Exorcist II: The Heretic - Reception

Reception

The Heretic was a major disappointment at the box office. The film grossed $30,749,142 in the United States, turning a profit but still disappointing in comparison to the original film's gross.

The film received generally negative response. Reports indicated that the film inspired audience laughter at its premiere in New York. William Peter Blatty claimed to have been the first person to start laughing at the theater at which he saw the film, only to be followed by the other patrons ("You'd think we were watching The Producers"). William Friedkin, director of The Exorcist, 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."

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." Leonard Maltin described the film as a "preposterous sequel...Special effects are the only virtue in this turkey." Danny Peary dismissed Exorcist II as "absurd."

However, Pauline Kael greatly 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." 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."

Author Bob McCabe's book The Exorcist: Out of the Shadows contains a chapter on the film in which Linda Blair said the movie "was one of the big disappointments of my career," and John Boorman confessed that "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." McCabe himself 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." In contrast to calling the original film his favourite film of all time, British film critic Mark Kermode has frequently stated that the sequel is the worst film ever made.

In a 2005 interview, John 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."