|
Post by mrellaguru on Oct 12, 2020 2:54:25 GMT
It's not scary. It's probably scarier if you're religious and believe that demon possession is something that happens.
Also, demon possession in movies has become a huge cliche, as has the moments from the movie. Maybe it was scarier at the time when the material was fresh.
|
|
|
Post by mrellaguru on Oct 12, 2020 2:55:52 GMT
Rosemary's Baby is much creepier.
|
|
|
Post by darkreviewer2013 on Oct 12, 2020 4:01:29 GMT
It was the first major horror film to feature elaborate gore effects. And it was a lot more intense and focused that the other genre films that came before it. The naturalistic style gave it a 'realistic' feel. I can understand why it worked for audiences back in 1973. Personally, I find The Texas Chain Saw Massacre far more frightening. There’s a great compilation video of audiences’ first-reactions to the original Exorcist. They must have thought Friedkin actually caught the devil on-camera or something. I can believe it. Innocent times.
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Oct 12, 2020 4:16:50 GMT
Nope... not me. I see modern movies and compared to the Classics, in general prefer the classics. I don't think I am in the habit of sitting "there complaining about the non-existent plots of modern movies" but I have the feeling there might be a link to some random remark I may have made about a film or two somewhere or other. Thank you for clearing that up. I am sorry if I misrepresented your position. Things you have said in the past and just last week for example have heavily implied to me something different. I slightly prefer the modern era just because I am more familiar with it and was raised with it, but as I am sure you know, I am a big fan of the classic era as well. I realize that I should probably just let this die a rapid death by not posting a follow up and asking BUT .... are you referring to my comment recently about the many remakes of older films and making animated films into live action films and vice versa and the lack of new and original stories ?
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Oct 12, 2020 4:23:41 GMT
Thank you for clearing that up. I am sorry if I misrepresented your position. Things you have said in the past and just last week for example have heavily implied to me something different. I slightly prefer the modern era just because I am more familiar with it and was raised with it, but as I am sure you know, I am a big fan of the classic era as well. I realize that I should probably just let this die a rapid death by not posting a follow up and asking BUT .... are you referring to my comment recently about the many remakes of older films and making animated films into live action films and vice versa and the lack of new and original stories ? No. That I agree with. I'll try to find what you said.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Oct 12, 2020 4:27:13 GMT
Thank you for clearing that up. I am sorry if I misrepresented your position. Things you have said in the past and just last week for example have heavily implied to me something different. I slightly prefer the modern era just because I am more familiar with it and was raised with it, but as I am sure you know, I am a big fan of the classic era as well. I realize that I should probably just let this die a rapid death by not posting a follow up and asking BUT .... are you referring to my comment recently about the many remakes of older films and making animated films into live action films and vice versa and the lack of new and original stories ? Ah, here it is. Me - It is no different than the Brad Pitt eating and Tom Cruise running thing... You - Great .... TWO more things to watch for and to distract from what little plot there might be ....
youze guyz ! That seems like a general knock against modern movies to me. Answer me this - How many movies made after the year 2000 have you seen?
|
|
|
Post by moonchild on Oct 12, 2020 4:37:24 GMT
I saw it when it first came out, I was 18. It scared me so much I couldn't watch it. I think it's because I'm Catholic and I get easily scared I know Ms. Moon. The CC got most of its power by projecting fear onto people. I doubt anyone who saw The Exorcist at the original time of its release, would not have been freaked out by some aspect of it, religious or not. The film is also slow, so many may have perceived it as boring as well, like today. I read the book first. It was loud on the big screen and being young I was too freaked out to watch it. I just put my head down
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Oct 12, 2020 4:47:04 GMT
I saw it when it first came out, I was 18. It scared me so much I couldn't watch it. I think it's because I'm Catholic and I get easily scared I know Ms. Moon. The CC got most of its power by projecting fear onto people. I doubt anyone who saw The Exorcist at the original time of its release, would not have been freaked out by some aspect of it, religious or not. The film is also slow, so many may have perceived it as boring as well, like today. There are movies I find to be slow-moving. The Exorcist is NOT one of them. At all. This is all subjective, even whether a movie is slow-moving or not.
