Featured Audience Ratings

• Jeff "

  
  Awful follow-up to The Exorcist. The film lacks anything that would make this a worthwhile follow-up to one of the greatest classics in horror history. However due to a poor plot, and very poor directing, this sequel doesn't do the original justice whatsoever. What we have here… More
  Awful follow-up to The Exorcist. The film lacks anything that would make this a worthwhile follow-up to one of the greatest classics in horror history. However due to a poor plot, and very poor directing, this sequel doesn't do the original justice whatsoever. What we have here in this sequel is a poor attempt at trying to outdo the original. Unfortunately for this film nothing works. The scares are bland and the acting is boring, uninspired and overall not effective. Considering the cast involved, you'd expect this film to be at least watchable. However due to a bad script, sloppy acting and directing, this is one pointless sequel, one that doesn't deliver the jolts you'd expect. As a fan of The Exorcist, I was very much disappointed with film, and felt it was horrible. Only Exorcist: The Beginning was worst than this. This is a poor horror that I can't recommend to any fans of the genre. As a matter of fact this is one of the worst sequels in a horror franchise and there's absolutely nothing to enjoy about this film. If you've loved The Exorcist, you should pass up on this one, there's nothing to enjoy and the scares are almost nonexistent. They could have done something good here, but the film feels rushed, and unfocused throughout. The Heretic is honestly one of the worst horror sequel in the genre, and if you watch it, you'll understand why.

• Drew S

  
  Quite like Incubus, The Exorcist II is a huge disaster that falls quite short of any humorous camp value, but quite unlike it, it still holds its own morbid fascination mainly through its relation to the first film and the cultural context that surrounds it. It's also notable… More
  Quite like Incubus, The Exorcist II is a huge disaster that falls quite short of any humorous camp value, but quite unlike it, it still holds its own morbid fascination mainly through its relation to the first film and the cultural context that surrounds it. It's also notable because it's such an enormous drop-off in quality from the first film; John Boorman was famously vocal about his dislike for the meanness of the original Exorcist, and what does he do to counter it? This. No one is giving any sort of effort here. Where William Friedkin's meticulous directing was obvious, in the excellent performances he elicited and his water-tight visuals, Boorman condemns himself to visible incompetence by producing the results that are directly the opposite. Linda Blair is just flat out awful. As a beacon of universal goodness, she's an absolute joke. Meant to radiate peace and positivity, the most she can muster is a nauseating chipmunk-like cuteness. She's like Amanda Bynes' mother. Louise Fletcher is just about the most boring character you can possibly imagine, Richard Burton is not too far behind her, Kitty Winn was obviously stitched into the plot to try and repair the damage Ellen Burstyn's departure caused (and to ridiculous effect! Her role in the ending is almost too awful to be believed), and James Earl Jones...well. A job's a job, I suppose. Worse yet are some of the tableaux they're thrust into. The nadir of it comes fairly early on, in a truly ridiculous battle waged through time and space by Good Regan and Demon Regan over Louise Fletcher's breast as intermediated by two strobe lights. If it sounds like I'm overexaggerating the ludicrousness of the situation, I'm really not. Regardless of the cast's varying levels of proficiency, it's clear that none of them were comfortable maneuvering through the senseless plot. I could call it a melange of inchoate ideas about New Wave philosophy and the exchange of power between the Christian church and Christian individuals, but that would be far too generous. All this sounds good in theory, and a little background reading suggests that Boorman actually had some pretty interesting ideas in crafting a plot centered around the "world-mind" philosophy. In actuation, it falls apart, hamstrung from all sides - by its attempts to link back to the first film, which had nothing to do with this philosophy; by a group of actors who don't seem to have any understanding of how to tonally support their material; and by just plain poor screenwriting, where all of this fancy theological talk ultimately amounts to Regan swinging her arm in the air to chase away locusts. Really, a vast majority of people had a problem with The Exorcist II because it just isn't a horror film. It's a fair complaint, to be sure, but it doesn't necessarily impact the quality of the finished product. The product itself handles that more than capably. If you view the first movie and this as a clash between ugliness and light, as Boorman so delusionally viewed it, then this comes out the clear loser. A curiously awful movie, but also a fascinating one, on many different levels.

