Exorcist 2 - the Heretic [DVD]

 

 

Create your own review

The worst of the sequels and prequels (the film itself falls into both categories) but also, despite its reputation, the only one to show a profit on its theatrical release, Exorcist II: Electric Boogaloo - sorry, The Heretic - is one of those films you can make a case for being not THAT bad. Just not a very convincing one. It's a hugely ambitious film with over-reaching ideas married to a typically bad Rospo Pallenberg script filled with lumbering construction and crudely on-the-nose direlogue that typifies everything that's so painfully wrong about John Boorman at his self-indulgent worst. Originally intended as a more conventional sequel to be directed by Rosemary's Baby editor Sam O'Steen, with only Linda Blair, Von Sydow, Kitty Winn and make-up man Dick Smith returning from the original (though Lee J. Cobb was scheduled to return before dying), the studio instead decided to hire a more experienced name director who made no secret of his hatred for the original, giving him almost complete creative control and taking the material on a huge leap into the esoteric from which it never recovered.

The hook of a priest investigating the original exorcism to save Father Merrin's reputation amid rumors of heresy was retained from William Goodhart's heavily rewritten script (amazingly he lobbied for, and won, sole writing credit), but instead of projectile vomiting and genital self-mutilation-by-crucifix it opts for a more metaphysical plot. Where the character of Merrin in the novel was inspired by the controversial Catholic philosopher and palaeontologist Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, the script embraced his theories of a spiritual and mental evolution that would ultimately lead to man developing a universal consciousness and becoming one with God. This being a metaphysical thriller, the film's premise is that the Devil is sending the demon Pazuzu to seek out and possess healers (or "good locusts") to prevent that happening while the inherently corrupt Catholic Church is too busy rationalizing evil to acknowledge its existence, let alone fight it. Unfortunately, any potential that premise might have had is drowned in a sea of inanity in a film bad enough for even Jon Voight to drop out of after reading the script (Boorman's favored replacement, Christopher Walken, was vetoed by Warners' studio management, whose intense dislike of the actor would finally pay dividends when they dropped out of Heaven's Gate when Michael Cimino refused to replace him!).

What's often so bizarre about the result is that every horrendous misstep it takes has a perfectly valid idea behind it that SOUNDED perfectly reasonable when Boorman explained it but which became laughable the moment it hit the screen. Where Friedkin set out to achieve reality, Boorman set out to distort it, filming the majority of the exteriors on soundstages (even the house on Prospect Street was recreated at Burbank) that make no real attempt to hide the fact that they're just plywood and hardboard to give it an air of unreality. Sets were designed to resemble the central nervous system and all blues and greens were banished from the film. The intention was to create a dreamlike texture and add a subtext of impending ecological disaster, but the result is a perfect illustration of the void between film theory and reality. The overwhelming impression of this bizarre spiritual odyssey into the director's psyche is car crash cinema at its most what-the-heck. As Richard Burton says - or rather spits as if on the brink of an asthmatic attack - it's horrible, utterly horrible... and fascinating.

It's hard to pick the most absurd moment in a film increasingly filled with them, be it James Earl Jones' witch doctor dressed as a giant locust `spitting a leopard,' the king of the evil spirits of the air being portrayed as what looks like a really big moth, a crass jumpcut from a burning South American faith healer to Linda Blair rehearsing her tap dancing (according to Boorman intended to symbolize her spirit taking flight: no, really) or a mind-linking synchronized hypnosis device that's just a headband, lightbulb and detonator box contraption that Ed Wood might be proud of. Even the look of the film is horrendously dated (with its `now' fashions and swarms of locusts descending on Washington, it would make an ideal double-bill with The Swarm). And oh, that dialogue: "I've flown this route before. It was on the wings of a demon," "If Pazuzu comes for you I will spit a leopard," "You've got to fight that demon that's inside her! It's preventing her from reaching full spiritual power!" "I was face to face with the Evil that's inside her. Your machine has proved scientifically that there's an ancient demon locked within her!" and the immortal "I was possessed by a demon. Oh, but it's okay, he's gone now!" Even by Rospo (Vercingetorix/Druids) Pallenberg's standards, this is wonderfully woeful drivel that proves him to be screenwriting's answer to Merton of the Movies (the fictional inept dramatic overactor who inadvertently became a comedy sensation).

