The Exorcist: The Complete Anthology (1973-2005)

[Retroj23]

Originally Posted by 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.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and I respect yours however I must disagree and say that I found it to be very frightning, and I am an atheist. What stands out to me is the overall feeling of guilt by each one of the main characters.

Mrs. McNeil's need to love her daughter in the face of divorce/separation from Regans father. Regan discovering her changing body and sexual awakening along with coping from an estranged dad. Father Karras not being able to provide for his ill mother and doubt of faith. And one could even argue to a certain extent that the medical professionals are feeling guilt too since they are unable to provide any answers, let alone a cure, for Regan's behaviour, even though they have science on their side.

If one forgets for a second about the head spinning, green pea soup vomit and foul language and focuses more on the common human issues going on below the surface, this is indeed a truly frighting film since I believe most of our inner "demons" are skin deep finally surfacing by traumatic events. This is my analysis anyway.

[GasmaskAvenger]

Originally Posted by 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.

The biggest problem of all being that the wrong Crash won awards and received nominations period.

The REAL Crash should've got an Oscar for sheer audacity of actually being adapted to the screen to begin with and Elias Koteas should've at least got an Oscar nomination for his performance as Vaughan.

[SymbioticFunction]

Originally Posted by Xen11

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.

I'd be interested in reading your thoughts after you watch the Boorman film.

[lolwut]

Originally Posted by 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.

Julia Roberts*

I saw your post in the Nightmare on Elm Street thread. Man, you really want people to agree with you:

Originally Posted by stvn1974

Still not as funny as a little girl spitting up green goo, spinning her head around, masturbating with a crucifix and saying stuff like "your mother sucks c*ck in hell" though.

[#Darren]

Originally Posted by 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.

Does anybody really take the Academy Awards seriously anymore? I mean it's sort of like the modern Miss America, where they never pick the most beautiful woman... it's just a political exercise.

[slimdude]

Originally Posted by #Darren

Does anybody really take the Academy Awards seriously anymore? I mean it's sort of like the modern Miss America, where they never pick the most beautiful woman... it's just a political exercise.

It sure is! The same goes for The Grammy Awards. I haven't watched neither for over 25 years because, the nominees who should've won, always get shunned. Celebrities really don't care about any award shows either! They only go for the after parties, to get the free food and booze.

[happydood]

Originally Posted by #Darren

Does anybody really take the Academy Awards seriously anymore? I mean it's sort of like the modern Miss America, where they never pick the most beautiful woman... it's just a political exercise.

Kind of my point. Of course, I'm sure there's someone out there who thinks Crash is the be all end all, so my apologies to them both for the offense and the horrible movie that they like.

But every once in a hot minute it'll feel like the Academy is with the zeitgeist like when Return Of The King did so well, or The Departed, or No Country For Old Men. Of course, those were movies I happen to love, so who am I to judge objectively?

[Dylan34]

Originally Posted by lolwut

Julia Roberts*

I saw your post in the Nightmare on Elm Street thread. Man, you really want people to agree with you:

I saw the same post in that thread. Everyone I know when you mention The Exorcist you get a ton of different responses. Being funny or hilarious even is not one of them.

[ditcin]

Originally Posted by Xen11

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.

The film is very in Boorman's vein of movie making - non-linear in narrative. His subtext is most vague for the common movie goer as well. Why WB went with him for a sequel of a film in which the original was a visceral shocker I will never understand. No film could follow THE EXORCIST, especially only 4 years after the film's release. Even 10 would have been too soon. The film is made such a strong and indelible make in society anything that would follow could never match up.
In walks Boorman, doomed to fail with a very different approach that's more mystical, mergers science with religion, evokes evolution with religion, and offers an explanation to what was first offered though metaphysical events - and of this based on the preaching of an unknown real priest considered heretic for merging science and religion.

I love THE HERETIC because it is different, it's daring and reaches beyond the first film to offer so much. It easily dismiss yet most never come close to truly understanding and even acknowledge it multilayered technique.

Boorman chose this route refusing to labor on what he felt was the concentration of evil, and what he believed to be the exploitation of a child's pain. That aside he wanted to show some hope with the all that pain and provide a reason for it. This was not what the audience wanted - nor ever what in supernatural film. Indeed even with the OMEN TRILOGY it is the third film most find the weakest. It's not a fair assessment but rather a stupid considering the prophesy leads to this kind of conclusion with good reentering the fold, evil weakening and the over tone changing.

Audiences want just more of the same, and what brought them to the table from the onset.

THE HERETIC offers the most hope within the realm of the subject matter. Changing the hand of power from a priest praying to man's evolution in becoming Christ-like spiritual beings to create a kingdom of heaven on earth - as long as the power within it not corrupted towards evil. It's larger in scope encompassing the future of humanity, beyond a single room exorcism. It's ambition and scope was misplaced within a second place venture into a story arch, which for the audience both then and now come from left field.

... and I love it.

[happydood]

Originally Posted by ditcin

The film is very in Boorman's vein of movie making - non-linear in narrative. His subtext is most vague for the common movie goer as well. Why WB went with him for a sequel of a film in which the original was a visceral shocker I will never understand. No film could follow THE EXORCIST, especially only 4 years after the film's release. Even 10 would have been too soon. The film is made such a strong and indelible make in society anything that would follow could never match up.
In walks Boorman, doomed to fail with a very different approach that's more mystical, mergers science with religion, evokes evolution with religion, and offers an explanation to what was first offered though metaphysical events - and of this based on the preaching of an unknown real priest considered heretic for merging science and religion.

