Batman-Online.com

I admire William Friedkin's The Exorcist (1973) tremendously. I think it's a masterpiece, and while it isn't my favourite horror film ever made I think it is objectively the greatest (that's an unoriginal perspective, I know, but it's one I happen to agree with). I own the original novel and a copy of the screenplay, and I visited many of the locations where the film was shot in Georgetown, Washington D.C. back in August 2008. I even got to walk up and down the famous Exorcist steps and visit the chapel at Georgetown University. I know a lot of people prefer the theatrical cut, but I tend to favour the 2000 director's cut by a slight margin. They're both excellent though.

The film's supernatural horror predicates on the unsettling notion of transcendent evil – of malevolence that goes beyond any rational human motive and seeks to inflict suffering for the sake of provoking despair and eradicating hope. The effect of this horror is best seen on the character of Father Damien Karras, whose fragile faith is the battleground upon which the story's theological conflict is waged. On a more secular level, the movie confronts the viewer with the anguish of a mother who is forced to watch her child suffer while being powerless to help her. What's more frightening than being ill and not knowing what's wrong with you? How about if someone close to you, your own child, is sick and you don't know how to help her? What's more terrifying than the idea of a monster wanting to molest your child? How about if that monster is literally in control of your child's body and is forcing her to torment herself? These ideas prey on our darkest fears to harrowing effect, and the film's impact, for me at least, doesn't diminish on repeated viewing. If anything, its power increases the more times I watch it. That's a rare thing.


The Exorcist is superb filmmaking on a technical level, and the clever use of lighting and cinematography contributes to the mounting sense of dread that intensifies as the story progresses. The movie takes place in October, and the early sequences are coloured by a cosy autumnal atmosphere bathed in the warm reds and browns of the Halloween season. The colour temperature gradually lowers as the horror intensifies, until by the final act we're immersed in an unnatural shade of purple and the actors' breaths can be seen fogging the cold air. The growing intensity is also reflected in the performances, and you can feel the protagonists' physical and spiritual reserves depleting as they endure the onslaught of Pazuzu's torments. By the end of the film the viewer feels almost as exhausted as the characters they're watching, and the final scene brings with it a cathartic sense of relief that the nightmare is finally over.

The editing is top notch as well. One of the most haunting moments in the director's cut occurs when the screen cuts to black following the spider-walk scene. We have the shock image of the blood issuing from Regan's mouth, then we quickly cut to black and are left in darkness for several seconds while the disturbing afterimage lingers in our minds. It's far more effective than if the camera had dwelt on the image of the blood, or if Friedkin had just transitioned straight to the next scene. Instead, that little pause makes us contemplate what we've just witnessed. It also gives the viewer a brief window in which to calm down before the next scene begins. There are other moments of respite elsewhere in the movie, where we're taken away from the horror and allowed to relax for a short while. These scenes function like a pressure release valve, lulling us into calm before Friedkin hits us with the next horrifying scene. That way we never become inured to the horror, and each time we return to it there's a sense of escalation; of each disturbing set piece being more shocking than the last. Needless to say the makeup and special effects are outstanding.


A response I've observed many times, particularly on the internet, is when someone sees The Exorcist for the first time and remarks on how overrated it is. "Is that it? That's supposed to be the scariest movie ever made? That's what the hype was all about?" This response is especially common in youngsters, and indeed my own reaction upon first seeing the film as a teenager was exactly this. I genuinely didn't find it frightening and couldn't see what all the fuss was about. I saw it several more times as a teen and reacted the same way. It wasn't until I watched the film again in my early twenties that I started to see it differently. Then I started to appreciate how well made it was, and then it started to disturb me on a profound level. Even if someone doesn't find The Exorcist frightening (fear is, after all, subjective), they should at least be able to appreciate how well written, acted, shot and edited it is.

Then there are the sequels...