The performances veer from the theatrical to the lost-the-will-to-live bad. Throwing away the credibility he had regained with Equus on Broadway for a big payday, you can tell with little effort which scenes were shot when Richard Burton was hung over, sober or drunk (just look at the way he empties that communion chalice); a somnambulistic Louise Fletcher gives a particularly pained performance as a psychiatrist, looking for all the world like she'd rather be back in the cuckoo's nest as she can see her career slipping away one line at a time; Kitty Winn looks like she hasn't a clue what she's doing there but she'll try to find a character in there somewhere if it kills her; Max Von Sydow has obviously seen the writing on the wall and is just reading the lines while he thinks of what he'll buy with the check; while Linda Blair, spending much of the film looking for all the world like a chipper cartoon hamster, tap-dancing like a union boss in cement shoes and with a completely unconvincing double playing her possessed self, waits until the grand finale to hit rock bottom when she depicts the seductive nature of evil by, er, wrinkling her nose a la Bewitched and looking like a cute likkle bunny wabbit. Only Ned Beatty comes out of it with something approaching his dignity intact, but then he's only in it for a couple of minutes and clearly thinks the whole thing's too mad to take seriously. You can also spot the ill-fated Dana Plato as an autistic child and an even younger Joey Lauren Adams making her debut as Louise Fletcher's daughter along the way.

It's not all bad. Some of the in-camera special effects and early steadicam work are interesting, with a particularly attractive glass matte shot of a golden city, and Ennio Morricone's occasionally disco-driven score that alternates with more lyrical and plain bizarre cues is enjoyable even if it does sound like it would be more at home in a Dario Argento giallo. Now Dario Argento's Exorcist II - in 1977, THAT could have really been something!

Curiously the DVD of the original theatrical version comes with an alternate opening from the maybe-we-can-fix-it? re-edited version that dropped 15 minutes of footage and most of Paul Henreid's part but not the infamous truncated alternate ending with Burton dying.

I'll admit: as a direct sequel to The Exorcist it's terrible. And yet what a relief that it wasn't just 'more of the same.'

Boorman didn't like the original and neither did Max Von Sydow. The attempt here was to make a film about goodness, but as Stanley kubrick told Boorman after the failure of the film, 'Nobody wants to see a film about goodness.'

Richard Burton was confused by the shifting script and also Boorman's lack of perspective on the shoot. So he just switched on the auto pilot and went through the motions. It shows. However, there are moments when Burton rises above the confusion and manages to bring Father Lamont to life (especially in the Africa sequences).

Linda Blair is as nice as pie but struggles with a role that is still too big for her. Strangely, she makes some of the more terrible dialogue work by delivering it as a naive innocent (the exchange between the mute girl and Regan is a nice example of this).

The film uses some interesting techniques where one set up mirrors another location and joins the two scenes (indulging the hypnosis element of the script).

The film looks amazing. Even Scorsese referenced this film for Last Temptation! The set design is superb as is the technical aspects and overall production. Nice score by Ennio Morricone is a big plus.

At the end of the day, The Heretic is a failure as a sequel to The Exorcist. However, as a film in its own right, it tries something fresh and new and stylish that, although never really gels together, is infinitely more interesting than the original on many levels. And as for the further sequels? Less said the better!

The trailer for 'Exorcist II: The Heretic' is possibly the greatest film trailer ever made.

No, seriously.

It begins with a sinister voice reminding us how terrifying the first film was. Then the title comes up in blood red lettering: "JOHN BOORMAN'S FILM OF EXORCIST II: THE HERETIC".

Wow! John "Deliverance" Boorman? Directing 'Exorcist II'? Wow!

But even that can't prepare you for what follows... A crazy, hectic montage of startling images set to a pounding, disco-rock soundtrack with howling choir and shrieking orchestral stabs.

There's Richard Burton with something weird strapped to his head! There's Linda Blair with... er... something weird strapped to her head! There's Academy Award(TM) winner Louise Fletcher with something weird strapped to her head!

Locusts! A dance number (I kid ye not)!Linda Blair standing on top of a sky scraper looking ethereal! An African boy with the face of Pazuzu! Even more Locusts!

Wait... Is that James Earl Jones dressed as a leopard? What the f-

And so on, for almost two delirious minutes.

