With the passing of Louise Fletcher I am reminded of just how immensely wonderful she was in Exorcist II, because if nothing else it’s a movie that really showcased her skills as an actress. Anyone can be good in a good movie but it takes real talent to be good in a BAD movie.
Quick Recap! When COVID shut down everything in early 2020, I started an online bad movie night get-together with some friends that we eventually dubbed “Bad Movie Monday”. The premise was simple: We’d torture each other every Monday with the worst trash we could find, tell a few jokes, cheer each other up, and in the process maybe discover some weird obscure cinema that we might never have seen any other way. This series of reviews will feature highlights of those night, so you can all share in the fun and maybe get some ideas for your own movie night.
Most sequels don’t live up to their predecessor, that’s to be expected, but most sequels also aren’t an apocalyptic clusterfuck of cocaine and bad decisions either. Exorcist II is probably one of the worst movies ever made when you take into account people’s expectations. This wasn’t just any sequel, this was a sequel to a wildly successful phenomenon. The original Exorcist made 441 million dollars worldwide. Adjusted for inflation that’s almost 3 billion dollars, which places it among the top five highest grossing films of all time.
The Exorcist, along with Rosemary’s Baby, created a whole sub-genre of films specifically about Satan. I mean, yeah sure, there had been a few movies made about Satanism and Possession before. However, after Exorcist everyone wanted a piece of Old Scratch. So, to say that this was probably one of the most anticipated sequels of all time is a hell of an understatement.
What’s worse is that, on paper, the movie should be fantastic. It’s directed by John Boorman, scored by Ennio Morricone and stars Louise Fletcher, Richard Burton, James Earl Jones, Ned Beatty and a returning Max Von Sydow, Kitty Winn and Linda Blair. The special makeup effects were again done by Dick Smith. Literally everyone here is an award winner of some kind, and almost all of them are considered masters in their respective fields. So with all that talent, what could go wrong???
Well, everything as it turns out. Fucking everything. One of the biggest problems is simply that Boorman didn’t like the original movie. He didn’t like the horror elements. He didn’t like the violence. He didn’t like the fact that it featured bad things happening to a child. He wanted to do something positive and replace the somber gothic Catholicism with more radical esoteric new age elements. To be honest, I kind of admire his intentions. I really do. Although, it would have been nice if the movie he ended up making wasn’t just a bunch of confusing, absurd, ridiculous, bizarre, kind of stupid, and almost unbearably pretentious nonsense.
However, if I was to pick the movie’s biggest singular sin, it’s that it simply isn’t scary. Not even a little. Not even once. Not even by accident. The original filled you with existential dread that would follow you around long after you left the theater. The sequel filled you with the desire to skip all that and simply leave the theater.
So of course I eventually had to feature it on Bad Movie Monday.
The reaction from my friends was priceless, an almost universal “WHAT THE HELL IS THIS???” They had all seen the original Exorcist of course and couldn’t believe that any studio or producer would let such a lucrative opportunity for a sequel descend into such complete madness.
Alright, so what does this movie have to say about itself? What’s the back of the VHS say?
The evil lives on… can it be stopped?
Four years have passed. Haunted by vivid dreams, Regan MacNeil has entered psychoanalytic therapy. Her doctor sees signs of mental illness. But the priest sent by the Vatican to verify the exorcism performed on Regan by Father Merrin – and to investigate the strange circumstances of Father Merrin’s death – sees a darker, more frightening possibility.
How much does Regan remember? Does the demon still lurk within her, biding its time? Can the techniques and tools of modern psychiatry cope with a living supernatural menace older than science?
These are the questions Richard Burton, as Father Philip Lamont, must answer in “Exorcist II: The Heretic”. Brilliantly directed by John Boorman (“Deliverance”) from a complex and challenging original script by William Goodhart, “Exorcist II” expands and completes the story begun by William Friedkin’s controversial 1973 film of William Peter Blatty’s “The Exorcist”.
But “Exorcist II” is more than a sequel. Its vision of the demon Pazuzu, an evil spirit of the air first encountered by Father Merrin in Africa, is more chilling than anything seen in the first film. When Father Lamont travels to find the boy, Kokumo, who seems to have power over the demon, the African landscape vibrates with a hallucinatory intensity. And Father Lamont’s confrontation with Kokumo, played by James Earl Jones, is unforgettably compelling and mysterious.
Linda Blair recreates her original role as Regan, acting with new maturity and depth. Louise Fletcher, Academy-Award-winning actress of “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest”, plays Regan’s psychiatrist Dr. Tuskin. Max von Sydow reappears as Father Merrin in flashback sequences that help us grasp the emotional truth of his spiritual belief.
“Exorcist II” also gives us superb art direction and stunning special effects. We fly with the demon; we feel the primitive terror of approaching locusts; we experience scenes of irrational dread and lyric beauty bound together by the inner logic of a nightmare.
“…from a complex and challenging script by William Goodhart” is a nice way of saying “…from an incomprehensible and confusing script by William Goodhart.” and that’s putting it nicely. The man was a Broadway Playwright so I wont bust his balls too much, that would be unfair, but I’ll simply say that movies were not his thing.
Now for my favorite part of the review where I unleash ten thoughts about the film unto you!
#1 Richard Burton is so drunk in this movie that there are scenes where he barely moves or speaks. It’s actually rather brilliant. Some actors chew the scenery. He sort of just haunts the scenery.
#2 Ennio Morricone’s score sometimes sounds like he had a bad cramp while conducting and the orchestra just ran with it.
#3 Thank God Louise Fletcher was in this movie. She’s the most professional and the most fun to watch in the entire movie. I always smiled when she came onscreen and was always a little sad when she left.
#4 There is a scene that takes place in a church, where Richard Burton shoves his way past a bunch of worshippers and all but steals the communion wine. I’m not sure if this was part of the movie or if it was just Richard Burton on break.
#5 James Earl Jones is dressed like a bee. I mean, I know it’s supposed to be a locust, but yeah… it’s a bee.
#6 Also, Jones’ character is called Kokumo and I dare you, I DARE YOU, not to think of The Beach Boys song every time you hear the name. Because I’ve never been able to do it.
#7 The film seems to think locusts are terrifying. Pro tip: They are not. Also, this movie mentions locusts more often than “Day of the Locust”
#8 There is some “Inception” level technology in this film and everyone acts like it’s no big thing. How am I supposed to be invested in anything that’s happening after someone casually mentions that they invented a machine that allows telepathic communication?
#9 I kind of lied earlier. Exorcist II did legitimately scare me one time. It’s the scene where Linda Blair walks right up to the ledge of a really tall building with no safety equipment, no nothing. That was all real and she really was that high. I get sympathy vertigo just watching her.
#10 I’ve seen this movie a dozen times and I still can’t tell you what happens at the end. There’s locusts, fire, Evil Regan, the brushing of wings… It’s all crazier than a bunch of flies who found a fresh turd.
Well, those are my thoughts about Exorcist II: The Heretic. Keep in mind that I actually enjoy watching this movie every time I see it and that I honestly think that John Boorman is a genius. So my critique isn’t that he was a bad director, merely that he was wrong for this project. A lot of effort and thought was put into this movie, it’s just too bad it didn’t lead anywhere.