In general, I don't think The Exorcist works as a franchise. It does however succeed as a trilogy. And as a trilogy, I view it as a serious artistic work and the magnum opus of writer William Peter Blatty. According to Mark Kermode, who is the number one expert on the subject of The Exorcist (he's produced several books and documentaries about it and frequently argues that the 1973 film is the greatest movie ever made), Blatty considered The Ninth Configuration (1980) to be the true sequel to The Exorcist. Blatty wrote and directed The Ninth Configuration based on his 1966 novel Twinkle Twinkle Killer Kane. He wrote and directed The Exorcist III based on his 1983 novel Legion. And of course Blatty also wrote the Oscar-winning screenplay for the first Exorcist film based on his 1971 novel of the same name. These three movies constitute what Blatty referred to as his 'Faith Trilogy', and I consider them to comprise the real Exorcist trilogy.


Blatty wrote all three of these films and directed two of them. His directorial style has been compared to that of David Lynch, but Blatty is more cerebral than Lynch and there's a clear thematic thread connecting these three movies.

On the surface, The Ninth Configuration doesn't appear to have any obvious connections to The Exorcist. There are no references to Pazuzu or any of the events in the first film, and the horror that manifests in the second half of TNC is more psychological than supernatural. Its connection to The Exorcist is more thematic. According to Blatty, the two stories take place in the same universe. One of the main characters in TNC is an Apollo astronaut named Captain Billy Cutshaw, and Cutshaw is the same Apollo astronaut that attended the party at the MacNeil residence in the first Exorcist film. He's the one Regan tells "You're going to die up there." You find out in TNC that he never went to the moon owing to a mental breakdown he suffered on the eve of his launch. In The Exorcist he was played by Dick Callinan, while in The Ninth Configuration he's play by Scott Wilson. But it's the same character.


The Ninth Configuration is a strange and unique film, and that makes it rather difficult to describe. Before turning to horror, Blatty was an accomplished writer of comedy. Among other projects, he wrote A Shot in the Dark (1964), which is easily the best entry in the Pink Panther series and one of the funniest films ever made. The Ninth Configuration combines his aptitude for humour with his skill at horror, and the result is like a cross between One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975) and Jacob's Ladder (1990). The first half of the movie plays out like a black comedy set in a military mental hospital, while the second half takes a darker and more disturbing turn into psychological horror, touching upon themes of nihilism, PTSD, guilt transference and dissociative fugue states. I shan't say any more about the plot, since there's a major twist in the middle of the film that I'd hate to spoil, but it's a surprisingly complex film that veers drastically (some might say clumsily) from one tonal extreme to another.

The Ninth Configuration is also connected to The Exorcist through its philosophical and theological themes. With The Exorcist Blatty was exploring the idea of transcendent evil, while in The Ninth Configuration he's exploring the concept of transcendent good. Specifically through the character of Kane and the recurring themes of compassion and self sacrifice. Kane is portrayed by the Phantasm himself, Stacy Keach. He's backed by an excellent supporting cast that includes Scott Wilson, Ed Flanders, Jason Miller (Miller appears in all three entries in Blatty's trilogy, but this is the only one in which he doesn't portray Karras), Robert Loggia, Tom Atkins and Joe Spinell. I've also got to mention Moses Gunn, who appears as the first black Superman. Or rather a mental patient who thinks he's Superman and keeps switching back and forth between his costumed and civilian identities.


If my description of the movie's tone is confusing, that's because it's funny and disturbing in equal measure. While the first half veers more towards comedy, the second half is more violent and dramatic. The final act contains an intense slow burn sequence taking place in a bar which culminates in one of the greatest barroom brawls in movie history. It's also a very well written film full of quotable lines and memorable characters. The script earned Blatty the 1981 Golden Globe for best screenplay and it was also nominated in the best picture and best supporting actor (Scott Wilson) categories. Like The Exorcist III, its Rotten Tomatoes score has been gradually creeping up over the past few years as more and more critics are reappraising it and learning to appreciate its merits.


