UHD Review A Few Words About A few words about...™ - The Exorcist -- in 4k UHD (1 Viewer)

[John Maher_289910]

I much prefer the director's cut. I haven't watched the theatrical cut since sometime before 2000, but I saw it many times prior to the release of "The Version You've Never Seen." For me, it fixed the things I had trouble with when I fist saw the film (almost immediately after reading the book). I can appreciate why others prefer the theatrical cut.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I much prefer the director's cut. I haven't watched the theatrical cut since sometime before 2000, but I saw it many times prior to the release of "The Version You've Never Seen." For me, it fixed the things I had trouble with when I fist saw the film (almost immediately after reading the book). I can appreciate why others prefer the theatrical cut.

I agree with you. I prefer the director’s cut.

 

[JoshZ]

The cheesy Pazuzu faces popping up in random parts of the screen (including on the stove hood at one point) absolutely kills the "Version You've Never Unless of Course You Have Seen It in Which Case It's Now That Other Version You've Also Seen" for me. The spider-walk was an interesting idea but doesn't work at all and was rightly cut the first time. Same with the epilogue, which probably worked better in Blatty's original script but doesn't fit with the movie Friedkin actually made.

Friedkin himself seemed conflicted about the new scenes when interviewed about them, and many have described the "Directors Cut" as more of a Writers Cut,

For many years, Friedkin and Blatty feuded over the scenes that Blatty was furious the director cut. For most of that time, Friedkin held firm that the movie was better off without that footage. In 2000, the two men mended fences and Friedkin agreed to allow a "writer's cut" of the movie so long as his original director's cut remained available as well.

By the time of the 40th anniversary in 2013, however, Freidkin said that he'd come around to Blatty's side and wanted the revised version to be called the Director's Cut now.

Of course, it can be argued that even that decision was Friedkin's attempt to once again diminish Blatty's involvement and claim credit for himself.

 

[SD_Brian]

Of course, it can be argued that even that decision was Friedkin's attempt to once again diminish Blatty's involvement and claim credit for himself.

It's also possible the devil made him do it.

 

[BornOfAJackal]

The extended cuts on The Exorcist and Dances with Wolves are damn near movie killers. The extended cuts suck every bit of momentum out of the classic original cuts.

Coppola and Ridley Scott have been good enough to improve some of their original cuts, but only marginally. Yes, Apocalypse Now is a special case that resides above and beyond mere movie, and has been improved over time.

But to have the two exorcists state the theme of the movie in the middle of the exorcism? There's are reasons it didn't make the original cut. First off, the performances aren't the best; second, an able viewer has already or probably will get the theme while viewing or during later contemplation; and third, the very real need, demonstrated amply by the second cut, to tighten the picture.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

The extended cuts on The Exorcist and Dances with Wolves are damn near movie killers. The extended cuts suck every bit of momentum out of the classic original cuts.

I have to respectfully disagree. I prefer the longer cuts of both those films.

 

[Kyle_D]

The cheesy Pazuzu faces popping up in random parts of the screen (including on the stove hood at one point) absolutely kills the "Version You've Never Unless of Course You Have Seen It in Which Case It's Now That Other Version You've Also Seen" for me. The spider-walk was an interesting idea but doesn't work at all and was rightly cut the first time. Same with the epilogue, which probably worked better in Blatty's original script but doesn't fit with the movie Friedkin actually made.

The Pazuzu faces and the spider-walk are the two changes that materially tarnish the "Directors Cut" for me. Without those changes, I would probably be ambivalent and my preference would vary with my mood.

 

[SD_Brian]

If it was the version I'd seen first, maybe I would find it to be the superior of the two cuts, but my familiarity with the original theatrical cut makes it difficult (if not impossible) for me to view the 2000 cut of The Exorcist objectively. It's sort of like watching the Star Wars special editions: it's essentially the exact same movie it was before, but with some minor (and not-so-minor) tweaks. The whole thing just feels off.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I like the Pazuzu faces. The spider-walk sequence I can do without it.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Seems like BestBuy continues to offer THE STEELBOOK YOU'VE NEVER SEEN as it has essentially been sold out before the release date.

Still can't get the U.K. set either as it is currently out of stock.

 

[mskaye]

The extended cuts on The Exorcist and Dances with Wolves are damn near movie killers. The extended cuts suck every bit of momentum out of the classic original cuts.

Coppola and Ridley Scott have been good enough to improve some of their original cuts, but only marginally. Yes, Apocalypse Now is a special case that resides above and beyond mere movie, and has been improved over time.

But to have the two exorcists state the theme of the movie in the middle of the exorcism? There's are reasons it didn't make the original cut. First off, the performances aren't the best; second, an able viewer has already or probably will get the theme while viewing or during later contemplation; and third, the very real need, demonstrated amply by the second cut, to tighten the picture.

