Rating: 
Summary: Not perfect, but risk-taking and bravely ORIGINAL
Review: 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.
Rating: 
Summary: Exorcist 2 The Heretic
Review: 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!
Rating: 
Summary: John Boorman: the heretic.
Review: Presumably, this is what happened. The execs at Warner Bros. back in 1977 decided that they had a "can't-miss" on their hands: a sequel to the blockbuster *The Exorcist*, featuring the return of Linda Blair (now all grown-up and exceedingly buxom), to be directed by a director of note, John Boorman. Thus, the execs just sort of let things develop on their own, figuring that such a sure-fire hit didn't require any looking-after. Basically, they let Boorman go crazy. My question is: why were they surprised at the result? Hadn't any of them seen his *Zardoz*, for Pete's sake? Instead of the expected rehash of the possessed girl throwing up on everybody, Boorman unleashed an art-film on an unsuspecting public . . . and the rest is history. Regularly cited on any "Worst Movies of All Time" list, *The Exorcist II: The Heretic* has, in the meantime, garnered a devoted fan-club (check the other reviews here if you doubt me), of which I'm proud to belong. First of all, let it be said that this movie is a true sequel to the first. Time has passed, and the main character has grown up. Correspondingly, different set of issues now confronts her. In other words, it's not the "rehash" that I cited earlier, which all too often plagues movies that call themselves "sequels". This progression is undeniably refreshing. Even more refreshing is the inventiveness, bordering on sheer insanity, that Boorman and screenwriter William Goodhart bring to the hackneyed material set forth by the first film. Boorman gives us surreal landscapes pieced out of location shots and back-lots surrounded by trippy mattes; Goodhart eschews pretty much the entire Christian theology, going instead for a cosmic war between an ethereal, unknowable Good and Evil. Unknowable, but not unnamed: the demon in question that has been pestering Regan all this time is called "Pazuzu". Pazuzu, no longer Satan's henchman as in the first film, is here just one of possibly dozens of powerful, nasty spirit-gods. Manifesting himself as a locust, his plan is basically to infect the whole world, much as a bad grasshopper can infect a whole colony. Therefore, he makes a point of picking on those who seem particularly resistant to his evil strain: people like Regan, and another African boy who will later grow up to become a half-naked James Earl Jones dressed in a Mardi Gras locust costume. But this is a hint to stop. One either accepts the film's imaginative logic, or one demands the conventional entertainment provided by films like the first *Exorcist*. Knowing which camp you belong to will help you in your decision whether or not to bother with this film. Over and beyond its dizzy intellectualism, the movie also dares to make fun of the fans of the first movie. Perfect example: when asked why she sees a psychiatrist, Regan explains that "I was possessed by a demon, but I'm okay now." And having a clearly hungover Richard Burton walk around stiffly, calling out for "Pazuzu", reminds us of how silly ALL tales of the supernatural can be. If nothing else, the movie is a bracing tonic for those who take this genre too seriously. And -- sorry, Faithful -- but the plot particulars in this movie are no more ridiculous than those in the first *Exorcist*: possessed by a minion of Satan; possessed by a big grasshopper . . . what's the diff?
Rating:
Summary: Pointless!
Review: And it is rather funny how the third "Exorsist"-movie ignores this bad attempt of making an original "2nd" to such a masterpiece of a horror-classic. The first "Exorsist" really is a masterpiece, and the Directors' Cut version is even better. Believe it or not, Exorsist 3 is almost (I repeat: Almost!) just as good. Done so different, yet so "in the spirit" (so to speak) of the original. And yet it picks up the story where the first one ended, and manages to convince and scare. What a movie!
I guess, of course, one could say the same about "The Heretic" -because you really can't believe it before you see it. And it's all negative, nothing about this movie works! Nothing!
Rating:
Summary: I Like It
Review: What's this dumb talk about Exorcist 3 being the only real sequel to the hit '73 Exorcist film? This movie has three of the original characters (and actors) from the first film! You cannot get much more real than that! Linda Blair is back and sexier and more beautiful than ever as Regan MacNeil. Richard Burton does good work with his priest part (you can tell he and Ms. Blair liked each other a lot off camera and it helps them support each other in their roles on screen). Look New York City in 1977 was a chic, funky place to be. THis movie captures that feeling admirably and it's slightly hard to follow storyline adds to the mystery.