Some might describe The Ninth Configuration as weird, undisciplined or pretentious, and the tone is glaringly uneven, but I honestly think it's great. It's a really fascinating unique piece of American cinema that deserves more recognition than it gets. Apparently Blatty financed much of the film's budget out of his own pocket, which would explain why the finished product so strongly reflects his personal vision and creative idiosyncrasies. And as Blatty himself said, it's the middle entry in his trilogy that thematically connects The Exorcist with The Exorcist III. It's a film that I think needs to be seen more than once to fully appreciate it, as the first viewing can be a little overwhelming, but it's also the kind of movie that rewards analysis and intelligent consideration from the viewer. There's nothing in the plot that makes it essential viewing for Exorcist fans, but it's one of only three films that Blatty acknowledged as being part of the Exorcist canon and it is thematically integral to the trilogy as a whole.

The Exorcist III is the second of the two films Blatty directed. I wish he'd directed more movies, and had he done so I think he would have ranked among the best cult auteur filmmakers of that era. The Exorcist III should really be called Legion, which was the title of the novel from which it was adapted, but the studio insisted on it having the word 'Exorcist' in the title. Blatty's original cut didn't even contain an exorcism sequence, but the studio made him go back and shoot one for the theatrical version. A rough assembly of Blatty's original version was released by Scream Factory in 2016, but unfortunately it was pieced together from elements of inconsistent quality. The original film prints of Blatty's cut were lost, and so video transfers of the missing scenes were used to fill the gaps. This results in jarring shifts in picture and sound quality, but it still makes for a fascinating insight into what the film might originally have been like. I'd recommend newcomers start with the theatrical cut first, then check out the Legion/director's cut if they're interested.


The plot of The Exorcist III focuses on Inspector William F. Kinderman, the detective played by Lee J. Cobb in the first Exorcist film. Kinderman had a smaller role in the first movie than he did in the original Exorcist novel, but Blatty makes up for this by making him the central protagonist in The Exorcist III. This time he's played by George C. Scott, since Cobb passed away in 1976. The plot sees Kinderman investigating what appears to be a copycat serial killer who is terrorising Georgetown using the same MO as the deceased 'Gemini Killer'. His investigation leads him to Patient X, a mysterious John Doe locked away in a mental ward, who bears a striking resemblance to the late Father Damien Karras. Karras of course died at the end of the first Exorcist film, but now he is apparently alive again and claiming to be possessed by the Gemini Killer. The Gemini tells Kinderman that the 'master' (Pazuzu) helped him reanimate and take possession of Karras as revenge for Damien's role in the exorcism of Regan MacNeil, so the plot does connect directly with that of Friedkin's movie. Pazuzu doesn't appear in Blatty's original cut and is only mentioned, but the reshot ending of the theatrical version climaxes with an elaborate special effects sequence in which Pazuzu takes possession of Karras

In the final cut of the film, Patient X looks like Karras but physically transforms into James Venamun/the Gemini Killer when talking with Kinderman. So Jason Miller, as Karras, suddenly becomes Brad Dourif, who is playing the Gemini. This wasn't the case in Blatty's original cut. Originally Miller wasn't even in the film and Dourif was playing Karras. So there was no transformation. Patient X only ever looked like Dourif, and photographs depicting a young Karras showed him portrayed by Dourif.


Then the reshoots took place, during which Jason Miller was brought back to play Karras and Dourif's role was reduced to that of James Venamun. This required many of the most compelling scenes in the film, namely those between Scott and Dourif, to be rerecorded. You can see the original versions of their conversations in the Legion/director's cut while the theatrical edit features the reshot scenes. Some fans have voiced preference for the ending of the theatrical cut over Blatty's original version, and I can understand why. The theatrical ending includes Pazuzu, gore, lots of special effects and an actual exorcism, none of which occur in the finale of Blatty's original cut. Instead the director's cut ends with a shorter and more subtle verbal confrontation between Kinderman and the Gemini Killer, and Pazuzu never appears. I personally prefer the ending to Blatty's original cut, but I can see why others like the theatrical version better.

