Exorcist II: The Heretic

Plot synopsis:
Philip Lamont, a priest struggling with his faith, attempts to exorcise a possessed South American girl who claims to "heal the sick". However, the exorcism goes wrong and a lit candle sets fire to the girl's dress, killing her. Afterwards, Lamont is assigned by the Cardinal to investigate the death of Father Lankester Merrin, who had been killed four years earlier in the course of exorcising the Assyrian demon Pazuzu from Regan MacNeil. The Cardinal informs Lamont (who has had some experience at exorcism, and has been exposed to Merrin's teachings) that Merrin is facing posthumous heresy charges because of his controversial writings. Apparently, Church authorities are trying to modernize and do not want to acknowledge that Satan actually exists.
Regan, although now seemingly normal and staying with her guardian Sharon Spencer in New York, N.Y., continues to be monitored at a psychiatric institute by Dr. Gene Tuskin. Regan claims she remembers nothing about her ordeal in Washington, D.C., but Tuskin believes her memories are only repressed. Father Lamont visits the institute but his attempts to question Regan about the circumstances of Father Merrin's death are rebuffed by Dr. Tuskin, who believes that Lamont's approach would do Regan more harm than good. In an attempt to plumb her memories of the exorcism and specifically the circumstances in which Merrin died, Dr. Tuskin hypnotizes the girl, to whom she is linked by a "synchronizer"—a revolutionary biofeedback device used by two people to synchronize their brainwaves. After a guided tour by Sharon of the Georgetown house where the exorcism took place, Lamont returns to be coupled with Regan by the synchronizer. The priest is spirited to the past by Pazuzu to observe Father Merrin exorcising a young boy, Kokumo, in Africa. Learning that the boy developed special powers to fight Pazuzu, who appears as a swarm of locusts, Lamont journeys to Africa, defying his superior, to seek help from the adult Kokumo.
Kokumo has become a scientist, studying how to prevent locust swarms. Lamont learns that Pazuzu attacks people who have psychic healing ability. Regan is able to reach telepathically inside the minds of others; she uses this to help an autistic girl to speak, for instance. Father Merrin, who belonged to a group of theologians that believed psychic powers were a spiritual gift which would one day be shared by all people, thought people like Kokumo and Regan were forerunners of this new type of humanity. In a vision, Merrin asks Lamont to watch over Regan.
Lamont and Regan return to the old house in Georgetown. The pair are followed in a taxi by Tuskin and Sharon, who are concerned about Regan's safety. En route, Pazuzu tempts Lamont by offering him unlimited power, appearing as a succubus who is a doppelgänger of Regan. The taxi crashes into the Georgetown house, killing the driver, but his passengers survive and enter the house, where Sharon sets herself on fire. Although Lamont initially succumbs to the succubus, he is brought back by Regan and attacks her doppelgänger while a swarm of locusts deluge the house, which begins to crumble around them. However, Lamont manages to kill the doppelgänger by beating open its chest and pulling out its heart. In the end, Regan banishes the locusts (and Pazuzu) by enacting the same ritual attempted by Kokumo to get rid of locusts in Africa (although he failed and was himself possessed). Outside the house, Sharon dies from her injuries and Tuskin tells Lamont to watch over Regan. Regan and Lamont leave while Tuskin stays to answer police questions.

Tags: cult

Review:
Still, it has certain qualities - some original visual effects, photography, great atmosphere (especially the scenes in Africa).Also, put in a broader context, this film manages to capture a part of intellectual ambiance of the late seventies, introducing ideas and concepts that were then considered pseudo-scientific and fanciful, only to become legitimate subject matter of serious research, two decades later.
The collapse of humanity into one group mind (obvious references to de Chardin's notion of noosphere, drawn by father Lamont), the parallels between insect (locust) and human society regarding the spread of destructive/violent behavior (check mass psychology, research on swarm intelligence, the popularity of Steven Johnson's 'Emergence' etc.)So, for those of you expecting horror movie chills and thrills - you should skip this one.
But Boorman's wacko imagery, while fascinating in places (the doves, the locusts), tends to get a little TOO wacko, to the point where you can't help laughing (the hypnosis machine, Richard Burton putting out a fire with a wooden crutch, James Earl Jones spitting up a tomato).If you can accept the fact that this is a completely different movie than the original, you might find that it's a pretty good movie on its own.
Fantastic acting from Burton, a wonderful score, and some truly gorgeous visuals, especially the climactic scene in the house, make it one of the most underrated movies of all time.
