The Exorcist: Whats the big deal? (1 Viewer)

[Jack Shappa]

I prefer scary movies like the Exorcist, The Ring, and Signs, that give you a feel of uneasiness throughout, and don't rely exclusively on cheap jump scares. Part of the reason these movies give you a feeling of dread (that stays with you after the film is over) is they touch on subjects that are within the realm of possibility. Perhaps not probability, but nonetheless they touch that spot deep inside us which believes in the possibility of Aliens, possession, and ghosts.

Its easy to see why some people are completely unaffected by these kinds of movies. If you don't get that uneasy feeling from it, there's not much left.

- JS

 

[Steve Schaffer]

I was 24 and a lapsed Catholic for many years when I saw The Exorcist in it's initial release to theaters. The buzz at the time was that this was about the scariest movie ever made. Most of the people who'd actually seen it, myself included, were seriously creeped out at only one scene in the film--the arterial blood squirt that took place when they were performing the medical tests on the girl.

The rest of the film was not bad. It was an engrossing drama of the supernatural, well acted and produced, just not that scary. In this respect I'd liken it to Rosemary's Baby.

The 2 films that had me the most scared, that built up the most tension and suspense with the most effective "jump scares" were Jaws and Alien. Both films were more infinitely more effective than the typical modern horror flick because they took the time to develope characters and build suspense with comparatively few actual gory scenes--much more effective than most slasher films of today.

 

[Aaryn Chan]

The reason why it was soo scary 30 years ago is because it was released 30 years ago.

I agree with the dude who said that, if you dont believe in anything, then there's not much left to scare you. That's a disavantage..

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I just bought The Haunting on DVD and I felt it didn't live-up to its hype.

Me too. It was a good movie, but it never reached greatness IMO. Never remotely scared me in any way, though I did mostly enjoy it...

 

[Dome Vongvises]

Don't get me started on The Haunting. I hate both versions.

 

[Dan Rudolph]

TO address an early poster, The Exorcist is about spiritual danger, not so much physical That's what makes it so great and so different from most horror movies. It not like "oh no she's goign to kill someone." It's more like "Oh no, there's no way your getting her back." This probably works much better if you have significantly younger siblings or kids.

 

[Chris]

I think for people who are of catholic faith especially, and for those who believe as part of their tennants of faith as to demonic possession, which is not just "religious right" but several christian groups.. the movie preys on those fears and is terrifying. It is one of the few films I personally will not watch again. But, I can understand why others would not see it as terrifying.

Meanwhile, I didn't find "Blair Witch" or "The Ring" very scary at all; some films get me more then others I guess, in the end, the best saying is: "to each his own"

 

[Johnny Angell]

And Robert Wise's The Haunting used skillful storytelling and plotting, superb camera work, and flawless acting to induce chills.

The two Hauntings illustrate why most of today's audience would not like the Exorcist or the original Haunting. One Haunting is subtle, the other hits you over the head with a sledgehammer. One Haunting left you wondering what happened, the other removes all doubt.

There was a time when an idea could be frightening. Now you have to pour buckets of blood to scare the audience.

Both the original Haunting and the Exorcist take their time setting up the situation, are often slow-paced. Could Alien even be made today, with its slow start?

Movies are becoming mostly technique, and very little art.

 

[Chris]

Movies are becoming mostly technique, and very little art.

I would agree there is becoming less room for rising action within films; as many of the summer blockbusters had a large "action sequence" occur within the first 10 minutes. There isn't a lot of character development in blockbuster/action type films anymore, and the rising action in "Exorcist" something I thought really made the film what it was, would be cut in screenings if done by a modern studio. Vary rarely do you get the leeway to do something different.

 

[Kenneth_C]

I'll tell you one thing, though. I would kill to go back in time to 1974 and watch this with an unsuspecting audience! That would be beautiful!

Ah, memories....

I first saw The Exorcist on opening night at the National Theatre in Westwood, CA. It was truly an amazing, horrifying, and unforgetable experience.

Most everyone in line (myself included) had read the book. But I think it's safe to say that none of us had any idea what we were in for. We just never thought those scenes and images would be put so graphically and powerfully up on the screen.

And the sounds! I remember my friend got so freaked out halfway through that she buried her face in her coat and never again looked at the screen. But she was still haunted by the squeals and snarls of Regan's voice for weeks after.