There's a particular jump scare in the Exorcist III which is often highlighted as being one of the best in movie history. If you haven't seen the film yet, then don't read any more about that scene or it'll ruin it for you. I've noticed lots of comments online from people saying that they were disappointed after getting hyped for the jump scare, or that they watched the relevant scene on YouTube and found it underwhelming. But of course it was going to disappoint them if they were expecting it. The whole reason it works on the unsuspecting viewer is the way Blatty lulls them into a sense of relaxation immediately before it happens. If you're not expecting it, it's one of the most startling jump scares ever. My advice is to not research it in advance, but just let it hit you. You'll enjoy it more. Another thing to look out for is the blink-and-you'll-miss-it shot of a desecrated statue resembling a certain comic book villain. The Ninth Configuration had Moses Gunn as Superman, and The Exorcist III has a Joker statue.


The central themes of The Exorcist III connect with those of both Friedkin's film and The Ninth Configuration, with Kinderman struggling to fend off nihilism and despair (much like Cutshaw in TNC) and retain his belief in good despite the tremendous evil and suffering his job exposes him to on a daily business. It's not as gruelling as the first Exorcist film, nor quite as funny or cerebral as The Ninth Configuration. Instead it fits somewhere in between those two films, with the emphasis on police procedural elements and the Gemini plot foreshadowing other nineties serial killer movies like The Silence of the Lambs (1991) and Se7en (1995). The cast brings back Scott Wilson and Ed Flanders from The Ninth Configuration, only here they're playing different characters. There's also a really weird dream sequence in which Samuel L. Jackson and Fabio make cameos. Again, it's Lynchian touches like that which make me wish Blatty had directed more movies. All in all, The Exorcist III is a satisfying albeit flawed conclusion to Blatty's Faith Trilogy and a good horror film in its own right. It was unfairly dismissed on its initial release, but in recent years its reputation has thankfully begun to improve.

This post's already ridiculously long so I'll stop here. I just wanted to share my thoughts on these three films and the ways in which they connect to form one of the most compelling horror trilogies in cinema history. Of course there were other entries in the Exorcist franchise, but these were the only three films that Blatty, the original creator, acknowledged as being part of the canon. They were the only three he wrote and all three were adapted from his novels. I'll post my thoughts on the other 'apocryphal' Exorcist films at a later time.

I tend to prefer more grounded horror stuff like slasher movies. If it has to go in a more fantasy direction, I usually prefer monsters like vampires, werewolves, etc.

The paranormal/demonic stuff... it just gets to me. It might be that I believe stuff like that can actually happen. And if it does, there are not very many defenses against it.

Having said that, The Exorcist is a superb example of its genre. I think what works for me is the mystery/thriller aspect where the characters try to figure out what the deal is and stuff gradually gets more and more out of control with every manifestation that occurs.

I have only seen the initial film; none of the sequels.

At one point, apparently Friedkin was supposed to direct The Ninth Configuration. So, I'm wondering if Blatty inserted the comic book characters as an enticement. Fun fact: Before Donner came along, the Salkinds adored The Exorcist and attempted to woo Friedkin to direct Superman: The Movie. Turns out, Friedkin was VERY interested in Superman as well. It's Hollywood tho. So, whatever happened happened and the Salkinds ultimately settled on Donner. Friedkin is said to have deeply regretted missing out on Superman.

So, I'm wondering if Blatty didn't include those comic book references as sort of like a consolation prize for Friedkin. Something in his usual genre but a few comic book references for fun. And since Blatty ultimately directed the movie, I'm guessing those comic book references weren't enough to convince Friedkin to be the director.

Anyway.

Thanks for creating this thread, Silver.