Rating: 
Summary: Time Can Heal All Wounds
Review: When I first saw E2, I said to myself at the end, "Err, What the Hell Was That?" Now, after seeing E3, and the latest "Exorcist: the Beginning," I decided to take a new look at the Heretic.
Apparently time does heal all wounds. Like a fine wine, this film has aged well. The only true sequel to the legacy. It continues the story well. Now why 4 stars? Honestly I have to say the suspense is there. The plot is continual to the first story, and the direction and cinematography is stunning. From a technical standpoint this film was ahead of its time. The acting however is campy, but that is part of its charm. This is not a crowd pleaser, but did entertain me, and if you haven't seen it for awhile, give it another chance! You might be suprised.
Rating: 
Summary: Typical Sequel..
Review: But if you want a good laugh - and some suspenseful sychronizing (?) watch this movie! I think one of the problems with this one is it provides just a little too much background information to the story without taking into consideration the audience - I mean - do we really care about the whole locust relationship to the scenes in the U.S.? I don't know - it was just trying a little too hard to be interesting - I mean come on - Pazuzu!
Rating:
Summary: It's like watching a traffic accident...
Review: It's terrible, yet somehow, inexplicably, you get drawn in to this utter lame-fest of a movie.
Actually, I have fully embraced the sheer awfulness, and can actually enjoy watching this film. I kind of put a "comedy" frame around it, crack some beers, and relish in the total trainwreck of cinema known as "Exorcist II - The Heretic".
By the way, does anyone know why (or who) the "heretic" in this movie is? I have no clue.
I think everyone should see this movie. Not for "scare value", but for good clean B-movie fun. Inventing a drinking game or two shouldn't be a problem with this flick. There are many things you could tip one back to...
Rating:
Summary: There are actually people that like this movie?
Review: This movie is just so bad, I don't even know where to start. Richard Burton OVERacts and Louise Fletcher UNDERacts. It's clear that director John Boorman was more interested in the technical aspects of the film, such as the special effects, and therefore left the actors to their own devices. Ellen Burstyn wisely chose to skip this movie, and the Exorcist III actually ignores this film, picking up from the first one. This movie simply isn't scary, but the actors react as if they're in a thriller, which makes the movie slightly comical. This movie is so bad, it's not even good in a 'bad' way, and yet many folks have given this movie 4 or 5 stars on this board. Perhaps the demon Pezuzu is at work again!
Rating:
Summary: Why was it even made?
Review: The Exorcist 2 isn't as bad as everyone says but it isn't exactly a blockbuster. The Exorcist didn't need a sequel but of course it was given one because WB Studios thought they'd make loads more money out of the franchise if they pumped out another film after the original's shock success.
The films takes place 4 years after the original. Regan seems to be a happy, healthy teenager but still attends sessions with a therapist called Gene who is kind of a mother figure. Suddenly Father Lamont arrives eager to discover how Father Merrin was killed during the exorcism four years ago. However despite Regan's perky personality he suspects that the demon is still lurking inside of her so travels to Africa to discover the source of the evil and how to stop it once and for all.
This film just simply didn't need to be made. The storyline also kinda kicks the original film in the teeth. If the demon is still inside Regan then doesn't that mean the exorcism at the end of the first film was unsuccessful? Also the acting isn't that good. Louise Fletcher's laid back calmness gets annoying after a while! She only begins change her tone of voice near the end of the film! Richard Burton is just plain annoying! No more needed to be said.
The film also takes some tacky turns. In many horror movies released during this period they relied on nude shots to get to number one. The Exorcist had no nudity making it a classy film but in this one Regan wears a see through nightgown at one point and her guardian Sharon answers the door in a wet robe. Did John Boorman think (...) in the audience's faces would make the film successful?
Linda Blair is good as Regan. She's the best actor there. Along with her the only actor returning from the first film is Kitty Winn who plays Sharon. Which brings me to another point. What the hell happened to Sharon in this film? I liked her in the first film but in this one she's just twisted! Why did she choose evil in the end? Father Merrin returns for a brief period at the beginning of the film but that's it with returning characters. Louise Fletcher is clearly bought in to be an Ellen Burstyn replacement although she's not half as good!
All in all a bad film but if you deeply loved The Exorcist just check it out as it does at least have Regan in it!
|