• Ken S

  
  Either fail big or go home. The Exorcist 2 is a massive FAIL on almost every level. While there are some impressive visuals, they are buried under so much unbelievable nonsense as to make there contribution nearly non-existent.

• E.J. B

  
  (Review coming soon)

• Cassandra M

  
  Boorman is a real unique talent, who constantly shows us the world from an unusual perspective. This is one of his most annoyingly idiosyncratic films when seen for the first time. Yet it's so alive and full of ideas, that it remains stimulating when the original film is reduced… More
  Boorman is a real unique talent, who constantly shows us the world from an unusual perspective. This is one of his most annoyingly idiosyncratic films when seen for the first time. Yet it's so alive and full of ideas, that it remains stimulating when the original film is reduced in memory to a few gory set pieces. Some of the images are as great as any in film history and the music score is terrific. It has lots of things wrong with it, but on the whole, it is a candidate for the most underrated film ever made.

• Anthony L

  
  Overall it?s not a great film but there are moments of greatness in it! It?s not as bad as people say but it?s nowhere near as good as the original!

• Chris G

  
  What's wrong with this movie? (spoilers to follow) 1) Nurse Ratched's fantastic new psychiatric device are two strobe lights. 2) Linda Blair fondles Louis Flecther's breast. 3) Richard Burton appears to be looking for the bar. 4) The fact that the church sends… More
  What's wrong with this movie? (spoilers to follow) 1) Nurse Ratched's fantastic new psychiatric device are two strobe lights. 2) Linda Blair fondles Louis Flecther's breast. 3) Richard Burton appears to be looking for the bar. 4) The fact that the church sends Merrin to exorcise Regan in the first film, but he is suddenly a heretic in this one. 5) Wasn't there a Father Karras in the first one somewhere? 6) Apparently Regan's mom is more concerned with her career and dumps off her daughter on the first shrink with strobe lights she could find. 7) Balconies with partial rails for falling and fake falling. 8) Locust documentary footage. 9) The fact that the only plot point that actually made sense was Regan's tap dance recital. 10) Gratuitous Ned Beatty cameo. 11) Richard Burton's shirt during the last twenty minutes. 12) James Earl Jones spitting cherry tomatoes at Richard Burton. 13) The fact that ENNIO MORRICONE scored this piece of shit. 14) The fact that not only does a taxi cab crash through a wrought iron and brick fence, a woman catches on fire, and a portion of the house implodes no one in the entire block comes out to see what the hell is going on even though there are numerous lights on throughout the neighborhood until... 15) Richard Burton and Regan leave then suddenly three thousand people show up asking Louis Flecther if she's OK while there's a charred corpse on the front stoop of the neighbor's house. 16) A stainless steel bird house.

• Lafe F

  
  Holey jeepers! The Exorcist II offers a surreal abstract story of possession with Regan being tormented by Pazuzu the locust demon, which was still lingering in her subconcious from the first Exorcist movie. Very weird and trippy with great mind-bending cinematography. It doesn't… More
  Holey jeepers! The Exorcist II offers a surreal abstract story of possession with Regan being tormented by Pazuzu the locust demon, which was still lingering in her subconcious from the first Exorcist movie. Very weird and trippy with great mind-bending cinematography. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but is a fun ride. Richard Burton appears as the Priest who is trying to rid her of the evil Locusts. The funnest scene was when Regan was attacked during her tap-dancing competition. Nothing too scary happens, but it's a spectacular show of flying Locusts and exotic locations. James Earl Jones plays Kukomo, the man who the Locusts are scared of. Nice Locust-eye views of the countryside. The trailer with the demented disco music is totally awesome; it's included on the DVD.

• Dean M

  
  This horror sequel in the script is awful, the acting poor, and the direction lacking in pace or conviction.