I've had a passing interest in The Exorcist for years now, but have only recently taken the plunge in finding out more about these films. Recently, I went thru the trouble of investigating the differences between each and every DVD/Blu ray release, and settled on making it a point to purchase the 1997 DVD edition due to the original Saul Bass WB opening logo remaining intact (supposedly the only edition that doesn't resort to using the more known WB shield opening logo), as well as the original color timing (particularly during the final exorcism section where Pazuzu's true form makes a brief cameo). I'm admittedly a stickler in wanting to watch this movie as closely as to what audiences witnessed during a original theatrical run, and I wanted to get invested in what was presented way back in 1973 with the original film.

Having said that, I'm sure I will soon purchase one of the more recently anniversary blus in order to see the other cut(s), as well as to listen to the various commentary tracks and extras. Back to the movie, like Colors, I have only seen the original as of this post, but I can safely say that The Exorcist did not disappoint. It's a pretty powerful film about faith, relentless demoralization and despair, yet finding the strength to rise above and leave the viewer with a sense of hope by the end. I can understand how/why some people (especially teens) these days would be rather dismissive of such a film now, but like Silver stated, you pick up on things you might have initially missed during the 1st viewing, and really, the subliminals with this are truly something quite to behold.

A absolutely powerful piece of art by William Friedkin to be perfectly honest.

Silver, I'm sure I'll be using your posts in this thread as something of a reference/study guide as I eventually make my way thru the sequels. Right now, I'm kinda torn on if I want to watch (despite being aware of it's negative rep) The Exorcist II to follow up on with what happened to Linda Blair's Regan MacNeil character, or just go straight to The Ninth Configuration. I'm interested in both, and genuinely would like to see both, before I go into The Exorcist III and it's theatrical/Legion cuts.

I would be lying if I said I wasn't at least "curious" about the upcoming proposed Blumhouse trilogy. I mean, I don't have any illusions that it can go anywhere near the 'lightning in a bottle' kinda reaction that the original received in 1973, but I think David Gordon Green has a directorial style that could possibly fit in suitably well within the Exorcist premise. A lot remains to be seen though...

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 26 Mar  2022, 00:53I tend to prefer more grounded horror stuff like slasher movies. If it has to go in a more fantasy direction, I usually prefer monsters like vampires, werewolves, etc.

The paranormal/demonic stuff... it just gets to me. It might be that I believe stuff like that can actually happen. And if it does, there are not very many defenses against it.

I know what you mean. The Exorcist is not a comfortable film to watch. There are other horror films that I like more, simply because they're more fun to revisit. But the fact I've never become desensitised to Friedkin's film the way I have to practically every other horror movie is a testament to its power. A key factor is that Blatty and Friedkin took the theological themes seriously. Two of the priests in the film, Father Dyer and Father Tom, were portrayed by real Jesuits who also served as technical advisors, and Georgetown University was complicit in the movie's production. A major problem with most Exorcist imitators is that they don't take the underlying ideas seriously, or they handle them in a predictable and superficial manner. Consequently they end up imitating the 1973 film's visuals and set pieces without ever capturing its depth.

Many of the most memorable special effects in The Exorcist – such as the projectile vomiting and 360-degree head rotation – could easily have veered into farce, as the innumerable Exorcist spoofs have so amusingly demonstrated. But Friedkin managed to walk a fine line of making it all work without ever going too far. The Exorcist is the only horror film I can think of that feels suggestive and subtle, but is also graphically explicit. Usually a horror movie is one or the other, since the subtle approach tends to preclude explicitness and vice versa. But The Exorcist strikes me as somehow being implicit and explicit at the same time. Maybe it's because it's working on several different levels that it manages to do this, but that paradoxical quality is one of the things that elevates it for me. Offhand, the only other film I can think of that accomplishes something similar is Kubrick's The Shining (1980), being both suggestive and graphic without either quality detracting from the other.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 26 Mar  2022, 00:53At one point, apparently Friedkin was supposed to direct The Ninth Configuration. So, I'm wondering if Blatty inserted the comic book characters as an enticement. Fun fact: Before Donner came along, the Salkinds adored The Exorcist and attempted to woo Friedkin to direct Superman: The Movie. Turns out, Friedkin was VERY interested in Superman as well. It's Hollywood tho. So, whatever happened happened and the Salkinds ultimately settled on Donner. Friedkin is said to have deeply regretted missing out on Superman.

