I've seen the film many times, watched many documentaries, interviews with the cast, and analyses of the film. Despite that, I still find and uncover new things about the film from time to time. Watching it again, and I noticed something new. There's a scene where Regan's mother discovers a crucifix under her pillow. Oddly enough, this crucifix has a very small skull and cross bones on it....very interesting. Today, that's not unusual to see something like that, but back in the 70s....that's very peculiar....would anyone happen to know what the origin or significance of a cross with a skull and crossbones on it would be? Either way....this is still and has been one of my all time favorite films ever made. Discuss favorite scenes, quotes, stories of first reactions. Have at it!
Not joking, Linda Blair reprised her role in the comedy sequel "Repossessed" in 1990 with Leslie Nielsen (from the Naked Gun movies). This was more shocking than the original Exorcist movie.
I’m gonna be the heretic; but this movie is overall really fuckin’ dull. The exorcism scenes have some effective tension and Blair owns the shit out of it but overall it’s a snoozer. I was more freaked out by The Exorcism of Emily Rose.
Are we allowed to discuss Exorcist II? It's such an unusual direction to take a sequel to The Exorcist. It's interesting that a possession movie would then retroactively become a world domination plot. Using worldwide telepathy to transmit Regan's possession across the globe. Or at least that's one of the subplots I thought was going on. The meaning of the Locust hive mind.
Looked for a thread on this new Exorcist sequel that's in development but found nothing. Mods direct this post elsewhere if necessary. I recently turned a buddy on to Exorcist 3 and he's gushing over it, so I've been in a big mood for the original and 3 lately and thinking "What are they going to do with this new sequel?" Apparently it will be taking much inspiration from the Halloween reboot (phenomenal IMO). That in mind, I'm very curious but still concerned. Make no mistake, this is the greatest horror film of all time whether you want to believe that or not, but how do you recreate the raw, visceral nature of the original? In this modern era of film, I just don't know how you can make a sequel to this film (Exorcist 3 did it masterfully I feel) that can come close to being on par. I'll definitely go see it, but I don't know what to expect, except expect nothing. Sorry feller, I'm a year late on this reply. Yeah absolutely, but it is easily a horrible sequel compared to Exorcist 3, which I feel is one of the greatest sequels of all time. Exorcist 2 does have some interesting things going on it, but overall it's just lackluster and doesn't take the subject matter seriously. The movie feels way too big of a production whereas the original feels like a lower budget, simpler film.
Yeah, 3 is really good. 4 was kind of awful but had a cool concept behind it. The spot where Lucifer fell to earth? That's awesome. Someone probably would build a shrine there. I think the atmosphere when he first goes into that shrine was pretty good too. And some if the moments down there. It was as legitimately scary.
There are parts from both cuts of the prequel that are really good. The Dominion cut is way more cerebral but the production value just isn't there, the theatrical cut suffers from being over produced. If they could've used elements from both movies in one cut it would've been pretty solid I think.
Been watching the Fox TV series again. First season is pretty good, interesting plot going on (the big reveal I still remembered), some legitimately creepy moments. Started season 2, one of the plot devices just hit me dead in the face and I completely forgot about it. It is a shame this series got cancelled, there was lots of potential here.
I've seen the leaked trailer in front of Oppenheimer on reddit. I donno fellers... I'll give it a shot for sure, but this has the biggest shoes to fill.
I'm going to jump on the heretic boat with you and echo your sentiments about The Exorcist. The one time I watched it, I was bored as hell and can't figure out how it scared anybody back in the day. Although I find other possession movies like Exorcism of Emily Rose, and Amityville Horror to be rather dull as well.
Know what you mean. I saw an interview with the director once, where he said that he didn’t approach it like he was making a horror movie. He said he went in to make a drama, so it moves at a different pace, and the scares aren’t like jump scares much, and it just has a different vibe than most horror movies. And knowing all that, I still felt the pace was slow. Of course, I’ve only ever seen it once. Maybe it improves with multiple viewings. I used to think the first Halloween was dead-ass slow & boring on the first viewing. But for some reason, it kept getting better every time I saw it. And it didn’t feel as slow on repeat viewings.
I'll say this, and by no means is this a judgement on anyone's taste in film, but the modern audience today has become desensitized when it comes to, not just horror movies, but all film as well, being more akin to a snack food or something that is meant to bring instant gratification. With film in general, a "boring" movie consists of the lack of action, flashy special effects, grandiose music, in horror specifically the lack of jump scares coupled with "BOOM BAM WHAM SLAM" music or sound design, or even the missing element of an A list cast. I'll refer to Scorsese's fairly recent comments on the Marvel films, the same applies to the modern horror film (I like both Marvel and modern horror films, but he's not wrong in his criticism). If you didn't see The Exorcist at the right age or time in life, or have seen a ton of modern or even 80s to early 2000s horror films prior to it, then yeah, it's boring in comparison by default. For 1973 however, there was nothing like this at the time. It set the bar for horror. No other horror film has had the cultural impact that this film has in the genre since. Back to it being "boring", that's like saying that Schindler's List or The Shawshank Redemption is boring. The Exorcist was made, both the book and the film, with the intent of being like a documented account of real events with a very grounded atmosphere. Again, no judgement, but there's a reason why this movie is as regaled as it is.
I guess I should’ve clarified, when I said the scares aren’t like jump scares. That’s not a bad thing, & I hate it, when movies rely too much on jump scares. There are so many different ways to scare an audience, build tension, a sense of looming dread, etc, that overusing jump scares feels like lazy filmmaking. I can’t say too much about modern horror, as I’m not the horror buff I used to be. Just that my interest levels dropped as extreme gore rose. It’s like the genre forgot how to be scary & just relied on being disgusting, thinking it was the same thing. Stuff like Terrifier 2, I will never watch as it seems to exist for no reason other than to get as much gore onscreen as possible in its runtime. But back to The Exorcist, I will say there’s a difference between liking something & appreciating something. I can appreciate Pablo Picsso’s contributions to art, & understand why his work was important & how it changed what art could even be. But I don’t like his art. It’s not my thing. Same deal with Exorcist. I don’t hate it, & can absolutely appreciate it for what it is. And I cut it some slack, because I’ve only ever watched it one time about 30 years ago. I might have a different appreciation for it today. But not even the power of Christ has compelled me to watch it again. And nothing against the Exorcist- I’ve just never been big on dramas either. So stuff like Schindler’s List, Shawshank, etc.- I’ve seen them & plenty more in the drama category, & with a few exceptions, it’s not the kind of genre I’m into. Doesn’t mean they’re bad movies. Just not for me so much.
