MovieChat Forums > Exorcist II: The Heretic (1977) Discussion > The Film's only Worthwhile Part

The Film's only Worthwhile Part

posted 10 years ago by bastasch8647
6 replies | jump to latest

... which is the "Merrin in Africa" sequence, although even as it stands, it is far too brief.

The photography is superb as is Max Von Sydow as the young Merrin.

The sequence contains the film's theological meat. Observing the young shaman Kokumo as the boy attempts to drive away the locust swarm, Merrin speculates, "or does the swarm come because of the boy ...? ... Does great goodness draw evil to itself ...?"

A nice, thought-provoking theological query, embedded in primal images of locusts swarming in a red-sun-dominated African lancscape. Truly worthy Exorcist material.

But then it sinks into the rest of the film's arbitrary quirkiness and mediocrity. The single, brief but great African sequence cannot save this film, unfortunately.

[–] ElectricWarlock 10 years ago

I still think the entire movie is worthwhile. But then again, I love weird, quirky films.

Burn, witch! Burn, witch! Burn! Burn! Burn!

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Edward_de_Vere 10 years ago

Apart from the ludicrous scene with James Earl Jones in a locust costume, most of the Africa material (both the scenes with Merrin and Lamont at the Coptic Rite) offered a pleasant break from the film's unintentional campiness.

I doubt that the Ethiopian Coptic Rite was portrayed very accurately (I'd still like to know if they really use a human form for the Host), but I liked its surreal quality and the look on Lamont's face as a fish out of water, trying to make sense of a ritual that is Christian but nevertheless completely alien to Catholicism and western Christendom in general.

[–] secondeye-877-487216 10 years ago

I don't think I've seen this film in 15 years so I'd have to watch it again objectively, but I always loved the original, and just avoided the sequels because I always heard how horrible they are..

Then one day, stuck at home alone, nothing on the tube but this.. I watched it.. I was actually entertained. I'd never call it a good movie, but it at least captivated me for the 2 hours it was on or whatever, and I do remember some scenes being fairly creep and scary to the point of the original, but yes, the metaphysical mumbo jumbo and acting was a bit of a turn off.

Exorcist 3 on the other hand, now that's just a cult classic. You can't compare it to the original, but if you compare it to the horror genre, it's fantastic, and has one of the scariest scenes in cinema of all time. (The hospital knife scene)

[–] ChillerPop 8 years ago

You may not like the rest of the film, but it is never, EVER, mediocre. The "bad" parts, such as they are, are amazingly epic and original even in their badness!

[–] apriloish 8 years ago

actually the films only saving grace is linda blairs body jk