FANDOM


Announcer: It's Cinemassacre's "Monster Madness"!

James Rolfe: The Exorcist II: The Heretic. It's laughable to even think that someone tried to make a sequel to The Exorcist. The first one, on top of being one of the most popular horror films, was probably the only pure horror film that received widespread Academy Awards: It won Best Sound, Best Adapted Screenplay, and nominated for several others, including Best Picture.

Possessed Regan MacNeil: Your mother sucks cocks in Hell, Karras!

James: With horror movies, that doesn't happen often. Slumdog Millionaire, No Country for Old Men, The Hurt Locker. Put some zombies and vampires in those movies, and see how many awards they get. So with that said, how do you make a sequel to such a critically-acclaimed movie? Well, copying it would be a simple solution. Yeah, isn't that what they usually do? If something's successful, do it over again.

This time, they tried something different, which is commandable. But, it might be a little too different! It suffers from the opposite problem, it's nothing at all like the first movie! They hired a director who didn't even like the first movie. The result is an expiramental acid-fest that merely banks on the concept, using the title as bait to lure fans of the original into its mind-rotting trap.

Linda Blair returns as Regan, now 18 years of age and surprisingly seductive. Her mom's out of the picture, Regan is in the care of Nurse Ratchet, undergoing counseling. She's hooked up to some hypnosis machine that allows to people to enter the same dream. Mmm, did Christopher Nolan see this? Also, there's this priest who's investigated with death of Father Merrin from the first movie. More shit happens and we're off to Africa.

(We get the camera flying over a river, a chaos happening in a village, and then the older Kokumo appearing and roaring like a leopard, with a quick shot of a leopard roaring)

What are we watching right now? The time I get throw this POV shot, i'll be a vegetable. Unless, something really exciting happens at the end. What is it? What are we building up to? Here it comes... Holy shit, it's James Earl Jones?

He turned into a leopard? Now he's dressed as a locust, what's going on here? This movie came out the same year as Star Wars. I'd like to think that James Earl Jones was recording the voice of Darth Vader, he was still in the middle filming Exorcist II. Yeah, he was in the locust costume all along!

Darth Vader: Where are those transmissions you intercepted? What have you done with those plans? Commander, tear this ship apart until you've found those plans, and bring me the passengers. I want them alive!

James: Just to give you an example of how random this movie is, check out this scene where the priest confronts the witch doctor: The witch doctor spits out a tomato.. It lands on a bat of spikes in the water. Now, watch what happens.

(Father Phillip Lamont puts his feet into the spikes, but he doesn't die)

James: Well that was a bad idea.

(Clips from The Exorcist are shown as James speaks)

You might be thinking, what does any of this have to do with The Exorcist? Well, there's not really an exorcism, and the "The Heretic"? I'm still not sure who or what that is, maybe the heretic is the director of the film, I don't know. It should be called "Swarm of the Locusts" because there are a lot of locusts in the film.

You do see Regan in the familiar makeup from the first movie, and there are a lot of flashback scenes with Max von Sydow, Father Merrin from the original. Here, we learn some more of the backstory, and they name the demon that possessed Regan as "Pazuzu". The first movie doesn't clarify that. The voice that comes out of Regan identifies it self as the Devil.

Possessed Regan: And I'm the Devil!

James: But, we never know for sure if it's just messing around. The opening scene suggests that it's Pazuzu because of the statue Father Merrin sees, but the common viewer wouldn't know that. So, we're left to wonder if the demon that possesses Regan is the Devil or not. And that's where I think makes the movie so interesting, you never know for sure.

(Poster of The Exorcist movie and the first edition cover of The Exorcist book are shown as James speaks)

Of course remember, I'm talking about the movie, not the book.

And after all, the things the demon does are certainly horrible enough to be the Devil, wouldn't you say? But anyway, this is the movie where they call it "Pazuzu". The sequel is still interesting to watch. The production values are high. But don't expect the coherent narrative. The movie's been beaten to death, filled with hallucinogens, gobbled up by Satan, shat out, flushed off the face of the Earth, raped by aliens caring intergalactic STDS, launched back to Earth, injected with radioactive poison, eaten by Godzilla and barfed onto the screen, where it ended up being booed out of theaters. For real, they pulled this movie out of the theater immediately to be re-edited. The re-edit didn't help much. It's a hard movie to review and just as hard to watch. If you want the full effect, just watch the trailer. It's the most random montage of images and the most bizarre music combined.

Well, this movie sucks! (throws the film's reel into the ground, causing it to explode)

(The title card for The Exorcist III appears)

The third one's better, but we'll talk about that in another year.

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.