If you've never seen it, go straight to Youtube and look it up. You won't regret it.

I only wish the same could be said for the film.

I kind of appreciate what they were trying to do, and I can see where it went wrong. Indeed, I can imagine the conversation the writer had with the producer in pre-production.

Writer: "So... It's about a priest who has this traumatic experience while carrying out an exorcism, and he's sent by a cardinal to investigate the death of Father Merrin. His investigation takes him to Africa, and we show flashbacks to an earlier exorcism that Father Merrin carried out there..."

"Okay," says the producer. "So where does Linda Blair come into all this?"

"I'm sorry?"

"The little girl. Can't have an Exorcist sequel without the little girl..."

"But, I thought... you see... the first film isn't really about little girls. It's about good and evil, and faith, and..."

"Are you saying the little girl isn't in your script."

"She isn't."

"Get out of my office. And don't come back 'til you've written a part for Linda freaking Blair."

And so we end up with this weird, weird mess of a film. The story is all over the place, the dialogue hilariously overwrought. There's some startlingly original imagery (I'm thinking particularly of the scenes set in Africa). There's plenty in there to make an amazing trailer from, yes, but as a whole...?

I'm afraid I kind of lost my patience when Louise Fletcher's psychiatrist introduced what's essentially a telepathy machine, with very little fanfare. No, "Hey, guys, check this out! A machine from the future!" Nope... You'd think a telepathy machine was about as impressive as a stethoscope, and as valuable. Later in the film she just leaves it lying around in a drawer, so that Linda Blair's Regan (looking uncannily like Justin Bieber in drag) can steal it with ease.

By the time we got as far as Richard Burton in an African disco shirt punching Linda Blair in the face, I was doubled over with laughter.

So... When considering whether or not to watch Exorcist II, I'd recommend you just pretend the trailer *is* the film. In which case, it's the best of the whole damn franchise.

Share your thoughts with other customers: Create your own review

› See all 15 customer reviews...

 

3.0 out of 5 stars Have completely changed my mind about this film
I first watched Heretic about five years ago, and thought it was one of the best comedies I had ever seen. Read more

Published 10 months ago by Jack Martin

2.0 out of 5 stars This is a poor DVD whatever your opinion of the film itself
I am always surprised reviewers fail to comment on the quality of the DVDs they're reporting on, particularly if it is notably poor, as in this case. Read more

Published 13 months ago by K. O'Leary

5.0 out of 5 stars Exorcist2-The Heretic
I Know when it came out it was ridiculed but i still think anything Linda Blair is in is Fantastic so.. Read more

Published 14 months ago by ragman1960..DT..

1.0 out of 5 stars utter rubbish
richard burton and the other cast should not have accepted to act or be associated with such trash.

Published 21 months ago by alz

1.0 out of 5 stars terrible
What can i say, just a bad film, the best part was near the end but even that didn't save this pile of rubbish. Read more

Published on 21 July 2009 by J. Davies

1.0 out of 5 stars So many negative reviews..
There are so many negative reviews below, why? Because this is awful. It is the worst film I've seen and I've seen a lot of rubbish (including Rats:Night of Terror and The Nostril... Read more

Published on 3 Sep 2007 by David Bowers

1.0 out of 5 stars Terrible in every way
An impenetrable plot which alternates between a locust ridden African landscape and wordy nonsense around an utterly ridiculous telepathy machine (kitted with large flashing... Read more

Published on 11 Aug 2007 by Hawkeye

5.0 out of 5 stars What, no mindless SFX?
Firstly, forget all the negative carping about this film. It is star-studded, gripping and coherent. Read more

Published on 29 Nov 2006 by A. J. Bradbury

1.0 out of 5 stars Locusts please join us
Recently bought the 5 dvd box set exorcist colletion that ive just finished watching and was very happy with my purchase, the only draw back i guess was this film, its a really... Read more

Published on 27 July 2006 by Mr. G. J. Purves

5.0 out of 5 stars Decide for yourself
I never figured out why exactly this film received so much bashing. It is very different form it's predecesor, it is even of a different genre, and that may be the reason. Read more

Published on 11 Jun 2006 by Branko Vekic

Search Customer Reviews
Only search this product's reviews

› See all 15 customer reviews...

Search Listmania!