• Ryan M

  
  1/2 out of **** The William Friedkin-directed film adaptation of William Peter Blatty's acclaimed horror novel "The Exorcist" shocked audiences all over the world like they had never been shocked before in the year of 1973. Never before had anyone seen such… More
  1/2 out of **** The William Friedkin-directed film adaptation of William Peter Blatty's acclaimed horror novel "The Exorcist" shocked audiences all over the world like they had never been shocked before in the year of 1973. Never before had anyone seen such sensational special effects and - for those who haven't yet looked overseas towards the wonders of foreign horror - gross singular scenarios. People loved this film and it still holds up today (perhaps better than ever, since we can now strip away the effects and study the film's bare essentials). Four years after its release, they decided to make a sequel; you know, just because they could. "The Exorcist II: The Heretic" exists when nobody actually cared whether a sequel to "The Exorcist" was made or not. It felt as if everything was reasonably resolved by the end, and the major themes came full circle; so why do we need a continuation of this story? Well, we don't; making "Exorcist II" probably the most pointless sequel in the history of movie sequels or maybe just the history of anything. The icing on the cake is that it's not just pointless; it is absolutely, undeniably one of the worst movies ever made. Four years after she was possessed by the demon Pazuzu in the comfort of her own Washington home and in the company of her loving mother and two priests (one young, one old); Regan MacNeil (Linda Blair) seems surprisingly normal given all the things she's been through. Since "The Exorcist", her parents have divorced and she's now living with her guardian in New York City, and she's also seeing a psychologist in an institution that worries for her (although it's good enough that Regan doesn't have to stay in the building). She claims to only remember the events of that one night in D.C. through dreams - or nightmares - and the little details in-between that somehow did not escape her. She cannot, however, remember the exorcism that took place in her very own bedroom. To see if her memories of that night can be recovered; the psychiatrist hooks both Regan and herself up to a device called the Synchronizer, which as one would expect synchronizes the brainwaves. Meanwhile, a priest facing a crisis of faith (Richard Burton) is asked by the Cardinal to investigate the death of Father Merrin (Max Von Sydow, who appears in flashbacks). This of course leads him to Regan, and he partakes in the session involving the synchronizer. He then becomes increasingly more involved in her life; believing that Pazuzu still exists somewhere deep down inside Regan's soul, even though it was assumed that the demon was passed down to Father Karras' body in the first film when it was the cause of his eventual death (which could be ruled as suicide, depending on how you look at it). Here, Pazuzu comes in all forms; including a swarm of locusts that attacks Africans. Oh, how fun! This relates to the priest's own journey to Africa; where all shall be revealed, or something like that. Blatty himself saw the film in the theater when it was out and said he was the first person to laugh out loud in the cinema while watching it (the rest of the audience joined in soon thereafter). It is a movie of unintentional laughs and giggles; although one of no pleasures whatsoever. Some films are bad and some are so bad they're good. "The Exorcist II" is not fun in any way shape or form, and believe me when I say that you don't want to waste your precious little fucking time watching it. Indeed, some things - like a guy dressed up like an actual lotus and some cheesy flashback sequences - are amusing at best and flamboyantly silly (although perhaps unintentionally), but does that equate to a good time? It might in another film. But in this one, no way. Is it worth sitting through nearly two hours of terrible "demonic" music (somehow courtesy of the usually great Ennio Morricone), mediocre camerawork, a complete lack of convincing atmosphere or directorial style, and bland-ass performances just to get a few noteworthy chuckles? You tell me. But from what I gather, "The Exorcist II" isn't even lucky enough to be dubbed one of those "best-worst movies". Probably the most tragic aspect of this whole thing is that it was directed by John Boorman. Yes, THAT John Boorman. The same exact guy who made "Deliverance" - considered a classic survival thriller and the quintessential backwoods inbred flick - just five years earlier. Strange how directors can go from something awesome to something as god-awful as this. Well, thanks John Boorman; I will never forget your shit-storm of a movie. Not only because there is literally nothing good to say about it, but also because it's the terrible sequel to one of my favorite films of all time, period (and also my favorite horror film). At this very moment, I wish I could unsee the suck; but I can't. And just for that, I hope Boorman gets raped up the ass with a wooden crucifix. But if you like pretentious, boring, excessively overlong and legitimately mentally deficient horror movies; this might just be your thing.

• Burger S

  
  Even Richard Burton & James Earl Jones could not save this mightmare.

• Alec B

  
  Its a rather agonizingly boring experience that is also unpleasantly pretentious. It basically attempts to explain things we never needed to have explained.

