It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

If people have more spirituality, they would have understood this movie much better ! But all they want is more special effect and that all ! This movie is profound, deep. To understand it, you have to have faith ! This thing append every day in this time of Babylon. Evil is everywhere ! But, the church have fail to guide this children and fall for evil herself ! But, for those who understand, this movie is "real", "true" ! It's not about special effect anymore like the first. Is about evil spirits who are legion on earth. One day, they will understand. But like often, too late. Be bless.

There's no need to elaborate on the why's or how's: The Exorcist II The Heretic is just the beginning of what would plague the cinemas for years to come: unoriginal, money-driven heaps that pay no mind to the originators & creators of the source material. Take every nonsense trope from your typical 70's soap opera or sci-fi and throw in Linda Blair and you get well.. to be honest I completely forgot what even happens in the film. I remember a POV of a locust (?) and a possessed native African man speaking English "I AM PAZUZU." ... um are you serious? God what a heap. It's like General Hospital with an exorcism theme and a few million dollars to blow. I honestly wish this project never existed. Fortunately, most people don't even know it exists.

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.