Exorcist II: The Most Misunderstood 'Disaster' Sequel of All Time?
In 1973, audiences experienced William Friedkin’s The Exorcist, which tore up the box-office record books to become Warner Bros. Pictures’ biggest film ever, so a sequel was bound to happen.
Some $66 million later, and with more records falling, The Exorcist had become a phenomenon. People were lining the streets to get in and just couldn’t get enough of the story of Regan (Linda Blair), a young girl possessed by a demon known as Pazuzu.
While sequels weren’t uncommon in the 1970s, there tended to be fewer due to their decreased financial returns. Warner Bros., however, saw an Exorcist follow-up as a no-brainer, despite Friedkin, writer William Peter Blatty and star Ellen Burstyn wanting nothing to do with it.
Enter acclaimed director John Boorman (Deliverance), and one of the wildest and most absurd “sequels” of all time, Exorcist 2: The Heretic. But is it really as bad as its 50-year reputation suggests?
The Story Behind Exorcist II: The Heretic
When Boorman was announced as director, eyebrows were raised. Warner Bros. saw it as a win-win, knowing a sequel would be a success no matter what. Boorman had actually been offered the original, but hated the script. He liked William Goodhart’s screenplay, however, and saw it as his “reposte” to the original.
Gone were the jump scares, gore, and shocks; in came a metaphysical and intellectual approach, a human story about good and evil played out not through possession, but shared human consciousness. It was a sequel in name only – family related by blood, but never truly connected.
Boorman told Little White Lies: "To me [The Exorcist] was a film about the torture of a child. I admired it in many ways but I didn’t like it. When they asked me to do the sequel, they gave me carte blanche, so I foolishly decided to make, not a sequel but a kind of riposte.
"The audience was, of course furious. They weren’t getting what they were expecting, which was more of the same. They threw things at the screen and demanded their money back. It was rather painful and stopped me in my tracks."
Regardless, Linda Blair returned as Regan, now 16, drawn back by the “amazing” script and the chance to work with Richard Burton. Max von Sydow also returned despite his own concerns, while recent Oscar winner Louise Fletcher signed on to play Dr. Tuskin, joined by James Earl Jones.
With a $12.5 million budget agreed – the highest ever for a Warner Bros. production at the time – Boorman and co. set off to make the sequel. What happened next is immersed in Hollywood folklore.
The Exorcist II Was Plagued by Delays, Illness, and Locusts
After production began without too many hitches, notwithstanding Burton’s contract requiring the actor to be released at 6pm every day, whether he was in the middle of filming or not, delays and issues soon reared their heads.
Rewrites were constant, with Boorman’s script doctor, Rospo Pallenberg, brought in. The director then contracted San Joaquin Valley fever, knocking him and the production out for five weeks. Locusts, central to the story, were dying rapidly and production couldn’t keep up, while original editor John Merritt quit. The work of Pazuzu, many joked.
Linda Blair recalled: “It was a really good script at first. Then after everybody signed on, they rewrote it five times, and it ended up nothing like the same movie.”
Days before release, a disastrous preview screening took place in Pasadena. One man even stood up, turned to the back of the cinema and shouted, “The people who made this s*** are in this room”, causing Warner’s executives to be chased out of the cinema. That audience would not be the last to react this way.
The film opened with $6.7 million, the largest-ever opening for Warner Bros. at that time, but was beaten to the number one spot by The Deep. Word of mouth and disastrous reviews, though, were the ultimate downfall, with subsequent weekends collapsing and the film eventually reaching around $30 million – well below the original.
Boorman tried in vain to save the film, changing the ending and switching out prints for new versions, but the damage was done. Despite decades of lambasting and topping many worst-film lists, has time been kinder to The Heretic?
Martin Scorsese and Park Chan-wook Love Exorcist II
Quentin Tarantino once recalled: “Critic Pauline Kael said, ‘If you watch Exorcist II with the sound off, you might think it was a masterpiece!’”
Countless special editions on home formats have followed in the intervening years, not least from Shout! Factory and Arrow Films, helping new audiences experience the film.
Martin Scorsese prefers it, saying in 1978: “I like the first Exorcist, because of the Catholic guilt I have, and because it scared the hell out of me; but The Heretic surpasses it. Maybe Boorman failed to execute the material, but the movie still deserved better than it got.”
Director Park Chan-wook also told JustWatch exclusively: “I always tell my friends that the sequel is as much of a masterpiece as the first movie is... Since 25-plus years ago, I’ve always claimed that the sequel to The Exorcist is a great film."
One thing is evident in The Heretic: Boorman used every cent of that budget. Visually, the film was unlike anything seen before in 1977, and it still holds up today. Its images are haunting, extraordinary and illuminating, with its use of Steadicam and other in-camera techniques both stark, profound, and haunting. Then again, for its neon-glow excess, the same can be said for Batman & Robin.
However, Kael is probably right in her ultimate summation: if you watch it with the sound on – bar Ennio Morricone’s otherworldly score – that’s where the real damage is done. A terrible sequel? Maybe. But, you have to admire the ambition of Boorman and co. all the same.
