|
Post by bravomailer on Feb 24, 2018 21:13:13 GMT
Max von Sydow, great as a man who might not be a fanatic as he seems. Oddly, Sydow plays a rather old man in the film. Forty-five years later, he's still with us!
|
|
|
Post by teleadm on Feb 24, 2018 21:20:52 GMT
Can one say that this was one of the first movies that took the Devil Seriously??? As is usual with older movies it takes it's time to tell it's story, in fact establishing a story before the first hints that something is wrong makes it more creepy. Lee J. Cobb was a marvelous choice to use as the we (We as in doubting ) is this really happening? (Great old charachter actor by the way). Max von Sydow, great as a man who might not be a fanatic as he seems. Lee J Cobb gives the best performance – by far.
|
|
|
Post by petrolino on Feb 25, 2018 0:56:42 GMT
This scene from The Exorcist extended cut made me jump, having seen the original version multiple times, it was a real thrill to see it and be surprised again. That's incredible.
|
|
|
Post by petrolino on Feb 25, 2018 1:00:38 GMT
Can one say that this was one of the first movies that took the Devil Seriously??? As is usual with older movies it takes it's time to tell it's story, in fact establishing a story before the first hints that something is wrong makes it more creepy. There were European horrors and supernatural dramas that took the devil and possession seriously but this might have changed the game for the Hollywood studios. William Friedkin was influenced by films like Jerzy Kawalerowicz's 'Mother Joan Of The Angels' (1961) and Brunello Rondi's 'The Demon' (1963).
|
|
|
Post by teleadm on Feb 25, 2018 1:10:27 GMT
Can one say that this was one of the first movies that took the Devil Seriously??? As is usual with older movies it takes it's time to tell it's story, in fact establishing a story before the first hints that something is wrong makes it more creepy. There were European horrors and supernatural dramas that took the devil and possession seriously but this might have changed the game for the Hollywood studios. William Friedkin was influenced by films like Jerzy Kawalerowicz's 'Mother Joan Of The Angels' (1961) and Brunello Rondi's 'The Demon' (1963). Good points that I hadn't thought about
|
|
|
Post by teleadm on Feb 25, 2018 1:24:16 GMT
Brunello Rundi Il Diavolo really looks creapy
|
|
|
Post by petrolino on Feb 25, 2018 1:28:07 GMT
Brunello Rundi Il Diavolo really looks creapy It is. Rondi was a great writer who became an interesting director, remaining fiercely intellectual in any context. He was a key associate of realist Roberto Rosselini and surrealist Federico Fellini which suggests his range.
|
|
|
Post by pimpinainteasy on Feb 25, 2018 5:38:21 GMT
Friedkin creates this very normal and upper class liberal American milieu - the last place where you would imagine an exorcism to take place. He does this through a lot of character build up. It is to his credit that he did not leave out any of the characters in the book like the immigrant housekeepers or the alcoholic movie director. You would think something like a demon invasion or exorcism would never happen to such happy, rich, normal and successful people. The characters are the sort you would find in a Woody Allen film and into this milieu enters Demon Pasusu. Hence, Chris' (Ellen Burstyn) shock at the gradual changes that her daughter undergoes is very believable.
Secondly, Friedkin manages to portray the limitations of science (in the form of the doctors) in a very scathing manner - the doctors come across as completely banal with their ridiculous explanations as to why Regan (Linda Blair) is going crazy. Through this compelling negation of scientific explanations for Regan's condition, Friedkin lends credence to the presence of an unexplainable evil.
Demon Pasusu's antics are scary but Friedkin only shows us some of it. In fact, he does not even show some of it, it is only when the doctor tells Chris that her daughter has been using foul language that we realize that something is seriously wrong with Regan. The impact of Pasusu on Regan's personality is very gradual. It is one of the best build ups in a horror film.
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Feb 25, 2018 8:53:14 GMT
The thing with the Hollywood-backed Devil movies (starting with perhaps 1964's Witchcraft or 1966 Eye of the Devil) is that it is never a clearcut destruction of evil. The hero fails in some fashion (the Devil Rides Out would be an exception but that wasn't made with any big Hollywood ties from what I gather).
The Devil wins in some way-usually by taking a good character or we are left with the message that maybe the Devil didn't lose after all. Rosemary's Baby for example.
And though evil seems to be destroyed in the Exorcist it comes by the deaths of the two main good guys.
