The Exorcist: The Complete Anthology (1973-2005)

[AllOuttaBubbleGum]

Originally Posted by balthazar_bee

The conversation, as well executed as it is, undermines the tension that exists between their two approaches. Karras's "Why this girl?" means he's deferring to Merrin already, and I don't think that's necessary the most satisfying move for the story at that point. I mean, if you look at Karras's face in the theatrical version, he's still looking pretty grim and resolved.

Great point. That whole dialog feels audience centered to me, as though Blatty worried that if he didn't do some hand-holding, he'd lose the crowd. I imagine there was some concern--not warranted in the theatrical cut--that if the possession sequence was too harrowing, if people were left baffled, rattled and groping...the whole enterprise would be dismissed as pointless shock-jockery. And so Blatty has Merrin--as though opening a story book--dispel the evocative power of the narrative with a nuts and bolts deconstruction of the evil aims, charting a clear moral path for himself and Karras. In this version, Karras doesn't find his faith again so much as have it telegraphed to him.

I'm glad the scene was restored to the extended version, if only for serving as a lesson in the power of a single editorial decision...and the consequences of re-thinking it.

[Rich65]

Originally Posted by balthazar_bee

"It is not. In the file. It is NOT!!!"

That is awesome, But I love the carp story early in the film, I don't think Ed Flanders reactions were scripted.I just watched Exorcist III over the weekend and I still cracked up at that scene.

[#Darren]

Originally Posted by ditcin

It was much later, from the 80s on that laughter was part of the audience experience - along with that was the pot smoking too.
I suppose that says it all.

I think it does. I think a lot of the people who find this film funny are of low intelligence and sort of disturbed types. They say young people are desensitised, but there is a fine line between desensitised and borderline sociopathic.

[Impossible]

I first watched this with my Dad when I was like 13 and we both laughed out loud in a few spots, but I then didn't sleep for about a week after. Some people laugh when they don't know how to process something so shocking, it doesn't make them a bloody sociopath FFS.

I didn't watch it again until I was in my 20's and it scared the crap out of me then.

[#Darren]

Originally Posted by Impossible

I first watched this with my Dad when I was like 13 and we both laughed out loud in a few spots, but I then didn't sleep for about a week after. Some people laugh when they don't know how to process something so shocking, it doesn't make them a bloody sociopath FFS.

I didn't watch it again until I was in my 20's and it scared the crap out of me then.

That's why I didn't quote comments on those that laugh because they are uncomfortable. Because I was not referring to those individuals. I was referring to the rest...

[GasmaskAvenger]

I'm not a religious person but I can't take anyone seriously if they say The Exorcist is not scary or isn't a fantastic movie.

Sure it's starting to get up there in age but even a non-religious person like me does get scared by the film purely on a visceral level of the random Captain Howdy inserts, the various nightmarish visuals present in both cuts of the movie, the downright gritty, documentary like aesthetic and the entire concept of one's loss of identity and physical deterioration, which predates much of David Cronenberg's body horror by several years.

Hell, even if you eventually don't find the film to be scaring you that much anyone, you cannot help but notice the top notch production work on the film, ranging from the excellent acting, to Friedkin's direction, to Owen Roizman's chilly cinematography, to the late Dick Smith's horrific, mind melting make-up effects work and all the way down to the excellent script by William Peter Blatty, who also manages to make some memorable dialogue in some of the non-scary moments (which would stand out and become even more prevalent and more memorable in his subsequent films "The Ninth Configuration" and "Exorcist III: Legion").

The Exorcist has definitely earned the right to be a classic among both secular and religious viewers alike and nothing can take that away, not even some immature chuckleheads who probably don't give a damn about the art of cinema.

[Impossible]

Originally Posted by #Darren

That's why I didn't quote comments on those that laugh because they are uncomfortable. Because I was not referring to those individuals. I was referring to the rest...

It's the same thing at the end of the day. Some were probably shocked by the language, some by what was going on. It's perfectly understandable for people to laugh when they are shocked or sitting with a bunch of idiot mates clowning around while watching a movie.

Some of the over the top reactions to it on the last few pages are far more sociopathic.

[TwelveVacancies]

Noticed a goof in the subtitles for Exorcist: The Beginning...

[#Darren]

Originally Posted by Impossible

It's the same thing at the end of the day. Some were probably shocked by the language, some by what was going on. It's perfectly understandable for people to laugh when they are shocked or sitting with a bunch of idiot mates clowning around while watching a movie.