Going back to the end, I love how even though they looked the same and were dressed the same she managed to make the costume work, and make it look like an innocent sort of dress for one, yet at the same time the evil Regan looked sexy in the same dress!All in all I thought it was a darn good sequel and give it a 7/10!.
Linda Blair has grown since the first exorcist, and was very good as an actress.While not as scary as the original, this movie was filled with mystery and suspense.
A couple of decades later, the climate is different: "Stigmata", which has a story not unlike that of "Exorcist II," and looks and feels so much like it that it might almost be the same film with different actors morphed in, didn't get good reviews but wasn't laughed out of theatres either.
The scenes of possession capture the sense of historical accounts of the phenomenon more than those in the first film, which is too much distracted by physical threat and sexual aberration.Like "Exorcist II" or no, take it seriously or no, I was and am puzzled why more people were unable to enjoy its appeal to the eye and the ear (the music was pretty too), let alone to the imagination.
In this mess nothing is coherent, and the entire concept of some demon who is not the Devil but is called Pazuzu and flies around in the shape of a big locust while a great actor like James Earl Jones wears silly costumes and mouths absurd dialogue is so far beyond the rational it reduces the movie to self-parody.
The script is ludicrous, and the cheesy theme music that wafts through the film would not be out of place in the Emmanuelle movies.After a couple of hours with nothing even remotely suspenseful or scary happening, we are treated to a 'what the hell was that all about' ending.
this is what you get if you don't respect the source material by letting an different director having total control by not recapturing the brilliance of the previous film and not staying faithful in continuity and getting lost in the visuals where there was no narrative what so ever during the third act where they turned an 16 year old into a seductive madam of Sodom and Gomorrah that is off putting by seeing an vicar molesting an minor that felt insulting and the whole story and plot of this film felt flat from start to finish there is no redeeming quality about this film and this truly demonstrate of not respecting the source material or its fans of the original cult classic that's why my lower rating of 5 out of 10 .FRANKIE HOLTZMANN SMALESALIENBUGSTOMPERFAN.
After de Chardin's death his papers were suppressed by the Vatican and his work was investigated on charges of heresy (his ideas being heretical by the standards of the Catholic Church.)When Blatty declined to write Warner Bros.' sequel, John Boorman and his creative associate Rospo Pallenberg developed an original script from a treatment by playwright William Goodhart, the credited screenwriter.
The story of Father Lamont's spiritual odyssey is specifically a meditation on the Grail Quest theme, derived from Celtic mysticism and Arthurian legend, which underlie a thematically-related sequence in Boorman's early work: DELIVERANCE, ZARDOZ, EXORCIST II: THE HERETIC, Excalibur and THE EMERALD FOREST, comprising an important cinematic exploration of the Quest as Initiatory path.In EXORCIST II: THE HERETIC, the late Father Merrin's reputation has fallen into disrepute and Father Lamont (Richard Burton), suffering a crisis of faith, is ordered by the Cardinal to investigate "the circumstances surrounding the death of Father Merrin" and the legitimacy of the exorcism before Merrin's papers (his life's work) can be released.The title character of THE EXORCIST was that of Father Merrin (Max Von Sydow); this role then passed to the younger priest, Father Karras (Jason Miller).
Just so, the heretic in EXORCIST II is initially Merrin until, through young Regan (Linda Blair), Father Lamont makes contact with the mind of Merrin and in that psychic joining shares his vision.
(Among the many differences between this film and THE HERETIC is that the original's emphasis is strongly verbal whereas THE HERETIC expresses its complex ideas almost entirely in visual and symbolic terms.) A distinction is drawn between the peace and unity of the World Mind and the insanity ("evil") and corruption of its opposite, the ego: a state of separation from consciousness which mimics the One-Mindedness of God or the Universe.
Where Kubrick and Clarke's ideas (initially met with great perplexity) have long been sanctioned as worthy of consideration, Boorman's somehow flew over the heads of a viewer-ship which, threatened by the film's non-dualistic subversion of the original's simplistic "good vs.
So how did it spawn a sequel so universally despised?Well for a start the films cast follows on from the first and that should mean something, it follows directly on from the events in the first film so again that should be in the plus column.Further to its credit we're talking Richard Burton, Max Von Sydow & James Earl Jones as well as the underappreciated Linda Blair.But here is where it all goes wrong, the plot is a mess and the fact it's following on from the original movie so seamlessly damages its credibility.