Similar situation with Fox's The Legend of Hell House btw-the two strong characters on opposite sides of the ghost debate are the sacrifices (though, the whisper of Pamela Franklin's voice as the house is cleared of Belasco's presence suggests she was more comfortable with the outcome than Clive Revell's secular skeptic).
|
|
|
Post by pimpinainteasy on Feb 25, 2018 13:34:28 GMT
i rewatched it again today. what a spectacular film. washington city is beautifully evoked with all those old buildings (i am not knowledgeable enough to comment on the architecture). the immaculate and cosy mcneil residence is another highlight.
the rich characterization is what really separates THE EXORICST from other horror films. there are so many great characters - the tortured father karras. his relationship with his mother and inability to take good care of her breaks your heart. lee j cobb as the lonely but observant lieutenant is memorable. why did william o malley work in just one film? the film works not just as a horror film but also as a great drama.
it is truly genius material by blatty that reached the hands of a genius filmmaker like friedkin.
(10/10)
|
|
|
Post by pimpinainteasy on Feb 25, 2018 14:00:49 GMT
wow. now what was her problem?
|
|
|
Post by pimpinainteasy on Mar 1, 2018 3:19:25 GMT
what do you guys think about the film's editing? i like how many of the scenes end rather abruptly. it sort of heightened the tension, mystery and feeling of dread. the film is a collection of short but tremendously powerful disturbing scenes.
|
|
|
Post by petrolino on Mar 2, 2018 11:32:56 GMT
what do you guys think about the film's editing? i like how many of the scenes end rather abruptly. it sort of heightened the tension, mystery and feeling of dread. the film is a collection of short but tremendously powerful disturbing scenes. I think the editing reflects William Friedkin's work in documentary filmmaking. There's a fly-on-the-wall aspect to the storytelling methodology. A year earlier, 'The Last House On The Left' (1972) used an arresting, fractured editing style, partly inspired by the director Wes Craven's work as an in-house editor at a New York documentary house. More and more we'd witness a grounded documentary base developing alongside flourishing psychedelic embellishments to fashion a wave of visceral, hyperreal, socially-conscious, politically-minded North American horror products in the 1970s.
|
|
|
Post by petrolino on Oct 14, 2020 0:47:04 GMT
Mark Kermode on 'The Exorcist' ...
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Oct 14, 2020 1:31:12 GMT
It's a testament to Dick Smith's makeup work that people think Max Von Sydow was really that old (although I watched a 1965 movie he did and he seemed really old in that one too).
The Demon 1963 has a creepy atmosphere--the "spider walk" exorcism performed by Daliah Lavi is unsettling. In a way the opening scene in Iraq is similar to sequences in the Demon with the desert-like atmosphere and deserted streets.
|
|
|
Post by petrolino on Oct 14, 2020 2:24:31 GMT
William Peter Blatty was a catholic.
|
|
|
Post by TheGoodMan19 on Oct 14, 2020 20:40:41 GMT
The power of Christ compels you
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Oct 14, 2020 20:47:05 GMT
I watched this movie when i was 18 in 2001, i had been told it was the scariest movie of all time
The movie is not scary at all.
|
|
|
Post by petrolino on Oct 16, 2020 18:06:03 GMT
I watched this movie when i was 18 in 2001, i had been told it was the scariest movie of all time The movie is not scary at all.
There's a good thread on Film General debunking that this "overrated" comedy film is in the least bit scary. Must have been one of those 1970s conspiracies.
|
|
|
Post by TheOriginalPinky on Oct 16, 2020 23:25:10 GMT
Ah, the movie I love to hate! I recall reading the book when it came out, and it is one of the very few books that actually terrified me. When I heard a movie was coming out, I vowed that I wouldn't watch it. While visiting friends for a weekend in south Jersey, they wanted to go to a movie. They tricked me into going, sending one person up to the box office to purchase tickets purportedly for another movie while the remaining three of us waited. I didn't know we were seeing The Exorcist until we got in front of the door to the Triple Plex (something new back then). The literally had to drag me in. I was so pissed!!! But I sat through it. It's one of those films you watch with your hands over your eyes because it's so realistic, it's horrifying. Scared me like crazy! What I love about it is the understated realistic manner in which the characters behave. And the pacing bringing you forward to the terror is the best, bar none! What I hate about it is that it STILL can scare me silly, and I don't scare easily. A very powerful film! Sadly, Linda Blair could never break from that role, and never really made it big. But what a ride!!!
|
|