Some of the over the top reactions to it on the last few pages are far more sociopathic.

The comments being responded to in this thread include people saying they found it "hilarious."

[Xen11]

Originally Posted by ditcin

I won't know until I receive my copy but the color timing, going by the ones posted here, for THE HERETIC look off. I know this film extremely well. The two shots of Regan posted seems to show a complete drain in color and it's off. There were very clear flesh tone as in the DVD theatrically. I've owned every edition of this film from Beta/VHS to DVD and there the shot posted is wrong - as if it were lit by today's standards.
I will have to wait to actually compare.
I even have original theatrical 35mm trailers and that color has really never been captured. The worse part is an artificial orange tint that has been added to the "flying" sequences in Africa that were never there theatrically or on original Beta/VHS releases - or a Japanese Laser Edition.
Boorman was extremely specific in terms of color. He make color keys for his film denoting which color were portrayed. He later went further in the lab during the processing to create a tone that would be part of the negative.
For THE HERETIC he pushed out, as much as he could greens, and blues feeling these color are found in nature and create a natural tone - by negating these color as much as possible would create a psychological effect of nature being off balance and create a un-natural air. He even went as far to muddy down the then blue tops of NYC bus's in the background in the Manhattan scenes, as stayed away from dressing Regan in Blue jeans, though popular with teens of the day.
In the ending, flashes of blue light come into play interrupting the color scheme professing Regan's power over evil and the return of a balance within nature, of good over evil.
I spoke with Boorman several times in the past about this film and his work, Zardoz and Excalibur and the connection these film have concerning man's struggle with both inner nature and disconnection with nature.
Excalibur is another of his film's controlled by color and as man disconnects with nature foliage is less green and the sky becomes grey. As Arthur is reclaims his kingdom the land thrives and color returns.
Both THE HERETIC AND EXCALIBUR examine man's spiritual connection with the earth/land and God his film Zardoz deals with man's disconnection with nature by way of science and pit falls of that society.
There are hints of this scene in THE HERETIC as science vs religion are proposed via the synchronizer vs spiritualism. The machine does through science what a medium would do naturally. However, this is why Merrin is considered a heretic since he to proposed we as a race were evolving into superior beings that would develop into a one mind spiritually. Evolution is a theory of science not religion.
Boorman's scenarios are ambitious, but his narrative structure betrays these themes and place the audience, if not challenges them to piece together a puzzle much hidden, almost subliminal; and can at times get lost in suggested theme.
His style is more artistic and certainly not bankable nor pedestrian. More art house than multi-plex.

I'm guessing you've actually seen the blu-ray now. Forgive me if you already posted, but is it good or is it what you feared?
Are the colors as they should be?

[ditcin]

Originally Posted by Xen11

I'm guessing you've actually seen the blu-ray now. Forgive me if you already posted, but is it good or is it what you feared?
Are the colors as they should be?

It's a mixed bag - the tint is there, not as intense as The previous DVD release. Truthfully, I think that portion if the negative has aged diffidently due the multiple passes for optical shots. The flying scenes and later towards the end when the locust is shown there is a degrade in image PQ/color.
The rest of the film the time seems fine just overall darker than it should be. If you turn up the brightness it starts to corrupt the black level. WB chose a lower bit rate which limits the spectrum of how the color and details are displayed. A higher and variable bit works better for lower lit films with softer photography. Otherwise they can look unclear and muddy. It becomes vicious cycle to balance the image when the bit rate is too low and not variable - the image struggles when contrast and gama are used to compensate only bringing up more grain.
It isn't as good as it can be and I have seen different transfers by way if digital download /rental.
Truthfully I think someone used an older HD master not a newer one.

[Xen11]

Originally Posted by ditcin

It's a mixed bag - the tint is there, not as intense as The previous DVD release. Truthfully, I think that portion if the negative has aged diffidently due the multiple passes for optical shots. The flying scenes and later towards the end when the locust is shown there is a degrade in image PQ/color.
The rest of the film the time seems fine just overall darker than it should be. If you turn up the brightness it starts to corrupt the black level. WB chose a lower bit rate which limits the spectrum of how the color and details are displayed. A higher and variable bit works better for lower lit films with softer photography. Otherwise they can look unclear and muddy. It becomes vicious cycle to balance the image when the bit rate is too low and not variable - the image struggles when contrast and gama are used to compensate only bringing up more grain.
It isn't as good as it can be and I have seen different transfers by way if digital download /rental.
Truthfully I think someone used an older HD master not a newer one.