So, I'm wondering if Blatty didn't include those comic book references as sort of like a consolation prize for Friedkin. Something in his usual genre but a few comic book references for fun. And since Blatty ultimately directed the movie, I'm guessing those comic book references weren't enough to convince Friedkin to be the director.

I didn't know about this. A Superman movie directed by Friedkin would have been something special. Unquestionably, he was one of the greatest filmmakers of the Hollywood New Wave. I think The Exorcist is his best work, but The French Connection (1971), Sorcerer (1977) and To Live and Die in L.A. (1985) are all excellent films as well. It's interesting that the Salkinds hired Donner based on The Omen, since that's a movie film historians frequently compare with The Exorcist. Personally, I've never been a huge fan of The Omen. It's a good film. It's well made and well acted and I like Jerry Goldsmith's score. But I've never thought it was a great film, and I certainly don't place it in the same league as The Exorcist. Yet if it wasn't for The Omen, then I suupose Donner wouldn't have made Superman.

Was Friedkin interested in directing films based on other DC properties? His knack for crime thrillers would've made him a suitable pick for Batman. He also knew how to handle action. The car chase in The French Connection is legendary, but if anything I'd say the car chase in To Live and Die in L.A. is even better.


Imagine a gritty and realistic Batmobile sequence shot and edited like that. This is what the Tumbler chase in Batman Begins should have been like.

On the subject of Friedkin, he directed an interesting documentary back in 2017 called The Devil and Father Amorth all about the Vatican's chief exorcist. It got a very mixed response from critics and viewers, but I enjoyed it. The biggest criticism of the film was levelled at a sequence depicting a real exorcism in which the subject's vocalisations sound as though they've been distorted and exaggerated in postproduction. Friedkin denied altering the audio in any way and claims that this is what the woman's voice was really like, but to be honest it does sound a little suspect to me. If her voice really did change like that... damn.

Quote from: The Joker on Sat, 26 Mar  2022, 03:16I've had a passing interest in The Exorcist for years now, but have only recently taken the plunge in finding out more about these films. Recently, I went thru the trouble of investigating the differences between each and every DVD/Blu ray release, and settled on making it a point to purchase the 1997 DVD edition due to the original Saul Bass WB opening logo remaining intact (supposedly the only edition that doesn't resort to using the more known WB shield opening logo), as well as the original color timing (particularly during the final exorcism section where Pazuzu's true form makes a brief cameo). I'm admittedly a stickler in wanting to watch this movie as closely as to what audiences witnessed during a original theatrical run, and I wanted to get invested in what was presented way back in 1973 with the original film.

There's a strong argument to be made that that's the best version of the film, and it's certainly the most appropriate for recapturing the experience of the original audience. There are controversial aspects to the director's cut, such as the fact Friedkin's use of effects and subliminal imagery is a lot less subtle than in the original version. Those are fair criticisms. I suppose I might just favour the director's cut because it's the one I've watched the most times as an adult. It's definitely worth seeing, but you're right to start with the earlier version.

Quote from: The Joker on Sat, 26 Mar  2022, 03:16Silver, I'm sure I'll be using your posts in this thread as something of a reference/study guide as I eventually make my way thru the sequels. Right now, I'm kinda torn on if I want to watch (despite being aware of it's negative rep) The Exorcist II to follow up on with what happened to Linda Blair's Regan MacNeil character, or just go straight to The Ninth Configuration. I'm interested in both, and genuinely would like to see both, before I go into The Exorcist III and it's theatrical/Legion cuts.