• Chris O

  
  I always knew about this movie but never had the urge to watch it until now. Mainly because I know why people hate it so much and I didnâ(TM)t want to ruin my experience of the first one. But I needed to watch something this October so why not the movie I have put on hold for so long.… More
  I always knew about this movie but never had the urge to watch it until now. Mainly because I know why people hate it so much and I didnâ(TM)t want to ruin my experience of the first one. But I needed to watch something this October so why not the movie I have put on hold for so long. Itâ(TM)s universally panned because itâ(TM)s so crazy doesnâ(TM)t feel anything like an Exorcist movie. Even though it continues the story from the first one and we learn more about Pazuzu the demon who possessed Regan from the original. We find out part of him is still living inside her and a new priest has to come finish the job Father Merrin started before he was killed. Itâ(TM)s not really a good movie but I kind of enjoyed it and I commemorate it for trying something new and not rehashing the same story over and over again like most horror sequels tend to do.

• Quinto W

  
  I remembered this movie being a lot funnier, but it's mostly just stupid and boring and feels like it is never, ever going to end.

• Brett W

  
  Exorcist II is one of the unfortunate examples of a movie that, thanks to being suffocated to death by context and comparison, has gone far beyond its mediocre actuality and resulted in a near legendary underrating. When the next chapter of a largely successful film is released… More
  Exorcist II is one of the unfortunate examples of a movie that, thanks to being suffocated to death by context and comparison, has gone far beyond its mediocre actuality and resulted in a near legendary underrating. When the next chapter of a largely successful film is released audiences naturally expect certain elements to be revisited, a certain restraint in order to maintain the core audience. In the case of Exorcist those would be; intimate environments, intense personal attacks, spiritual crises and transformation. The gritty 70's "realism". What the audience does NOT expect, naturally, is an exponentially larger, surreal expansion beyond what was shown in the first chapter. John Boorman takes the original elements, stretches them out to the brink and explores their implications on a far more "poetic", worldly scale whose focus is so broad and dream-like that your "average" viewer finds themselves forced into a position of having to actively find a "way in" to understand what is supposed to be going on. It's the perfect recipe for "doesn't really make sense but really heady in the subconscious sense" kinda way. Another deviation that has caused issue with some people (and that DOES cause a problem when trying to view as a straight sequel) is the moralistic shift. Basing solely on Friedkin's DVD commentary, The Exorcist is a biblical story at its core. Boorman's new age philosophy transforms Exorcist II into something far more ambiguous and complex, and more difficult to translate to screen. Science, medicine and religion merge as Regan becomes a messiah-like figure whose goodness (not the church's) is the key to the battle against the forces of darkness. Regardless of philosophy, this is just too big of a leap from the predecessor. Like most people who try to defend the film they usually preface by reiterating that this is not a great movie, and it's not. Flaws abound. What's also clear is that this is not a horror film. It's a surrealistic journey and tale of self-discovery. If you can manage to compartmentalize this in a space of its own and be aware of what this film was TRYING to do (often unsuccessfully) then there are definitely more than a few positive attributes that help this bizarre cult-experience stand on its own. Some films are bad, some are merely failures...Exorcist 2 is the latter.

• Anthony V

  
  Who could have thought demonic possession could be so boring?

• Patrick D

  
  Only Linda Blair saves this. I could watch her all day....

• Lee K

  
  I really think that louise fletcher really needs to stick to being a bitch in her movies because this woman really cant act worth shit i mean she was great as ratched in one flew over the cuckoos nest but thats it, also whats with richard burton thinking he is in some shakespearean… More
  I really think that louise fletcher really needs to stick to being a bitch in her movies because this woman really cant act worth shit i mean she was great as ratched in one flew over the cuckoos nest but thats it, also whats with richard burton thinking he is in some shakespearean play thru out this, totally over acted his part. Blair was cute however she is another actress with little and no talent. I heard this movie was laughed off the screen when it first came out and i can definatly see why, pure garbage!

• Leo L

  
  Love this sequel.

• Christopher B

  
  This movie sucks hard, but Morricone's disco score rocks!

Read all 20 featured audience ratings