I love THE HERETIC because it is different, it's daring and reaches beyond the first film to offer so much. It easily dismiss yet most never come close to truly understanding and even acknowledge it multilayered technique.

Boorman chose this route refusing to labor on what he felt was the concentration of evil, and what he believed to be the exploitation of a child's pain. That aside he wanted to show some hope with the all that pain and provide a reason for it. This was not what the audience wanted - nor ever what in supernatural film. Indeed even with the OMEN TRILOGY it is the third film most find the weakest. It's not a fair assessment but rather a stupid considering the prophesy leads to this kind of conclusion with good reentering the fold, evil weakening and the over tone changing.

Audiences want just more of the same, and what brought them to the table from the onset.

THE HERETIC offers the most hope within the realm of the subject matter. Changing the hand of power from a priest praying to man's evolution in becoming Christ-like spiritual beings to create a kingdom of heaven on earth - as long as the power within it not corrupted towards evil. It's larger in scope encompassing the future of humanity, beyond a single room exorcism. It's ambition and scope was misplaced within a second place venture into a story arch, which for the audience both then and now come from left field.

... and I love it.

Glad you like it, ditcin. But WE are the audience, too, so audiences aren't entirely unwilling to think. I certainly didn't want more of the same. I'll add that I appreciate the de Chardin angle and think that a horror movie can be a great entry point into the kind of heady philosophical/religious ideas this movie wants to address. But this simply didn't deliver on a logical or emotional level to gain that entry. The synchronizer was handled so poorly that it's hard to take anything seriously after it.

I think there's a really good movie buried in III somewhere, and much has been made of that missing footage necessary for a director's cut. I'll concede that those of us who want that may be a minority, but how any adult person with adult faculties could have looked at that movie and determined that it needed it's entire first two acts undermined by something totally unnecessary is beyond me. I can only assume that someone who takes the general populace as a bunch of idiots must themselves be a bunch of idiots. Take that, Morgan Creek.

II doesn't suffer from the same cynicism, or rather, Boorman doesn't seem to, but the cards were stacked against this movie since it was born as an EXTREMELY cynical money grab. There's probably more of the story to be told in terms of what Boorman wanted and what the production would allow, but unfortunately it also appears that he didn't have a very good handle on what he was trying to say even within the narrow window he was given.

[SymbioticFunction]

I don't think it's 'stupid' to consider Omen III the weakest of the Omen trilogy.

I like the movie but I think the first two films are superior. Especially the first one.

[redrunner97]

I picked up this set at Walmart today, hope to cross off a couple more "complete collections" this fall!

[Dylan34]

Originally Posted by redrunner97

I picked up this set at Walmart today, hope to cross off a couple more "complete collections" this fall!

Watch the third one for sure along with the orginal.

[redrunner97]

Those are my two favorites of the bunch, actually I've never finished II, but I hope to soon.
I don't think I've seen anything from the prequels, except maybe bits and pieces on TV.

I'll plow through the entire set as Halloween gets closer. Still excited to own it though!

[Rich65]

Originally Posted by redrunner97

Those are my two favorites of the bunch, actually I've never finished II, but I hope to soon.
I don't think I've seen anything from the prequels, except maybe bits and pieces on TV.

I'll plow through the entire set as Halloween gets closer. Still excited to own it though!

I agree, I and III are the best in my opinion of the ones I have seen, I still have not seen Dominion, I will watch it this weekend.

[Dylan34]

Originally Posted by Rich65

I agree, I and III are the best in my opinion of the ones I have seen, I still have not seen Dominion, I will watch it this weekend.

Dominion is pretty decent. Beginning is also. It had been a while since I had seen either of them. Both have better than average HD presentations as well.

[sarah_wentworth]

Originally Posted by Xen11

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.

same here. i liked the story in part 2

[Robbie The Robot]

Someone mentioned in this thread earlier that the more recent edition of The Exorcist DC had some of the additional images removed. What specifically was removed? The only thing I can remember that I no longer see when I watch it is an image of the stone statue of the demon that appears next to her door towards the end when the priests enter.

[dallywhitty]

Originally Posted by Robbie The Robot

Someone mentioned in this thread earlier that the more recent edition of The Exorcist DC had some of the additional images removed. What specifically was removed? The only thing I can remember that I no longer see when I watch it is an image of the stone statue of the demon that appears next to her door towards the end when the priests enter.

It's the two images that appear when Chris returns home and the lights are flickering on and off: Pazuzu's face in the kitchen and the statue on the back of Regan's bedroom door.

[Robbie The Robot]

Originally Posted by dallywhitty

It's the two images that appear when Chris returns home and the lights are flickering on and off: Pazuzu's face in the kitchen and the statue on the back of Regan's bedroom door.

Thanks! Glad they took them out as they were a bit cheesy. I like the additional medical tests as I feel it helps graduate her change a bit more. The spiderwalk / staircase discussion are interesting additions but I can understand the debate over the value they add. I remember seeing the DC in the cinema, I had seen the raw spiderwalk footage but seeing it cut into the movie and embellished took me by surprise and certainly made me jump. I have to be on the fence between the DC and Theatrical.