I am seriously tempted to sit down and watch Exorcist II: The Heretic right the way through, but I don't really want to buy the DVD. If it was available on Netflix or Amazon Prime, or if it was on TV, I'd watch it. But if I purchase the DVD or Blu-ray I fear I'll probably just watch it once and then give it to a charity shop. I think I've seen most of the film in bits and pieces, and it strikes me as being a studio-driven enterprise made by people who wanted to recapture the commercial success of the first film without necessarily understanding what made it so great to begin with. John Boorman is a skilled director and he's made some classic films over the years – particularly Hell in the Pacific (1968), Deliverance (1972), Excalibur (1981) and Hope and Glory (1987) – but I don't think he was the right person to helm an Exorcist sequel. And Blatty's lack of involvement in the writing must have been a major detriment.

Another fear I have is that since Exorcist II revisits scenes from the first film it might damage my enjoyment of its predecessor. Then again, Martin Scorsese actually preferred the second movie to the first. And unlike me, Scorsese has watched Exorcist II in its entirety. I'm speaking from a position of ignorance. He isn't. So maybe Exorcist II has hidden qualities that are worth searching for. If you do watch it Joker, or if anyone else on the site does, then I'd be genuinely interested to hear your thoughts. Is Exorcist II underrated or is it truly as awful as most people say?

While we're at it, has anyone seen Paul Schrader's Dominion: Prequel to the Exorcist (2005)? I've seen Exorcist: The Beginning (2004), the theatrically released prequel which I gather was entirely reshot by Renny Harlin. But I've heard that Schrader's version is better. William Peter Blatty seemed to favour Schrader's cut over Harlin's, which would make it the only other Exorcist-related film that Blatty showed any positivity towards. Neither of the prequels has particularly high audience ratings online though, so I'm not overly optimistic. But I'd be curious to see just how different Schrader's prequel film is to Harlin's and if it is indeed superior. I've looked on YouTube for a video essay that might detail the differences, but there doesn't seem to be an in-depth analysis of the subject. James Rolfe posted a video about the two prequels a few years ago, but he doesn't show any clips from either film to illustrate the differences or commit to saying which is better.

Quote from: The Joker on Sat, 26 Mar  2022, 03:16I would be lying if I said I wasn't at least "curious" about the upcoming proposed Blumhouse trilogy. I mean, I don't have any illusions that it can go anywhere near the 'lightning in a bottle' kinda reaction that the original received in 1973, but I think David Gordon Green has a directorial style that could possibly fit in suitably well within the Exorcist premise. A lot remains to be seen though...

Yeah, I'm trying to keep an open mind about it too. Blumhouse produced some of my favourite horror films of the past decade, and the recent Halloween movies restored a level of dignity to that franchise that had been missing for a while. I don't think an Exorcist reboot is necessary, but if it has to happen then I'd rather it was Blumhouse handling it than most other studios. We'll definitely track the progress of the new films in this thread as more info becomes available.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sat, 26 Mar  2022, 18:07Was Friedkin interested in directing films based on other DC properties? His knack for crime thrillers would've made him a suitable pick for Batman. He also knew how to handle action. The car chase in The French Connection is legendary, but if anything I'd say the car chase in To Live and Die in L.A. is even better.

Not that I ever heard about. Back in those days, WB didn't control Superman on film. The Salkinds owned the film rights to all things Superman. So, offering Batman as an alternative or a consolation prize wasn't possible.

Still, you and I aren't the only ones wondering what a late Seventies/early Eighties Friedkin Batman film might've been like.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sat, 26 Mar  2022, 18:07On the subject of Friedkin, he directed an interesting documentary back in 2017 called The Devil and Father Amorth all about the Vatican's chief exorcist. It got a very mixed response from critics and viewers

I must count myself among them, sadly.

There are simply too many questions. The Catholic Church has always been reluctant to allow exorcisms to be recorded. For that matter, they've always been reluctant to allow outsiders to participate. You can search up a series of interviews with Adam Blai on YouTube. He's a Catholic layman who, due to a gigantic variety of special circumstances, frequently assists with exorcisms with the permission of his diocese. His bishop at one point instructed him to grant interviews about his experiences in order to raise awareness of what the Church teaches is the very real danger concerning the forces of darkness. That's why his statements might be the most forthcoming public discussion the Catholic Church has ever engaged in when it comes to these matters. Still, Blai's circumstances are highly unusual and highly unlikely to ever be repeated. He's also got a lot of wild stories, incidentally.

