Summary:
The continuing misadventures of Regan MacNeil and her demon pal Pazuzu.
My Thoughts:
The longer I write for TMM the more I realize that I am, in every sense of the word, a cinephile, not a cinema-elitist. Let me define the two so that you might tell the difference. Cinema-elitists strive to find the best of the best, and they find it silly that anyone would possibly want to waste their time with middling to less than middling movies. To an extent, I think that all cinephiles must have a smidge of cinema-elitist in them, because every cinephile must love good movies (sort of a prerequisite)- but the difference between cinema-elitists and cinephiles is that cinephiles can get just as much enjoyment out of middling and bad films as they can a truly great one.
When you’re around movies long enough, you start to notice lots of little things that others might not have noticed, and every movie, no matter the quality, has something to offer. If the movie is great, I’ll learn something about the art of cinema; if it’s terrible, I have something to laugh at; but it’s from middling movies that I, personally, learn the most about the craft of cinema and storytelling in general. If a movie is terrible, sometimes there’s nothing left to do but laugh. If it’s perfect, there’s nothing to do but admire and enjoy it. But when a film is middling, my mind tends to run rampant and come up with different ideas on how the film could’ve turned, or how the story could’ve ended better. Movies are what you make them, and movie-viewing experiences, likewise, are what you make them.
Why did I start my review for “Exorcist II: The Heretic” with a lengthy discussion on the difference between cinephile elitists and cinephiles? Because while I watched this movie, the two inner Seths- cinephile and cinephile-elitist- were battling it out inside me, trying to sway my opinion of this film one way or the other. “Exorcist II: The Heretic” has a reputation for being one of the worst mainstream sequels to ever be produced (which is actually the reason I sought the film out), and I’m not going to be one to tell you any different: this movie is hot garbage. That being said, I enjoyed my viewing of “Exorcist II: The Heretic” immensely; it’s terrible, but it’s also hilarious.
To quote William Friedkin (director of “The Exorcist”): “I looked at half an hour of it and I thought it was as bad as seeing a traffic accident in the street. It was horrible. It’s just a stupid mess made by a dumb guy- John Boorman by name, somebody who should be nameless but in this case should be named. Scurrilous. A horrible picture.” He went on to say that the sequel diminished the value of the original film.
I could just stop my review here by saying, I agree with Friedkin, except I don’t think this film diminishes the value of the original, primarily because these films feel like they come from two completely separate franchises. Where “The Exorcist” takes its time to establish characters and develop themes, this film does nothing but give us an update on where Regan (Linda Blair, “The Exorcist”) is several years after the events of the original. Nothing really seems to have changed, and Regan herself doesn’t remember the exorcism, so in a sense, her character wasn’t really affected by the events of the first film at all (I suppose that does diminish the first film a bit). There’s a wonderfully awkward scene where Regan nonchalantly says to someone she just met: “I used to be possessed by a demon,” to which the wide-eyed listener stares blankly, prompting Regan to smile widely and say: “It’s alright, he’s gone now,” as if that’s how conversations regarding demonic possessions should go.
As the film goes on, Father Lamont (Richard Burton, “1984”) is asked to investigate the deaths of Fathers Merrin (Max von Sydow, “Hour of the Wolf”) and Karras (Jason Miller), and he does so. As he does, he uncovers more about the events of “The Exorcist” and becomes convinced that the demon Pazuzu (don’t laugh) is still inside her.
SOME SPOILERS (You don’t need to watch this movie- or if you do, spoilers wont matter- just read on)
Now, this is where it gets weird. Lamont and Regan link up their brainwaves through a synchronizer (?) and fall into a dreamlike trance where they are able to observe Father Merrin when he first exorcised a boy in the 1930s named Kokumo, whom grows up and as an adult is played by James Earl Jones (“Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back”). They walk through a fever dream of weird visions, including one scene where James Earl Jones is dressed as a locust and asks Lamont to step on some spikes as a show of faith. Towards the end of the film, for whatever reason, Lamont (in a kind of trance) and Regan make their way back to the house where the original Exorcism was set and confront Pazuzu again. Pazuzu manifests himself into a huge cloud of locusts and freaking destroys the house while Regan and Lamont do some weird stuff inside, culminating in Lamont PUNCHING through NEGA-Regan’s chest and ripping our her still-beating heart. In all honestly, I was chuckling to myself (and sometimes braying loudly) throughout the last twenty minutes of the film. Like Freidkin said, it’s just a mess that honestly doesn’t make a lick of sense.
Verdict:
From a Cinema-elitist perspective, there is no reason at all to ever watch this movie (though I do think “Exorcist III: Legion” has some good moments- woot Brad Dourif!). This is a total piece of garbage that lacks any sort of cinematic integrity… but it is really funny. If you’re looking for a completely incompetent film that has plenty of awkward cuts, weird directorial choices, and bizarre story beats, then this is certainly a film you should check out. “Exorcist II: The Heretic” completely earns it’s reputation as one of the worst sequels ever made, but that doesn’t make it unwatchable.
Review Written By: