Exorcist II: The Heretic

Neither William Peter Blatty nor William Friedkin, the writer/producer and the director, respectively, of the original The Exorcist, had any desire to involve themselves in an Exorcist sequel.[3] This was because they had filed lawsuits against both the studio and each other over profits, credits, and Blatty being barred from post-production during the first film.[4][5] According to the film's co-producer Richard Lederer, Exorcist II was conceived as a relatively low-budget affair: "What we essentially wanted to do with the sequel was to redo the first movie... Have the central figure, an investigative priest, interview everyone involved with the exorcism, then fade out to unused footage, unused angles from the first film. A low-budget rehash — about $3 million — of The Exorcist, a rather cynical approach to movie-making, I'll admit. But that was the start".[3]

Playwright William Goodhart was commissioned to write the screenplay, titled The Heretic; he based it around the theories of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (the Jesuit paleontologist/archaeologist who had inspired the character of Father Merrin in Blatty's novel The Exorcist). Goodhart's screenplay took a more metaphysical and intellectual approach compared with the original film. Here, the battle between good and evil would center on human consciousness—with the specific idea that, within the framework of Catholic theology, human consciousnesses could be brought together as one through technology, although this would also result in conflict between those who sought good and evil.[6]

Sam O'Steen initially agreed to direct the film, but never officially attached himself to the production.[4] British filmmaker John Boorman signed on to direct, stating that "the idea of making a metaphysical thriller greatly appealed to my psyche".[7] Years earlier, Boorman had been considered by Warner Bros. as a possible director for the original film, but he turned the opportunity down because he found the story "rather repulsive".[7] However, he was intrigued with the idea of directing a sequel, explaining that "every film has to struggle to find a connection with its audience. Here I saw the chance to make an extremely ambitious film without having to spend the time developing this connection. I could make assumptions and then take the audience on a very adventurous cinematic journey".[7]

Linda Blair agreed to reprise her role of Regan MacNeil for Exorcist II, but refused to wear demon make-up (a double was used for the brief flashback scenes depicting a demonic Regan). Max von Sydow was persuaded by Boorman to reprise the role of Father Merrin; he was initially reluctant to return because of his concerns over the negative impact of the first Exorcist film. Kitty Winn signed on to reprise the role of Sharon Spencer for Exorcist II after Ellen Burstyn flatly refused to return as Chris MacNeil.

Boorman contacted William O'Malley to reprise his role as Father Joseph Dyer from the first film. However, O'Malley was busy and could not take up the part, and the character of Father Dyer was changed to Father Philip Lamont. Jon Voight, David Carradine, Jack Nicholson and Christopher Walken all were considered for or offered the part of Father Lamont, who John Boorman initially conceived as a younger priest in awe of Father Merrin's writings. As mentioned in Variety, Voight initially signed on for the role but left in April 1976 when "differences about the role could not be resolved".[8] He was replaced with Richard Burton signing on for the role.

The role of Dr. Gene Tuskin was originally written for a man, with Chris Sarandon and George Segal both considered. When the sex of the character was changed, both Ann-Margret and Jane Fonda were under consideration. Louise Fletcher, who had just won the Academy Award for Best Actress for One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975), accepted the part.

Principal photography began in May 24, 1976 at Burbank Studios with a budget of $11 million (the film ultimately cost $14 million to make). Although Boorman wanted to film the majority of the film on location (including Ethiopia and The Vatican), many of his plans proved to be impossible, resulting in key exterior scenes having to be filmed set-bound at the Warner Bros. backlot. Even the MacNeil house in Georgetown had to be replicated in the studio because the filmmakers were refused permission to film at the original house. The filmmakers also had to replicate the infamous "Hitchcock Steps" adjacent to the MacNeil house, as they were refused permission by Washington city officials to shoot scenes by the real steps.[9] There were also two weeks of filming in the New York metropolitan area.[4] A key scene of a sleepwalking Regan about to wander off a rooftop was filmed in New York City, atop 666 Fifth Avenue (where Warner Bros. offices were then located). With no stunt person and no special effects, the shot showed actress Linda Blair's feet on the edge of the building with Fifth Avenue down below.[10] Scenes were also filmed at Pennsylvania Station in Newark, New Jersey.[11]

Boorman was unhappy with Goodhart's script and asked Goodhart to do a rewrite incorporating ideas from Rospo Pallenberg. Goodhart refused, and so the script was subsequently rewritten by Pallenberg and Boorman. Goodhart's script was being constantly rewritten as the film was shooting, with the filmmakers uncertain as to how the story should end. 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".[12]

Exorcist II was beset by numerous problems during production. Boorman contracted a case of San Joaquin Valley Fever (a respiratory fungal infection), which canceled production for over a month (a costly delay). Other problems included footage being oversaturated and necessitating reshoots; the rapid deaths of locusts imported from England for the film's climactic scenes (2500 locusts were shipped in and died at a rate of 100 a day); original film editor John Merritt quitting the production (he was replaced by Tom Priestley), and stars Kitty Winn and Louise Fletcher both suffering from gall bladder infections.[13]

Blair said in one interview that Pallenberg directed a lot of the film as well as did rewrites.[14] Pallenberg was credited as the second unit director and a "creative associate".

The Heretic was Warner Bros.'s largest day and date launch, opening in 725 theatres in the United States and Canada[15] and set an opening weekend record for Warner Bros.[16] with $6.7 million,[2] but poor word of mouth hampered its performance.[17] The film eventually grossed $30,749,142 in the United States,[2] turning a profit but still disappointing in comparison to the original film's gross.

The film received a strongly negative response. Reports indicated that the film inspired derisive audience laughter at its premiere in New York City.[18] William Peter Blatty claimed to have been the first person to start laughing at the theater in which he saw the film, only to be followed by the other patrons ("You'd think we were watching The Producers").[19] William Friedkin, director of The Exorcist, recalled hearing a story in which angry audience members at Exorcist II's first public performance began chasing Warner Bros. executives down the street within the first ten minutes of the screening.[20] Friedkin saw half an hour of the film: "I was at Technicolor and a guy said 'We just finished a print of Exorcist II, do you wanna have a look at it?' And I looked at half an hour of it and I thought it was as bad as seeing a traffic accident in the street. It was horrible. It's just a stupid mess made by a dumb guy – John Boorman by name, somebody who should be nameless, but in this case should be named. Scurrilous. A horrible picture".[12] Friedkin later said that this sequel diminished the value of the original and called it "the worst piece of crap I've ever seen" and "a freaking disgrace".[21][22] He later added: "That film was made by a demented mind".

Variety wrote, "Exorcist II is not as good as The Exorcist. It isn't even close". BBC film critic Mark Kermode stated "Exorcist II is demonstrably the worst film ever made. It took the greatest film ever made and trashed it in a way that was on one level farcically stupid and on another level absolutely unforgivable. Everyone involved in this, apart from Linda Blair, should be ashamed for all eternity". Vincent Canby, writing in The New York Times, was similarly dismissive:

Given the huge box-office success of the William Peter Blatty⁠ ⁠–⁠ ⁠William Friedkin production of The Exorcist, there had to be a sequel, but did it have to be this desperate concoction, the main thrust of which is that [the] original exorcism wasn't all it was cracked up to be? It's one thing to carry a story further along, but it's another to deny the original, no matter what you thought of it. I thought it was something even less than good, but this new film, which opened yesterday at the Criterion and other theaters, is of such spectacular fatuousness that it makes the first seem virtually an axiom of screen art.[23]

Gene Siskel of the Chicago Tribune gave the film zero stars out of four and declared it "the worst major motion picture I've seen in almost eight years on the job".[24] John Simon wrote[25] "there is a very strong probability that Exorcist II is the stupidest major movie ever made", and Jack Lewis wrote in the Daily Mirror: "It's all too ludicrous to frighten and the only time you're likely to hide your head will be in shame for watching it".[26] Ruth Batchelor's review for The Los Angeles Free Press stated: "I never thought I'd appreciate Billy Freidkin because I didn't like The Exorcist very much, but Exorcist II: The Heretic makes The Exorcist numero uno look like Citizen Kane...This movie is a laughable horror...It should be Exorcised out of the theatres".[27] Bernard Drew wrote in The San Bernardino Sun, "it is ridiculous — hopelessly confused, and incomprehensible. Upon who's (sic) feet to lay the blame for this disaster I do not know...There's blame enough for everybody involved in this".[28] Spanish film critic Fernando Trueba's review in El País called the movie "a stupid and useless film, whose mere existence is difficult to justify".[29]

Leslie Halliwell described the film as a "highly unsatisfactory psychic melodrama which...falls flat on its face along some wayward path of metaphysical and religious fancy. It was released in two versions and is unintelligible in either".[30] Leonard Maltin described the film as a "preposterous sequel...Special effects are the only virtue in this turkey".[31] Steven Scheuer wrote: "This may be the worst sequel in the history of film".[32] Danny Peary dismissed Exorcist II as "absurd".[33] In his 1984 book The Hollywood Hall of Shame, Michael Medved called the film "a thoroughly wretched piece of work", and added, "Richard Burton is a laugh a minute".[34] Edward Margulies called the film a "calamitious, head-scratching, sequel...a rollicking mess" and wondered "whatever possessed them?"[35] The Blockbuster Entertainment Guide to Movies & Videos gave this film its lowest possible rating and dismissed its story as "the expected demonic shenanigans".[36]

In contrast, Pauline Kael preferred Boorman's sequel to the original, writing in her review in The New Yorker that Exorcist II "had more visual magic than a dozen movies". Kim Newman commented that "Exorcist II doesn't work in all sorts of ways... However, like Ennio Morricone's mix of tribal and liturgical music, it does manage to be very interesting".[37] Director Martin Scorsese asserted: "The picture asks: Does great goodness bring upon itself great evil? This goes back to the Book of Job; it's God testing the good. In this sense, Regan (Linda Blair) is a modern-day saint — like Ingrid Bergman in Europa '51, and in a way, like Charlie in Mean Streets. 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".[38]

Author Bob McCabe's book The Exorcist: Out of the Shadows (2000) contains a chapter on the film in which Linda Blair said the movie "was one of the big disappointments of my career",[12] and John Boorman commented: "The sin I committed was not giving the audience what it wanted in terms of horror... There's this wild beast out there which is the audience. I created this arena and I just didn't throw enough Christians into it".[39] McCabe offered no one answer as to why Exorcist II failed: "Who knows where the blame ultimately lies? Boorman's illness and constant revising of the script can't have helped, but these events alone are not enough to explain the film's almighty failure. Boorman has certainly gone on to produce some fine work subsequently... When a list was compiled for The 50 Worst Movies Ever Made, Exorcist II: The Heretic came in at number two. It was beaten only by Ed Wood's Plan 9 from Outer Space, a film that generally receives a warmer response from its audience than this terribly misjudged sequel".[12]

In a 2005 interview, Boorman remarked:

It all comes down to audience expectations. The film that I made, I saw as a kind of riposte to the ugliness and darkness of The Exorcist – I wanted a film about journeys that was positive, about good, essentially. And I think that audiences, in hindsight, were right. I denied them what they wanted and they were pissed off about it – quite rightly, I knew I wasn't giving them what they wanted and it was a really foolish choice. The film itself, I think, is an interesting one – there's some good work in it – but when they came to me with it I told John Calley, who was running Warner Bros. then, that I didn't want it. "Look", I said, "I have daughters, I don't want to make a film about torturing a child", which is how I saw the original film. But then I read a three-page treatment for a sequel written by a man named William Goodhart and I was really intrigued by it because it was about goodness. I saw it then as a chance to film a riposte to the first picture. But it had one of the most disastrous openings ever – there were riots! And we recut the actual prints in the theatres, about six a day, but it didn't help of course and I couldn't bear to talk about it, or look at it, for years.[40]

As of October 2023, Exorcist II: The Heretic had an 11% rating on review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes, based on 65 reviews with an average rating of 3.6/10. The site's consensus read, "Hokey mystical effects, lousy plotting, and worse acting directly tarnishes the first's chilling legacy".[41] On Metacritic, the film has a weighted average score of 39 out of 100 based on 11 critics, indicating "generally unfavorable reviews".[42]

Exorcist II: The Heretic was originally released on VHS in the United States. The Laserdisc was exclusively released in Japan. [43] A re-issued VHS was made available in the U.S. on December 4, 1992, via Warner Home Video. It was first released on DVD format on August 6, 2002, in Snapcase packaging,[44] while a second DVD was made available in standard packaging on November 3, 2009.[45] Additionally, the film is available as part of "The Complete Anthology" set, which features all five films of the franchise and was released on DVD on October 10, 2006.[46]

The film was released for the first time on Blu-ray in both an individual set[47] and as part of the Blu-ray release of "The Complete Anthology" on September 23, 2014.[48]

Scream Factory, a subsidiary of Shout Factory, released Exorcist II: The Heretic on Blu-ray, in a newly commissioned two-disc "Collector's Edition". The set includes the theatrical cut, a shorter alternative version of the film, new interviews with Linda Blair and editor Tom Priestly as well as commentary tracks from director John Boorman and project consultant Scott Bosco. It was made available on September 25, 2018.[49] Like its predecessor and successors, it is available for online viewing-streaming video rental and permanent download though Amazon, Apple iTunes Store and Vudu.