Agreed about the original version of TE being better. Slight detour - I don't think the extended cuts of Apocalypse Now improve the film. The original version - preferably in its 70mm version which means sans titles - is the authentic and only version of that film. To new viewers, I would never show either of the extended cuts in lieu of the original. Redux and Final Cut exist only for the interest in seeing some interested scenes - and some that completely destroy the flow - that were smartly removed. Coppola and Murch etc. were spot on with what they originally released.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Any thoughts on theatrical v. director’s cut?

From my review:

"As for my feelings about the alterations, I continue to prefer the original. I must admit I thought the “spider-walk” worked effectively, but the other changes either seemed unnecessary or actively harmful.

The additional information about Regan’s examinations really slows down the film and I didn’t think we needed to hear this extra detail. While some may feel the original version moved abruptly through her various states, I thought otherwise. The jarring shifts helped make the tone edgy and off-putting, which is appropriate for this film.

I intensely disliked the additional demon faces, as these seemed forced and appeared to telegraph too much of the action. Speaking of which, we now come to the new ending, the one that Blatty has always endorsed.

One of the best aspects about the movie was the fact that it never patronizes the viewer. I was quite surprised at the degree it left details unmentioned and simply expected the audience to figure it out for themselves. That's a good thing, although Blatty still thinks the ending should have been more explicit because he worries that too many viewers think evil wins. As noted in the supplements, he wanted the film to use the semi-happy ending from the book, but Friedkin wisely decided not to do so."

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Friedkin himself seemed conflicted about the new scenes when interviewed about them, and many have described the "Directors Cut" as more of a Writers Cut,

Call me cynical, but I think Friedkin's "conflicts" didn't exist.

It makes little sense that he opposed Blatty's preference when he recorded the commentary in 1998 but then suddenly changed his mind barely a year later.

I think WB saw all the $$$ that some of the "new and improved" altered versions of movies made, pushed for the "new" "Exorcist" and Friedkin went along.

The guy stuck by his movie's ending for 25 years and then goes "never mind"? Don't think so.

I think he did it for the $$$ and still preferred the 1973 cut of the movie.

 

[cda1143]

Thanks for all these great thoughts. This thread has become worth following again.

 

[Lord Dalek]

TBF Friedkin couldn't give Blatty the ending he wanted anyway because the elements were lost and the production track of that scene was illegible.

 

[Richard Kaufman]

A big no to silly Pazuzu heads popping up in expected spots on the screen. Am I misremembering that there was one on the hood of a stove? Eek. "Where can we stick the head in this scene to make sure folks see it?"
Those aside, there are other things I find appealing about the Director's Cut.

 

[Kyle_D]

For those interested, Warner Bros made the following featurette from the Blu-ray available on their official YouTube channel, which dives into the different versions and dives into some the disputes between Friedkin and Blatty

 

[TravisR]

The cheesy Pazuzu faces popping up in random parts of the screen (including on the stove hood at one point) absolutely kills the "Version You've Never Unless of Course You Have Seen It in Which Case It's Now That Other Version You've Also Seen" for me. The spider-walk was an interesting idea but doesn't work at all and was rightly cut the first time.

Wholeheartedly agree.

Like most extended cuts, there's a scene or two that I wish they had kept and in the case of The Exorcist, it's Merrin and Karras on the steps. I've loved that scene since seeing it as a deleted scene on the DVD. I find the rest of the scenes to be superfluous or even detrimental to the movie.

 

[JoshZ]

I think WB saw all the $$$ that some of the "new and improved" altered versions of movies made, pushed for the "new" "Exorcist" and Friedkin went along.

Undoubtedly true. This was still during the early days of the DVD boom, when "director's cuts" were a big selling point. It was not long after this that Fox pressured Ridley Scott into making a director's cut of Alien that he didn't want to do.

The guy stuck by his movie's ending for 25 years and then goes "never mind"? Don't think so.

I think he did it for the $$$ and still preferred the 1973 cut of the movie.

I might say that Friedkin may have actually started to prefer the extended cut, because he saw it making good money.

"I don't want to do another cut. The original cut is perfect! It doesn't need to be changed!... Oh, the extended cut is successful? People like it and it's making money? Well then, of course that's all my doing and I deserve the credit! It's my director's cut, after all! I couldn't be prouder of these changes that I personally made."

 

[stevenalejandro]

True. Wasn't there a recall of a Back To The Future set many years ago because the framing was shifted a perforation too high?

As a former projectionist I always have a chuckle when people complain about framing issues on Bluray/4K releases. I just think of all the times I adjusted the framing knob and thought, "yeah, that looks about right."