Some bad films are good to watch because they are 'bad'. Exclude this film from that type...

It's amazing when you think about it, The Exorcist (1973) is a cult classic. It's a movie that has been in the IMDB top 100 and is on the precipice of going back in. So how did it spawn a sequel so universally despised?Well for a start the films cast follows on from the first and that should mean something, it follows directly on from the events in the first film so again that should be in the plus column.Further to its credit we're talking Richard Burton, Max Von Sydow & James Earl Jones as well as the underappreciated Linda Blair.But here is where it all goes wrong, the plot is a mess and the fact it's following on from the original movie so seamlessly damages its credibility. It's taking a beloved story and quite frankly defacating all over it.It does look ahead of it's time, but the story is truly awful and makes it a film that's somewhat of a struggle to get through.Truth be told as much as I'm a horror fanatic the exorcism sub-genre has always been one I've struggled to enjoy so this infamously bad title didn't stand much of a chance.From everything I've seen so far I'd advise Joe Average to watch the original film, and go no further.The Good:Looks great for its timeLinda BlairThe Bad:Plot is an utter messThings I Learnt From This Movie:Crutches are ideal tools for putting out firesLinda Blair should have had a considerably better career

After her exorcism a few years earlier, "Regan" (Linda Blair) is undergoing counseling but still cannot remember what happened. So to examine the issue more closely her counselor "Dr. Gene Tuskin" (Louise Fletcher) recommends that she goes under a unique type of hypnosis in order to reveal more details to her. Meanwhile a priest by the name of "Father Philip Lamont" (Richard Burton) is sent to investigate her specific case and to report his findings to the "Cardinal" (played by Paul Henreid) in charge. As it so happens, Father Lamont manages to get there just in time to witness the hypnosis session. Unfortunately, something goes horribly wrong and Dr. Tuskin almost dies as a result. But even worse than that the session also brings the demon that possessed her back as well--and the nightmare returns all over again. Now rather than reveal any more I will just say that this film is an immediate sequel to one of the greatest horror movies ever produced so a great number of people had high expectations. Unfortunately, this film turned out to be a great disappointment due in large part to a weak script and some rather ridiculous scenarios--with the ending being downright laughable. In short, this movie just didn't measure up to its predecessor in any way, shape or form and I have rated it accordingly. Below average.

I think I tried watching this movie when I was a teenager. I was hoping for horror and gore of course... or at least more of the same as the original Exorcist. Instead I got this wackadoodle fantasy story about magical children and demons trying to destroy them. Lots of spectacle and overwrought acting. It didn't work for me at all and I probably didn't pay much attention to it... I might even have fallen asleep. So, flash forward a decade or so and I see it on TCM and decide to give it a second shot, if for no other reason than to laugh at an infamous turkey of a movie. Surprisingly, I liked it. Yes, it's still the same crazy-ass movie I saw as a kid... but I've changed and am much more willing to glean the gold from the ashes. Boorman made some wonderfully kooky movies, some worked better than others but ALL of them were trying to be something more than the average. Exorcist 2 is NOT the original, in a lot of ways it stands apart and I suspect if it had been an Italian production with different stars that made no reference to the original it would be considered a minor classic. Not that it's a great movie, not at all. It's got some bad dialogue and badly delivered dialogue. The sets are a 70s sort of weird... more scifi and disco influenced I suspect. And it's not really a horror movie at all. Instead it's a mystical epic... concerned with psychic kids and evil spirits and pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo and gadgets. I think it would make a fun double-feature with another wild 70s movie, The Visitor. Also packed with some famous actors and also kooky as can be. But my enjoyment of Exorcist 2 didn't come from how bad it was. I don't think it would work as an MST3K subject. I liked it because, despite its flaws, I could see through to the story it was telling and it's a compelling tale... full of bizarre imagery and mythic implications. I'm sure most people of the time would have preferred a by-rote rehash of the original horror film... instead they got this spiritual and futuristic epic that was free of most all the salacious and 'naughty' bits of the original. It was also pretty much free of Catholic superstition and Christian imagery. The story it's telling leaves all that behind in favor of something strikingly new. That, more than anything, is why I think it has the awful reputation it does. But seen outside the limiting context of being a sequel to a famous horror film I believe it delivers on being an interesting and compelling tale of its own. Give it a shot.