Exorcist II: the Heretic (1977)
John Boorman
Impression published on Tuesday, 2009-10-27 | Film | 2 stars
For one of the biggest failures in the history of ill-advised sequels, this one is unique for a number of reasons.
First, it's a handy illustration of how the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. This production, for which Excalibur and Zardoz director John Boorman (who is definitely no slouch/chump) had very high hopes, was begun with the idea that it was going to explore complicated psychological, theological and sociological themes: in the end, numerous script-re-writes, which were intended to create a more robust and complicated story, caused Boorman et al to paint themselves into a narrative corner from which the only viable escape plan was to build a bunch of motors and cranes into a soundstage mock-up of the original Georgetown house and tear it to pieces.
And while I'm generally loath to criticize giant action setpieces with integrated pyro and a bunch of moving parts, Boorman's original goal of dramatizing the psycho-social parallels between men and insects (especially with respect to crowd "psychology"), the so-called "heresy" of Teilhard de Chardin and the Jacobean wrestling match between science and religion is just plain not realized in the destruction of Friedkin's Georgetown House.
Secondly, in addition to its good intentions (i.e. the fact that it wasn't a soul-less cash-in attempt), this ill-advised sequel is remarkable for the influence it has on its successors. In spite of its critical and box office failures, the influence of this movie can be clearly observed in the two Exorcist prequels from the early naughts (i.e. Paul Schrader's Dominion: Prequel to the Exorcist and Renny Harlin's Exorcist: the Beginning): while Friedkin's original makes whatever commentary it makes on man and God through Friedkin's expert externalization of his characters' psyches, Boorman's sequel uses big (often unwieldy) narrative structures and plot conceits to do that work and this is exactly the sort of thing you see in both prequels.
Which, to my way of thinking, implies that the production teams for these prequels were looking at Boorman's film. Which means that this film has a definite contemporary relevance, in addition to an interesting back story.
It also has some fucking hilarious sets, costumes and haircuts: see it for those, if for nothing else.
