to exorcise Regan in the first film, but he is suddenly a heretic in this one. 5) Wasn't there a Father Karras in the first one somewhere? 6) Apparently Regan's mom is more concerned with her career and dumps off her daughter on the first shrink with strobe lights she could find. 7) Balconies with partial rails for falling and fake falling. 8) Locust documentary footage. 9) The fact that the only plot point that actually made sense was Regan's tap dance recital. 10) Gratuitous Ned Beatty cameo. 11) Richard Burton's shirt during the last twenty minutes. 12) James Earl Jones spitting cherry tomatoes at Richard Burton. 13) The fact that ENNIO MORRICONE scored this piece of shit. 14) The fact that not only does a taxi cab crash through a wrought iron and brick fence, a woman catches on fire, and a portion of the house implodes no one in the entire block comes out to see what the hell is going on even though there are numerous lights on throughout the neighborhood until... 15) Richard Burton and Regan leave, stumbling in the wreckage of the house, then suddenly three thousand people show up asking Louis Flecther if she's OK while there's a charred corpse on the front stoop of the neighbor's house. 16) A stainless steel bird house.

Quite like Incubus, The Exorcist II is a huge disaster that falls quite short of any humorous camp value, but quite unlike it, it still holds its own morbid fascination mainly through its relation to the first film and the cultural context that surrounds it. It's also notable because it's such an enormous drop-off in quality from the first film; John Boorman was famously vocal about his dislike for the meanness of the original Exorcist, and what does he do to counter it? This. No one is giving any sort of effort here. Where William Friedkin's meticulous directing was obvious, in the excellent performances he elicited and his water-tight visuals, Boorman condemns himself to visible incompetence by producing the results that are directly the opposite. Linda Blair is just flat out awful. As a beacon of universal goodness, she's an absolute joke. Meant to radiate peace and positivity, the most she can muster is a nauseating chipmunk-like cuteness. She's like Amanda Bynes' mother. Louise Fletcher is just about the most boring character you can possibly imagine, Richard Burton is not too far behind her, Kitty Winn was obviously stitched into the plot to try and repair the damage Ellen Burstyn's departure caused (and to ridiculous effect! Her role in the ending is almost too awful to be believed), and James Earl Jones...well. A job's a job, I suppose. Worse yet are some of the tableaux they're thrust into. The nadir of it comes fairly early on, in a truly ridiculous battle waged through time and space by Good Regan and Demon Regan over Louise Fletcher's breast as intermediated by two strobe lights. If it sounds like I'm overexaggerating the ludicrousness of the situation, I'm really not. Regardless of the cast's varying levels of proficiency, it's clear that none of them were comfortable maneuvering through the senseless plot. I could call it a melange of inchoate ideas about New Wave philosophy and the exchange of power between the Christian church and Christian individuals, but that would be far too generous. All this sounds good in theory, and a little background reading suggests that Boorman actually had some pretty interesting ideas in crafting a plot centered around the "world-mind" philosophy. In actuation, it falls apart, hamstrung from all sides - by its attempts to link back to the first film, which had nothing to do with this philosophy; by a group of actors who don't seem to have any understanding of how to tonally support their material; and by just plain poor screenwriting, where all of this fancy theological talk ultimately amounts to Regan swinging her arm in the air to chase away locusts. Really, a vast majority of people had a problem with The Exorcist II because it just isn't a horror film. It's a fair complaint, to be sure, but it doesn't necessarily impact the quality of the finished product. The product itself handles that more than capably. If you view the first movie and this as a clash between ugliness and light, as Boorman so delusionally viewed it, then this comes out the clear loser. A curiously awful movie, but also a fascinating one, on many different levels.