It's taking a beloved story and quite frankly defacating all over it.It does look ahead of it's time, but the story is truly awful and makes it a film that's somewhat of a struggle to get through.Truth be told as much as I'm a horror fanatic the exorcism sub-genre has always been one I've struggled to enjoy so this infamously bad title didn't stand much of a chance.From everything I've seen so far I'd advise Joe Average to watch the original film, and go no further.The Good:Looks great for its timeLinda BlairThe Bad:Plot is an utter messThings I Learnt From This Movie:Crutches are ideal tools for putting out firesLinda Blair should have had a considerably better career.
Draws particular attention the angelic beauty of Linda Blair, who in this movie gets rid of the unpleasant character of the previous film to offer a girl that no longer possessed (although at the risk of being again) appears (as stated before) as a kind of messiah, an envoy to do the good.
If seeing any crap movie from Hollywood now, those that offer a lot of FX and no content, do you really think that "The Exorcist II" is a bad film?
- Its originality and risk - The storyThe worst - Lack of scares (in my opinion it is not a failure, but compared to the first film its seems to be too light) - The difficulty to understand some things, due to its dense and a little complicated script - The ending, forced and not too conclusiveOverall: it needs a further review and another chance.
"The Exorcist 2" is a truly super production, with the best special effects the money could buy at the time (1977), and  we notice that in each technical aspect: the cinematography, the photography and the sound track give the notion of the movie's magnitude, but even so the result didn't get to supplant the quality of the first of the series initiated by William Friedkin.
In the case of "The Exorcist 2",the plot  didn't have the same psychological study and the character's depth of "Hellbound: Hellraiser 2" but  a confused and undecided story.The great John Boorman should receive a medal: he really made everything that he could to offer a good show.
Don't make a mistake, because "The Exorcist 2" is not the terrible film that the people comment, but a confused continuation, without defined objective, of one of the greatest  Hollywood's successes ,but even so, the work of Boorman deserves to be seen, for its brilliant performances and for some good frights!!.
insult your intelligence?...well this is one of my favorite movies, I loved it, I showed my friend, he liked Exorcist a lot and thought The Heretic was better (his fav.
Louise Fletcher, James Earl Jones, Richard Burton, Paul Henreid, and Ned Beatty are also among the all star cast and give unforgettable performances.Overall, I think the amount of hatred this film receives is absolutely unfair.
Some points are quite funny but not over the top like in Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2, and nowhere near as bad as some other horror films.My advice is, if you like horror sequels then this is a competent run through of a well known story and is worth watching if you are wanting to watch every film in the franchise, topped off with a nice soundtrack.If you are not really a fan of this sort of thing, but you loved The Exorcist and are hoping for the same thrills you got from watching that film, you will not find it here.Rating: 5..
Boorman's films are often less than accessible to the general public, frustratingly incomprehensible at times, and nothing like the standard popcorn-fare that makes up most of popular cinema - and the first Exorcist is a masterpiece of popcorn horror.
Here she's still bothered by the horrible things that happened to her when she was living in Georgetown, Washington D.C. Fearing that the demon will possess her once again, psychiatrist Louise Fletcher and priest Richard Burton try to help her while Burton wants to find out what happened to Father Merrin (Max Von Sydow), the ill-fated priest who tried to exorcise the foul-mouthed demon out of Regan in the first movie.
hired him for the job in the first place.you WILL see such astounding sights as famed hack richard burton ferociously chewing his way through every scene, spitting out hunks of set as he goes on his merry way; linda blair pitching a fit while doing a dazzling tap-dance number, complete with sequined top hats; louise fletcher and her über-ridiculous brain synchronization machine, which has a nice big lightbulb on it, and flashy LED's attached; tricky dick and sultry pazuzu/linda bouncing around on a big bed together (golly!) as he tries to rip out her eeeeevil heart; and the big finale, in which lovely linda, the living embodiment of all that is good and pure on this earth (sniff) does a ritual (another dance routine?) in order to cleanse washington d.c. of all the nasty locusts that have descended upon it.
I don't know what is funnier, though, the film itself, or the fact that some people seem to find it good, or actually better than the original (???).
This film also has a very futuristic feel, with it's sci-fi elements and bizarre, surrealistic set desing, some of the highlights include Regan's Manhattan panthouse, the labyrinth, hellish African village and the children hospital run by Dr. Gene Tuskin (Louise Fletcher).As I've said before, Burton did a pretty bad job and it's quite disappointing to see an actor of his caliber to do such a mess, which I believe to be one of the points that made it such a flop.
