Exorcist II: The Heretic

With the success of “The Exorcist,” you would never think that they would make a sequel to the movie. What would the sequel be about? But they did end up making a sequel in 1977, the same year “Star Wars” came out. This one is called “Exorcist II: The Heretic.”

This film talks about Father Phillip Lamont, played by Richard Burton, who is assigned by the Cardinal, played by Paul Henreid, to investigate the murder of Father Merrin from the first movie. To do that, he has to go talk to Regan, once again played by Linda Blair, who is now 16, hot, and is living in a psychiatric institute. Sharon Spencer, played by Kitty Wynn, is watching Regan and they have to perform some sort of mental brainwave connection in order to delve inside Regan to make her remember.

Hold on. At the end of the first movie, they said that she had no recollection of her being possessed by the demon. Why are they trying to delve inside her brain? Maybe they are trying to get information the same way a psychiatrist would. Remember, a psychiatrist did try and talk to Regan in the first movie as well. Also, the head doctor of this institute is Dr. Gene Tuskin, played by Louise Fletcher.

Now they give a name to the demon that Regan was possessed by: Pazuzu. Really guys, Pazuzu? That is the best scary name you could give to a demon? That isn't scary at all, it just makes the demon sound like a joke. Father Merrin had exorcised a boy named Kokumo, played by Joey Green, who Father Lamont gets to meet when he goes to Africa, and is now played by James Earl Jones. I bet James Earl Jones regrets being in this movie, since he didn’t really play that big of a role in it. Apart from that, his role in this one is just pointless. You could have written his part out, and it wouldn’t have made a difference, since this film doesn’t have a story. He first appears in a locus outfit, then all of a sudden he is a scientist, which makes you wonder if Father Lamont was daydreaming or not. The worst part about it: that part is never mentioned again, nor is it followed up on. At least "Star Wars" helped out James Earl Jones so that no one would remember him in this film.

This one would disappoint fans of the first film because it’s not scary at all. What had made the first one so scary and memorable has basically been turned around and crushed. Not to say that this would be considered one of the worst sequels ever made. It’s nowhere near being called that, but it’s the worst in the series. I don’t get what we are supposed to be afraid of in this movie. Should we be scared of the swarm of locus bees that they had used? Those aren’t scary; they make you want to make sure you have an EpiPen on you. The main person to blame is director John Boorman because he didn't like "The Exorcist" at all. So he feels that if he tells his version it would be better? This film had been booed out of theaters so they could re-cut it, but even that didn't help the film out at all.

Linda Blair’s performance in this one is a step down from the first movie. She isn’t really as good because she basically is only cooperative when she is in that state when Father Lamont is trying to get inside of her brain. Other than that, she seems like a normal girl, except when they show her as if she is being possessed again. No, we don’t get to see her in that scary makeup again. We only saw that briefly in a flashback. There is also a scene where a doppelganger appears in order to seduce Father Lamont at the end, but that is not really scary at all.

Richard Burton does play the role of Father Lamont as a strong character who, unlike Max von Sydow from the first movie, is not familiar with Pazuzu and needs to knows how to fight him off. In order to do that, he needs to go and see what the case of the demon was in Africa.

Louise Fletcher is just like Ellen Burstyn in the first movie. She is worried for Regan and knows that she needs to be protected. That is why she doesn’t really let her out of the institute and wants to make sure she doesn’t get possessed again.

Kitty Wynn has her role similar to Fletcher since she is also trying to help protect Regan, and is trying to make sure that no harm comes in Regan’s way.

However, the sad part about this film is that there are scenes that just don’t go anywhere or are not followed up with; the bright lights are overused in the hypnotic states that you need to wear sunglasses, there are a bunch of plot holes, the film has no story, and it’s not scary at all. A couple of scenes that were superfluous are the ones where Regan is standing on the edge of the building with no ropes or anything to catch her with (Thanks to the brilliant mind of Boorman. Seriously, that was not an effect. What would have happened if she died on the set? Did he not even think of having any rope with him in order to catch her if she lost balance? What a cruel director!), and when she tells an autistic girl, Sandra Phalor, played by the actress who portrayed Kimberly Drummond from that hit 70s sitcom, "Different Strokes," the late Dana Plato, that she was possessed. Regan, you don’t say that to anybody regardless of his or her medical condition. I know that she cured the autistic girl since she wasn’t speaking, but still, you never say to anyone that you were possessed because they will either soil or wet themselves in fear.

My advice: if you get the chance to pass this one up, do so. I would sadly have to give this film a 0. It’s the worst in the series, and isn’t scary. It has some scary ideas, but they are not fleshed out well enough to even scare you a little.

But how does the third one do compared to this disappointment of a sequel? Find out tomorrow when I continue my reviews on “The Exorcist series.”