I don't know if anyone fainted or got sick at that showing (though a number of people did walk out) but there was plenty of shouting and screaming. The audience bought into the movie completely; and, by the end, I think most everyone felt really worked over and emotionally drained. People exited the theatre clutching one another and speaking in low, trembling voices. Talking with others, the feeling was that we had just experienced an incredible vision of Hell.

There was something about being part of that unspoiled, unprepared audience which was very special. Just a few weeks later, I saw it again with another group of friends. By then, all the media hype had started, and it was a very different experience. You could feel that people in the audience were much more resistant. They didn't let themselves go or lose themselves in the movie. It was like they were going on an amusement park ride instead. There was more of a "just try & scare me" attitude. There was even laughter at places where previously there had been only anxious silence or horrified gasps. Though it was maybe only 3 weeks later, it was almost like seeing a different movie.

So it doesn't surprise me when people question how scary The Exorcist is after 30 years. It's only a movie, after all. But I know that on that opening night, it was the scariest sh*t I'd ever seen.

I guess you hadda be there....

 

[john davies]

I didn't see The Exorcist on initial release, so the shock value was lost when i did see it. Even taking this into account, I agree with the thread premise. It is one of the most overrated and undeservedly famous films in cinema history. Pure schlock; not frightening, just sickly. Very little of cinematic value to recommend it. And this is British critic Mark Kermode's favourite film- as he never tires of reminding us!

 

[Peter-PP]

I have seen tons of horror movies and Exorcist is the only movie that scared the poop out of me! The most over rated "horror" movie in my book is The Blair Witch Project which to me was boring and a BIG waste of my time.

 

[ChuckSolo]

I saw this in San Diego on opening night almost 30 years ago and at the time, it WAS the most horrifying film I had ever seen. Being just 18 at the time, it made a lasting impression on me. I still love watching it, only the shock value has diminished with time. For most people who grew up in the blood spattered '80s, "The Excorcist" would indeed seem kind of tame. Heck, during the '30s Universal's "Frankenstein" was just as horrifying to those folks of that era; today.....not so much.

 

[andrew markworthy]

A lot of the scariness of The Exorcist was due to the hype. Because people expected it to be scary, it *was* scary.

In the UK there was a great deal of fuss about its original release, and for years it was impossible to get on VHS. When a re-launch was mooted, some test screenings were done on people who'd never seen the movie to see what their reactions would be (basically, you got a free screening and had to fill in a questionnaire at the end). I went to one with my wife (I'd seen the movie, she hadn't). I've got to say that the movie had not a single effect on her nor on most of the naive test audience. Maybe we've just gained more 'sophisticated' tastes, but I think a much bigger factor is that if you're not pre-prepared to be scared, it isn't all that big a deal.

 

[RobertR]

The Exorcist is about spiritual danger, not so much physical

And if one does not consider "spirits" to be dangerous, he is left with nothing to fear in the film.

 

[Dan Rudolph]

You have to accept the premise of the film. It doesn't require literal belief in the premise, just accepting it within the context of the movie. All sci-fi and fantasy movies are this way.

 

[Kevin M]

You know, I am aware that warp speed/light speed travel as it is presented in most sci-fi films is pretty much a scientific impossibility (as far as solid modern science is concerned) but that never stopped me from enjoying those films all these years, to me the same applies to The Exorcist. I can set aside doubts I might have on any religious level and enjoy the film for the expertly crafted and acted* film that it is.

*(sorry but I personally don't see any aspect of Ellen Burstyn's performance as "over the top"..I mean in what way would you have her act in the face of such happenings?)

 

[RobertR]

You have to accept the premise of the film. It doesn't require literal belief in the premise, just accepting it within the context of the movie

I have no problem being entertained by movies involving the supernatural within a fictional context. The premise presented by The Exorcist I reject is that "demonic possession" of a young girl should make me fearful regardless of the absence of behavior that would cause me to be fearful as the result of that possession. Peeing on the carpet, talking in a gutteral voice, and vomiting is not fearful behavior to me.

 

[Dan Rudolph]

I you think of it that way, you aren't really accepting the premise. The danger was to Reagan, not other people, at least at first. Her odd behavior shows that she isn't in control of her actions.

 

[RobertR]

The danger was to Reagan, not other people, at least at first. Her odd behavior shows that she isn't in control of her actions.

That makes her no different than people suffering from a disease, particularly a mental disease. The primary emotions I feel for such people are sadness and pity, not fear.