TL;DR
Exorcist II is not a bad movie but a bold experiment made with enormous ambition and resources, whose failure and value both stem from that risk, and it deserves reappraisal.
When John Boorman's 'Exorcist II' hit theaters in 1977, it was savaged as one of the worst sequels ever. But a new documentary, 'Boorman and the Devil,' offers another take: this was a gifted director's experimental critique of the original, a product of Hollywood's wild ambitions—and it deserves a second look.
1. Misunderstood Ambition
'Exorcist II' is no ordinary sequel; Boorman reimagined the possession tale as a metaphysical fever dream. Audiences expected horror and got visual and philosophical audacity. Filmmaker Kittredge argues this departure is precisely its value.
2. A Gamble Behind the Scenes
Warner Bros. gave Boorman their biggest budget ever and let him stray far from the original. This was part of a pattern: '1941' and 'Heaven's Gate' were similar bets by great directors. Kittredge argues that without such crazy gambles, cinema's new possibilities would never emerge.
3. Why Re-evaluate?
'Exorcist II' offers a progressive message—science and religion work together, women are empowered—unlike the original's conservative patriarchy. Kittredge insists: to get masterpieces, you must tolerate geniuses potentially failing. This film's ambition and risk are exactly why it deserves another look.
Curated from high-quality sources, with concise summaries and key takeaways.
