The Exorcist II: The Heretic - destroying Linda Blair

Maire says:
What the fuck did I just watch?

Yes, I know it’s one of those movies that you need to watch, in a hipster kind of way.

Yes, it did lead to a moment of awesomeness when Corey realized why he knew the name Pazuzu, and accurately recreated how he knew it.

And yes, it allowed for J. Spurlin over at imdb to come up with this understated gem for his plot summary:

His investigation takes him to Africa where he locates another recipient of Merrin's exorcising and learns something fascinating and terrible about locusts.

BUT, the above ≠ good movie. Or even laughably bad movie. Remember, I’m the schlock guy of the group, but hoo boy, this was a baaaad film.

The beauty of The Exorcist is its epic clash of “good vs. evil” in an unexpected container. The horror of The Heretic is its desperate attempt to cling to its predecessor’s glory, while derailing so quickly and horrifically, nothing is left but a shell of what could have been an ok film and another 90 minutes to sit through.

But hey, it’s not all bad for Linda Blair. Just check out all of this awesome modeling work she did in the early 80’s.

Salty says:
Watching The Heretic is like being in a serious accident: you don’t really know what’s happening or why when it’s going on, but you are pretty sure that it’s really, really bad and you just want it to be over. You wish you had avoided it, but you just have to let it play out. Then, once it ends and you get some distance on it and you start taking in the details, you start to question it. Why is that doctor’s office full of glass walls? Was that even a doctor’s office? Why did that man have a strobe light on his forehead? What the fuck was up with those moths? Isn’t that the dude from Field of Dreams? Why doesn’t that skyscraper’s balcony have a complete railing? What is this movie about? Did the person I watched this movie with slip me some drugs? I have only scratched the surface here. This movie creates questions upon questions.

And afterwards the movie haunts you, and for a while you can’t relate to people who haven’t had the same experience, but you bond intensely with those who have. You may try to explain it to friends and loved ones, but they don’t understand unless they experience it for themselves. So, you try to move on and pretend it didn’t happen, but it becomes the standard by which you compare all other bad you films you’ve seen. I am not kidding; this is what seeing The Heretic is like. How did this move not obliterate a lot of people’s careers? Was this movie the result of a bet? Does anyone like this movie? I don’t know any of the answers to any of the questions that I have put forth here.

Corey says:
Before I start on II, let me give you my interpretation of the star ratings that we use here at the ole’ House.  

☆ :  Garbage.  Very little (if any) redeeming quality. 

☆☆ :  There’s some good stuff in there, you just have to look for it a little. 

☆☆☆  A film that must be watched.

I want to emphasize that 3 star rating: a film that must be watched.  It doesn’t say it has to be good.  And now, Exorcist II.

This film is baffling in how bad it is.  I’m not sure if bad is even the correct word for it.  If you haven’t seen II, I must insist.  To just try to put into words how I feel about the film, much less the quality, is very difficult.

First, Reagan’s back! Hooray!  Let’s hook her up to this weird sci-fi brain thingy!  Repressed memories GO!  Now James Earl Jones, and Africa, and Pazuzu! And bugs, don’t forget the bugs!  Some dudes fall off of a cliff!  Reagan can heal the sick!  Roll credits!

Ok, did that last paragraph make sense?  No?  Good.  Now, imagine how that is my review of II, keeping in mind... I give it three stars.

Maire	Corey	Salty
☆	☆☆☆	☆