Exorcist II: The Heretic (1977)

Director: John Boorman

Cast: Linda Blair, Richard Burton, Louise Fletcher, Max von Sydow

Have I Seen it Before: Never.

Did I Like It: And why did I see it now? This is the truly unfortunate reality of the current streaming age. I watched the theatrical cut of The Exorcist (1973) on Max, and then saw that the sequel was right there waiting for me. I had never seen it, already paid for it, and wanted to keep the good feelings going. I was somewhat aware of the film’s reputation, but it couldn’t have been that bad. Right?

Right?!

Well, let me tell you.

Far be it for me to overly rely on comparisons to Star Trek films, but the comparison just bowls me over here. Sometimes, you bring in a director for a sequel that is detached from what came before who found things he genuinely liked about the series, like Nicholas Meyer in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982), and things work out great. Sometimes you bring in a similar director who couldn’t be bothered to give one shit about the source material, like Stuart Baird in Star Trek: Nemesis (2002), and things wind up disappointing, at best.

Here, Boorman had gone on record hating the film so much that he even tried to convince Warner Bros. not to make it or release it. The contempt not only plays, but permeates the entire movie. What we’re offered is a hodgepodge of weak characters (including those returning), glacial pacing, terrible special effects*, all head together by the weak glue of new age junk of the worst sort.

Avoid the film at all costs. Also, why the hell is it called The Heretic?

*After this and Jurassic World Dominion (2022), we should really make a rule that the instant movie sequels bring locusts into the proceedings, the whole film ought to be re-considered.

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966)

Director: Mike Nichols

Cast: Elizabeth Taylor, Richard Burton, George Segal, Sandy Dennis

Have I Seen it Before: Never.

Did I Like It: You know, kind of? 

I never really had any interest in the work of Elizabeth Taylor. I think because as she became more well known for her marriages than her acting, the pictures fell by the wayside. If you’re born after 1980, she’s just that lady that was in the perfume commercials and showed up in The Flintstones (1994)*.

So, it’s to my enduring surprise she (and Richard Burton for that matter) could be in a movie so deceptively simple, and so watchable. Maybe Cleopatra (1963) is actually worth a watch? For that matter, the forging of a real movie couple usually spells certain doom for the watchability of a film, but in this context it’s hard not to believe the long stretches of fury punctuated by intermittent moments of something resembling affection. It has to be hard to forge a play written to within an inch of its life into something like pseudo-documentary, but I’m struggling to think of an instance where Mike Nichols fell short of making a great film.

His skills at theatrical adaptation are unparalleled, too. I recently watched Glengarry Glen Ross (1992) and was struck by the fact that very little was done to the source material, almost to the point where the film becomes a filmed stage performance. In this film, however, the camera bobs and weaves through the setting, elevating things beyond their origin. I almost feel like a clandestine voyeur to these people and their lives, hiding behind what is happening. It’s a much more theatrical experience than just placing the camera on a tripod and hoping everything will work out.

* I’ve never been more convinced that my generation was full of crap than when I just typed that sentence.