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Oct 12, 2020 4:48:47 GMT
I realize that I should probably just let this die a rapid death by not posting a follow up and asking BUT .... are you referring to my comment recently about the many remakes of older films and making animated films into live action films and vice versa and the lack of new and original stories ? Ah, here it is. Me - It is no different than the Brad Pitt eating and Tom Cruise running thing... You - Great .... TWO more things to watch for and to distract from what little plot there might be .... youze guyz ! That seems like a general knock against modern movies to me. ok ...I finally found the actual thread .... the Jack Nicholson sleeping thread which I took to have evolved into a relatively light hearted thread about things actors do in several of their movies that would have to be watched for. IMO, too many "blockbuster's" plots seem to me too often to be just complicated reasons for scenes filled with lots of action. If that's a "general knock" ... so be it !
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Oct 12, 2020 4:55:19 GMT
Ah, here it is. Me - It is no different than the Brad Pitt eating and Tom Cruise running thing... You - Great .... TWO more things to watch for and to distract from what little plot there might be .... youze guyz ! That seems like a general knock against modern movies to me. ok ...I finally found the actual thread .... the Jack Nicholson sleeping thread which I took to have evolved into a relatively light hearted thread about things actors do in several of their movies that would have to be watched for. IMO, too many "blockbuster's" plots seem to me too often to be just complicated reasons for scenes filled with lots of action. If that's a "general knock" ... so be it ! That tells me that you are watching the wrong movies. Very few of the movies I like each year have much action in them.
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Oct 12, 2020 5:47:45 GMT
The 1963 film The Demon has a spider walk scene with Daliah Lavi doing it--pretty freaking spooky. It is assumed Blatty and Friedkin saw that movie.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Oct 12, 2020 6:00:39 GMT
There are movies I find to be slow-moving. The Exorcist is NOT one of them. At all. This is all subjective, even whether a movie is slow-moving or not. I don’t mind slow movies, but if I am not invested in the characters or proceedings, I may claim them boring. The same though can be said for fast action films. I find Rambo III a bit boring, but love the second one. There is enough going on in The Exorcist to keep my attention, but I feel too detached when viewing it. I have the same opinion as yours, but with The Omen.
|
|
|
Post by dirtypillows on Oct 13, 2020 8:51:37 GMT
There are movies I find to be slow-moving. The Exorcist is NOT one of them. At all. This is all subjective, even whether a movie is slow-moving or not. I don’t mind slow movies, but if I am not invested in the characters or proceedings, I may claim them boring. The same though can be said for fast action films. I find Rambo III a bit boring, but love the second one. There is enough going on in The Exorcist to keep my attention, but I feel too detached when viewing it. That's how I feel about the movie. The elements of horror don't compell me (!), but there are other things about the movie that do.
|
|
|
Post by dirtypillows on Oct 13, 2020 9:00:23 GMT
That's always rubbed me the wrong way, too. Particularly with the smaller budget films. I've always liked Pauline Kael, but as I get older, I do find her to be a bit of a jerk at times. She can be perceptive as witty, but sometimes she's just nasty. The thing that irks me the most about her is that she acts all offended when somebody calls her out, but has zero problem doing so to others. The professional critics were perhaps a necessary evil at one stage and their reviews could make or break a movie. Thing is, they were professional due to their journalistic skills and passion for cinema, doesn’t mean that they were a voice of reason. Each individual is their own best and worst critic and I myself have changed my opinions at times. I know I have lightened up a bit and plenty of what I used to deride, I can obtain more pleasure out of them compared to the critically lauded films for supposedly having a stronger sense of art and professionalism due to coming out of the big studio system. The Exorcist is a prime example, compared to the already mentioned original TTCM. Have you seen an Italian rip-off of The Exorcist called The Antichrist - 74’ aka The Tempter Mr. Dirty? I would rather watch this one and the possession aspect is defined more clearly. No, I haven't seen it; though I did have to look it up as I have seen ANOTHER "Exorcist" ripoff that also came out of Italy in 1974. But the one I saw was "Beyond the Door", which starred the British actress Juliet Mills. It was okay.
|
|
|
Post by petrolino on Oct 13, 2020 18:58:29 GMT
I only get bent out of shape when armchair critics (which is all of us) dismiss the hard-fought work of artists with no reasonable justification for their views. That's always rubbed me the wrong way, too. Particularly with the smaller budget films. I've always liked Pauline Kael, but as I get older, I do find her to be a bit of a jerk at times. She can be perceptive as witty, but sometimes she's just nasty. The thing that irks me the most about her is that she acts all offended when somebody calls her out, but has zero problem doing so to others. You and moviemouth have good hearts. Best of luck to you both.
