Exorcist II: The Heretic (1977)

1977 was a pretty big year for motion pictures in general. After all, this was the year Star Wars and Close Encounters of the Third Kind came out. It was also the year we saw the release of such big "event" films as Saturday Night Fever, Annie Hall and Smokey and the Bandit. We're talking big stuff here.

But along with such name projects also came out sequels to some huge showpieces from past years as well. Airport '77, The Bad News Bears in Breaking Training, The Happy Hooker Goes to Washington, Herbie Goes to Monte Carlo, Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger, The Spy Who Loved Me and Walking Tall: The Final Chapter all jockeyed for position to make the most money for their respective franchises. Some made their makers proud, some didn't, but there they were to round out the year, film-wise.

Then there was the legacy of 1973's The Exorcist. A blockbuster success as directed by William Friedkin from a novel both written and adapted by William Peter Blatty and starring such luminaries as Max Von Sydow, Ellen Burstyn, Lee J. Cobb and Jason Miller, and debuted the formidable talent of a young Linda Blair. It won awards, made money and scared every viewer out of their wits, whether they were devoutly Catholic or not.

In spite of the finality of the film and the neat containment of the story itself, since it DID make money, the suits at Warner Bros. insisted a sequel be made, no matter what. And so, four years down the road, so posed the question on the poster for Exorcist II: The Heretic - what does Regan (Blair) remember about the traumatic events that overtook her life?

And for as intriguing a premise as that is, and for as formidable a task as it would be to match the intensity and frights posed by Friedkin and company before, this is one sequel that certainly had its work cut out for it. Not like Airport '77 had to find all that many different ways to crash a plane, or the Bad News Bears had to win a ball game in a unique manner, or the Happy Hooker had to find a new way to.... Uh....

Let's get to the plot.

Dr. Gene Tuskin (Louise Fletcher) works with troubled children, among their number Regan MacNeil (Blair), who suffers from bad dreams and memories she represses from four years prior. Dr. Tuskin discovers that the demon she was possessed by, named Pazuzu, still lurks within her, desperate to emerge again and wreak havoc.

Meanwhile, Father Philip Lamont (Richard Burton) is ordered by his cardinal (Paul Henreid) to investigate the death of Father Merrin (Von Sydow), who died while performing the exorcism on Regan. Father Lamont undertakes his task reluctantly. His investigation takes him to Africa where he locates a doctor named Kokumo (James Earl Jones), a past exorcism subject of Father Merrin's, who tells Father Lamont something about locusts that will bring everyone's destiny together.

Okay, right now the first thing you'll notice is the cast. Lots of big names, good actors and two callbacks from the original - one in particular that will raise more than a couple of eyebrows. Von Sydow; didn't he die in the first movie? That's right, he did...but he plays a ghostly vision here in a scene where...well, I'll get to that soon.

Seems a couple of things are different here. Since Friedkin was not available for direction as he was busy working on the film Sorcerer - which was NOT about magic nor the occult but rather a remake of the film Wages of Fear - the director here was John Boorman of Deliverance fame, in spite of the fact that his tone and framing just do not fit the tone that a movie like this should have. It's just too light a touch, which is strange from a man who made us all fear canoeing.

And since Blatty was only available in the sense that his original characters and situations were used, the script this time was written (and rewritten and rewritten) by one William Goodhart, who also wrote the 1980 film Cloud Dancer with an acrobatic plane-flying David Carradine...and that's about it. But that's okay, because Boorman also helped with the many rewrites to come, as did Rospo Pallenberg, who also wrote the script for 1981's Excalibur.

Should be okay....

Except for the fact that instead of dealing directly with Satan, Hell and Catholicism, now we are solidly in the realms of psychology, African demons and psychobabble. AND a "synchronizer".

A what?

Oh, this is a centerpiece in the film. Doctor Ratched...uh, Tuskin, hooks herself and Regan up to two headbands with wires connected to a machine with a rhythmically blinking light that hypnotizes them both in tandem so they can be in each other's minds and the doctor can see what's going on in Regan's. Unfortunately, the demon in Regan's head tries to kill the doc, so Father Lamont has himself hooked up to this thing and blinks his way into the good doctor's mind so he can see what's going on and sees the deceased Father Merrin in the netherworld with the possessed Regan from the first film and then the real-life Regan gets involved and...

There is a point in a film where you can tell that the story is slowly sliding off of the rails. At this point in Exorcist II, the train goes off the tracks, jumps the shark, nukes the fridge AND spontaneously combusts in time to Wagner's "Entrance of the Gods into Valhalla". Or maybe that's just me. It DOES go downhill from here, though.

Never have so many actors seem so embarrassed in the same movie at one time. Burton, the Prince of Players himself, seemed on the wane in his later years and here plays as if bored stiff, stone drunk and prone to short outbursts. During the course of this film's almost two hours, Burton barely changes expression from a "staring straight ahead with disinterest" look to a "sweaty and concerned" look. Fletcher doesn't fare much better, seeing that she just plays a psychiatrist and not a sadistic nurse so there's not much need for differing vocal inflection.

However, since this IS Regan's story, the movie succeeds or fails on the performance of Blair. And it would seem that in four year's time, the main thing that's developed in Blair's repertoire was her body. Which is apparent during her tap dance routine (choreographed by Daniel Joseph Giaghi), where feet aren't the only things bouncing around. I know, that sounds terrible and, bless her heart, it's just her being herself. But this is an Exorcist sequel - should there be a moment where we find our minds wandering as to what Linda Blair must be thinking while she's up on screen there, looking around at her surroundings with doe-eyed innocence whereas, just four years ago, she won an Oscar for convincing us she was possessed by Satan.

By Satan.

Yes, Satan. NOT Pazuzu. What the Hell (get it?) is the deal with changing religions mid-stream here? Did we really need to go from Catholic guilt to African soul-jumping via demons in the form of locusts? Makes no sense to me but hey; I'm not Catholic, either. And neither am I African.

I guess it made sense to Goodhart in a theological kind of way, seeing that the movie's climax takes place not only in Regan's old place in Georgetown, but also incorporated an old-style exorcism from Lamont, a cat-eyed Regan demon and an immolation but a sudden locust storm out of nowhere that destroys everything.

I'll grant you will be hard-pressed to find a movie more seriously disturbed than this one. You certainly won't find one with a more notorious reputation than this (outside of Heaven's Gate, maybe). And I'm sure that Richard Burton got more crap for Exorcist II than for any other movie he ever did in his career.

This IS a bad movie, no question. A sequel that is seriously disjointed and had almost nothing to do with the original source material outside of lip service to a couple of past events. Anyone who's seen this movie can attest to its low quality and laughable scenes. They had to literally go back and re-edit the movie no less than three times during its initial run to keep people from laughing at it as much as they did in its previous incarnation.

But you know what? It still made money. Yes, Exorcist II made over double its budget back once all was said and done, just proving that Hell hath no fury like a sequel scorned.

True, that amount is NOTHING compared to the original's take, but how well do you expect a comedy to do when compared to a horror movie?

And there we have the main thing about Exorcist II: The Heretic - this is without a doubt one of the funniest movies you will even see. No matter how much one expects another psychological and theological mind-trip like in The Exorcist, they will be floored with laughter from the non-acting of Richard Burton, the nonsense of such concepts as the "synchroinzer" and, more than anything, some of the worst ideas ever introduced in sequel to a movie that has been hailed worldwide as the most frightening movie ever made.

Is it worth watching, though? Maybe, if you want a good laugh. Or just have it in for Richard Burton.

Or really, really, really hate locusts.