If you are one of those people who hold this opinion because you think it represents all-around bad practice in the field of film-making, then I would disagree, but at least to dislike it for this reason has got to be better than simply hating it because it doesn't bear much resemblance to the original film, and you wanted more of the same.The sequel is an 'origin' story, and not merely a rehash of the initial scenario.
Linda Blair puts in a remarkable performance that makes me sad she isn't working any more, (ditto Louise Fletcher)and Richard Burton is good too.The fact that it isn't out and out horror is people's problem, I suspect..
Director John Boorman bravely takes his film "Exorcist II: The Heretic" in a dramatically different direction from it's successful predecessor.
Boorman has always been a visionary, and he does not disappoint with the look and dreamlike feel of "Heretic.' Linda Blair plays her part with an enchanting innocence, and Richard Burton, reportedly drunk through most of the filming, delivers his lines with as much passion and drama as if he were doing Shakespeare.
The shots are done in an outlandish fashion and Ennio Morricone score, the best element in the film, is superb.By the looks of it, the main reason why critics don't like this sequel is that they had enough in the original.
EI was the 1st act here, and Boorman took what was a plain horror movie ( don't buy in to the hype around at the time of The Exorcist of having Doctors and nurses on standby in the cinemas "In Case" and all that sh*t)( I actually got asked to leave a theatre showing Exorcist 1 for laughing during the "Reagan wets the carpet" scene..
I found Exorcist 11 The Heretic was quite a good horror film , despite what other people think.
Before Exorcist 2 people thought that the possesser of Regan was THE Devil, which would have been much better, but now this film has made it look like the whole thing must become cheaper.
But very boring,there's not too much blood ,this is good I think ,but the slow story telling.Real horror fans likes much blood ,I don't ,but I like interesting story telling.Sometimes I could not decide what I had seen,was it directly bad composed or that is just rubbish at all.Against I did not love too much the first ,but here is some scenes maybe you will not forget, for example:African scenes,or the final house scene.The actors plays very good in this film,I respect Richard Burton about this movie,Linda Blair plays well.This film made John Booreman to be a famous director ,you can thinking about it why.I just can not stand to push forward, while I watched the DVD..
If Evil Blair in EXORCIST II had remained like the ugly possessed one we saw in the first movie and not the sexy vampy one, the ending might have been a tad better but making Blair sexy in order to turn on celibate Burton is just too silly for words.
Starting with the soundtrack by Ennio Morriconne, what inspires us, great moments of beautiful African musical illustrations mixing with what was in vogue at the time (see the track "Magic and Ecstasy) and of course the theme of Regan (who becomes one of simplest track)!'s performances Linda, Kitty (this always ignored the credits and everything related to the Exorcist even being one of the best in the cast) and Burton (realized that even drunk) sound natural and punchy.'s special effects are not to be desired, bright scenes, worked for the best possible realism (by the book first) envision us, even that sometimes skidded along the script a little confused, but direct, mystical, with science side by side Boormam offers in his madness, it's up to you to decide whether it was good or not!'s far from perfect, but it's not so bad as talking!.
After hearing all the negative comments people made about the movie I was expecting this to be a really awful sequel to one of my favorite films of all time.
I wasn't going into it with the intention of hating it, I just thought it would be horrible, and surprise, surprise, it turned out to be a really great experience."The Exorcist II: The Heretic" doesn't have much in common with the original film, but looking at it as its own thing, as its own story, I must say that it manages to be really entertaining and captivating.
As horror sequels go, this is easily one of the worst, an overly talky effort that does away with the shocking content of the original in favour of a pseudo 'scientific bunkum meets spiritual clap-trap' approach that is both utterly confusing and extremely boring, leaving the viewer longing for a 360 degree head rotation or a torrent of pea soup.Richard Burton is the star of this disaster, playing Father Philip Lamont, who is given the task of investigating the circumstances surrounding the death of Father Merrin (Max Von Sydow); Burton is joined by Louise Fletcher as psychologist Dr. Gene Tuskin who is attempting to delve into the subconscious of Regan (Linda Blair), who might be still be under the influence of demon Pazuzu.
The only thing barely chilling are the flashbacks from the original considering the action scenes in this one look as though they were shot in a blender.This story is about Regan (Linda Blair) four years later who has no recollection of the demonic presence who possessed her in the first film.