Thank you for your insights. I look forward to this film. I've never seen it. I don't expect to hate it like most people. I love films that use actual storytelling via imagery/symbolism/subtext/metaphor/allegory.

[lolwut]

Originally Posted by stvn1974

I also don't find Some Like It Hot to be funny and most critics consider it to be the funniest movie of all time. Does that make me even more immature?

No, but saying the entire film is hilarious (funnier than Some Like It Hot) makes me not take your opinion seriously.

[NoirFan]

Originally Posted by TwelveVacancies

Noticed a goof in the subtitles for Exorcist: The Beginning...

Sarah is possessed by the demonic Susan!

[The Peanut Monkey]

Originally Posted by SymbioticFunction

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...postcount=2188

I like how that post ignores absolutely all the intricacies and separate, intertwining debate from people and instead just completely groups everybody perceived as 'easily offended' together. That's how you do it. I still don't get the "EXCORCEEST IS TEH FUNNIES" attitude. Well done?

[Dylan34]

The Exorcist is so far beyond not funny that it's not even funny. LOL its a great film that came from a great novel, that had great storytelling and acting. Damn, it was nominated for 10 Academy Awards ( none of them for best comedy might I add). A great " supernatural detective story" as Blatty would say.

[TwelveVacancies]

Originally Posted by NoirFan

Sarah is possessed by the demonic Susan!

Suzuzu.




(that was bad)

[deltatauhobbit]

Originally Posted by GasmaskAvenger

I'm not a religious person but I can't take anyone seriously if they say The Exorcist is not scary or isn't a fantastic movie.

Sure it's starting to get up there in age but even a non-religious person like me does get scared by the film purely on a visceral level of the random Captain Howdy inserts, the various nightmarish visuals present in both cuts of the movie, the downright gritty, documentary like aesthetic and the entire concept of one's loss of identity and physical deterioration, which predates much of David Cronenberg's body horror by several years.

Hell, even if you eventually don't find the film to be scaring you that much anyone, you cannot help but notice the top notch production work on the film, ranging from the excellent acting, to Friedkin's direction, to Owen Roizman's chilly cinematography, to the late Dick Smith's horrific, mind melting make-up effects work and all the way down to the excellent script by William Peter Blatty, who also manages to make some memorable dialogue in some of the non-scary moments (which would stand out and become even more prevalent and more memorable in his subsequent films "The Ninth Configuration" and "Exorcist III: Legion").

The Exorcist has definitely earned the right to be a classic among both secular and religious viewers alike and nothing can take that away, not even some immature chuckleheads who probably don't give a damn about the art of cinema.

I remember watching it when I was younger and I didn't find it scary, I'm not religious so I wasn't sacrilegiously shocked by it either. Not the type of horror film that scares me I guess. Probably the most scared I ever got during a film would be when I first watched The Thing around 9 or 10, top notch effects and not knowing who is and isn't a monster. A green teenage girl tied to a bed just isn't going to scare me after that movie.

I do agree that it has many technical merits, especially the cinematography which I find to be top notch and Max von Sydow is excellent as usual. It has been awhile since I've seen it so I'll likely give it another shot and see if the creepiness works better as an adult than as a kid used to gory horror movies.

[stvn1974]

OK, let me clarify, the special effects for it's time were great, the acting is great but I have never been scared by the movie. Once she pees on the carpet it just because a joke for me. Of course seeing a girl have a spinal tap is not gut busting hilarious but taken as a whole the movie makes me laugh. Once she becomes full out possessed I find it hilarious with the makeup, the green spit up and the things she says to the priests. I even find the way the masturbation scene to be shot to be over the top funny. For me the film isn't even in the same league as The Texas Chainsaw Massacre or even Alien. All of this is my opinion of course and as I said earlier if I was religious I might feel completely different about it. Now The Exorcist Part III I like and found to be scary when I first saw it and still enjoy it.

PS: just because a film has won Oscars doesn't mean anything, Julie Roberts has once for crying out loud.

[happydood]

Yeah, as great and deserving as I think The Exorcist is of accolades, Crash won Best Picture the year it came out, thereby nearly invalidating every award that preceded it.