"Just keep repeating yourself ... it's only a movie ... it's only a movie ..."
|
|
|
Post by dwightmachinehead on Oct 13, 2020 19:47:04 GMT
It's a common boast these days for people to laugh at the Exorcist. I never found it funny, I thought it was chilling. The effects look a little dated, still looks good for practical effects. It's told in a realistic way with Friedkin's documentary style of direction. It's good psychological horror. You don't need to be religious to dig the story, at its essence it's good Vs evil. It's a total classic.
|
|
|
Post by shannondegroot on Oct 13, 2020 21:16:05 GMT
|
|
|
Post by phantomparticle on Oct 14, 2020 0:03:07 GMT
Hubris is a wonderful thing, ain't it?
Of course you aren't frightened of The Exorcist, especially after watching any number of blood splattered, gore movies dished out by Hollywood in the last couple of decades.
People in the 1950's weren't frightened of the 1925 Phantom of the Opera or the Universal classics of the 1930's either, although when they were new they scared the popcorn out of everyone.
I can assure you audiences who saw The Exorcist in 1973 were petrified because nothing like it had ever been seen on the screen before. I was in the second line to see the film. When the first audience came out of the theatre in dead silence, looking like they had just been lobotomized, a lot of people in my line were having second thoughts about going in.
You didn't say where you saw The Exorcist, but I bet it wasn't in a movie theatre where you had no idea what was coming up and where the reaction of the crowd goes a long way toward how you see the movie. I would guess it was on video in the comfort of your home and with friends. How could anyone expect a 47 year old movie to scare them under those conditions?
This boast about The Exorcist being overrated and boring comes up every so often, and always by those who didn't see it when it was new. Future generations will say the same thing about horror movies of today. I'm sure someone somewhere is posting The Blair Witch Project is overrated and not scary at all.
You can like The Exorcist or you can hate it, but at least give it the acknowledgement that it was a groundbreaking, influential movie that paved the way for the slasher cycle that has lasted to this day.
|
|
|
Post by dirtypillows on Oct 14, 2020 0:13:59 GMT
Hubris is a wonderful thing, ain't it? Of course you aren't frightened of The Exorcist, especially after watching any number of blood splattered, gore movies dished out by Hollywood in the last couple of decades. People in the 1950's weren't frightened of the 1925 Phantom of the Opera or the Universal classics of the 1930's either, although when they were new they scared the popcorn out of everyone. I can assure you audiences who saw The Exorcist in 1973 were petrified because nothing like it had ever been seen on the screen before. I was in the second line to see the film. When the first audience came out of the theatre in dead silence, looking like they had just been lobotomized, a lot of people in my line were having second thoughts about going in. You didn't say where you saw The Exorcist, but I bet it wasn't in a movie theatre where you had no idea what was coming up and where the reaction of the crowd goes a long way toward how you see the movie. I would guess it was on video in the comfort of your home and with friends. How could anyone expect a 47 year old movie to scare them under those conditions? This boast about The Exorcist being overrated and boring comes up every so often, and always by those who didn't see it when it was new. Future generations will say the same thing about horror movies of today. I'm sure someone somewhere is posting The Blair Witch Project is overrated and not scary at all. You can like The Exorcist or you can hate it, but at least give it the acknowledgement that it was a groundbreaking, influential movie that paved the way for the slasher cycle that has lasted to this day. I'm not sure who you're talking to, but for me, the fact that "The Exorcist" is a somewhat older movie has no bearing on the fact that I don't find it scary in the least. I have always said that "The Innocents" is the most frightening movie I have ever seen and that came out in 1961. No blood, no gore, no violence... This masterpiece unfolds entirely within the imagination.
|
|
|
Post by Stammerhead on Oct 14, 2020 0:14:55 GMT
I think it works very well during the low-key sections and loses it during the “shock” sections. The human factor of the story has more of a effect on me now than it did when I saw it at the cinema back during the 1970s and that’s why I like it more than I did then.
It also has some great quotable lines but then so does Exorcist 2 but for different reasons.
|
|