April 10: Seagal vs. Von Sydow — One is a laughable martial artist. The other is a beloved acting legend. You choose whose movie you watch; it’s both of their birthdays.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Adam Hursey is a pharmacist specializing in health informatics by day, but his true passion is cinema. His current favorite films are Back to the Future, Stop Making Sense, and In the Mood for Love. He has written articles for Film East and The Physical Media Advocate, primarily examining older films through the lens of contemporary perspectives. He is usually found on Letterboxd, where he mainly writes about horror and exploitation films. You can follow him on Letterboxd or Instagram at ashursey. His April Movie Thon list is here.

I’ve seen so many rip-offs of The Exorcist over the years (or, if I want to be nicer, I will refer to these films as cash grabs): Abby, The Antichrist, Magdalena Possessed by the Devil, The Return of the Exorcist, Beyond the Door. The list goes on and on. And it is definitely one of my favorite sub-subgenres of exploitation films.

I had never seen Exorcist II: The Heretic before. I heard it was not good. Why should I let the opinions of others stop me? I do believe that films come to me at the correct time. While there may never be a time where I think it is a masterpiece, Exorcist II is so weird that I have to respect it. It may be the closest a mainstream American film ever got to emulating an Italian horror film. 

The idea of using a sequel to capitalize on the success of an earlier film was nothing new of course. Sequels had been around for a while in one shape or form, really taking off in the 1970s. We covered the “get me another” trend earlier this month. But Hollywood does not necessarily buy into the “success breeds success” mantra. It is more like, “let’s see how little money we can put into a second film and maximize the profits on name recognition alone”. 

Almost no one involved in The Exorcist wanted anything to do with the sequel. Lawsuits had already been filed over credits and profits. The producers of the sequel wanted to spend about $3 million dollars on the film (it ended up closer to $14 million, more than the budget of the original film). Linda Blair is back (although she was not down for getting that make up done again–a double was used). As is the prolific Max von Sydow as Father Merrin, in an even more diminished role. Richard Burton dons the cassock as a priest struggling with his faith. And Louise Fletcher, fresh off of her Academy Award win for Best Actress, plays a doctor with some peculiar methods.

Nothing makes sense in Exorcist II. But that aspect is what kind of makes the film great. Great is a strong word. Memorable? Pseudo-science abounds as Fletcher’s character Dr. Gene Tuskin uses some sort of flashing light, high to low tones, and brain wave measurements to “synchronize” with Regan. When Burton’s priest character Father Lamont connects with Regan, he finds the demon Pazuzu still within her. From there, we are treated to a whole lot of nonsense, including but not limited to James Earl Jones dressed up like a locust, Father Merrin’s African adventures, and a return to the MacNeil residence in Georgetown.

I was so taken back by what transpires that I almost feel like I need to watch the film again immediately with a different perspective. I can only imagine what audiences were thinking when they left the theater in 1977 after watching this one. Well, I’m sure they were thinking it was utter garbage. I’m trying to think of a modern comparison for such a change in tone from a blockbuster film and its sequel. The only one that comes to mind is The Blair Witch Project and Book of Shadows: Blair Witch II.

If nothing else, Exorcist II tries something rather than simply retreading the original story. Something films of today could attempt. I’m looking at you, Scream 7.