So, it raises a TON of questions for me as to how and why the Vatican's chief exorcist would permit an outsider (and particularly Friedkin) to create a for-profit feature film out of a possession case.

There are many issues to be discussed with this. And frankly, it's a conversation we might better have in PM's since it veers into religious territory concerning actual cases of possession/oppression/infestation.

In brief, however, I will say that there are many elements of the Fr. Amorth movie that just plain don't add up for me. I don't completely know what to think about it.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sat, 26 Mar  2022, 18:07
The biggest criticism of the film was levelled at a sequence depicting a real exorcism in which the subject's vocalisations sound as though they've been distorted and exaggerated in postproduction. Friedkin denied altering the audio in any way and claims that this is what the woman's voice was really like, but to be honest it does sound a little suspect to me. If her voice really did change like that... damn.

Not sure what to think of that either. On the one hand, I want to say that if Friedkin was determined to embellish his movie, he would've included some The Exorcist-style shock effects. The stair spider-walk and the like.

On the other hand, the Fr. Amorth thing was clearly a shoestring operation and pitching someone's voice in weird ways is super cheap to do.

I could see that either way, honestly.

Amorth strikes me as something of a maverick, which is perhaps why Friedkin was drawn to him. When it came to warning people about the dangers of possession, Amorth advocated preventative measures as preferable to curative. That's why he endorsed cautionary films like The Exorcist. Despite certain obvious theatrical embellishments, The Exorcist showed the spiritual, emotional and psychological dangers of possession and quite literally put the fear of God into the audience. In the same way that a film showing the harmful effects of drug addiction might deter someone from experimenting in narcotics, Amorth was keen to deter people from engaging in any act that might incur a spiritual sickness (e.g. dabbling in the occult or messing around with Ouija boards). He probably saw Friedkin's documentary as another way of accomplishing that end and participated in the hope of dissuading people from exposing themselves to harm. I'm sure there are many other Catholic exorcists who feel embarrassed by the documentary and would rather these matters were handled discreetly, but Amorth had his own agenda and I believe his ultimate goal was to educate and protect the unwary.

The motives of 'Christina', the woman portrayed in the documentary's exorcism footage, are less clear. She seemed willing to share her experience with the public, but then she and her partner attempted to revoke that permission for reasons unknown. Or did they? We only have Friedkin's word to go on. And the incident he describes in the church, which is not captured on film, sounds more dramatic than anything else depicted in the documentary. Did it happen? Is he exaggerating? Or was 'Christina' merely a woman suffering from mental health problems who changed her mind about having her ordeal documented on film? We'll probably never know. It's important to remember that the documentary came out after Amorth died. This factor afforded Friedkin more creative license than he might have had if Amorth had been alive to dispute the film's content. I'm not saying Friedkin definitely did fabricate or intentionally distort events depicted in the documentary (though it seems highly probable that he did), but if that were the case then I wouldn't hold Amorth complicit in the deception.

This discussion has inspired me to go back and re-watch some of the Exorcist films over the past few days. On revisiting the Legion cut of Exorcist III, I've decided that I actually prefer the theatrical cut. The Legion cut is still very good, but the theatrical version just feels more complete. More polished. There are definitely things I like better about the Legion cut, but on balance I think the theatrical version edges it out slightly.

I also recently revisited Exorcist: The Beginning. My opinion on that movie hasn't changed. Two major problems I have with that film are that it lacks the verisimilitude that made the best entries in the franchise so believable, and that it fails to convincingly evoke its East African setting. On the latter point, almost every location shot is encircled by a wall of rock that limits the geographical scope to that of a small set. Occasionally the camera moves above the rock to afford us a glimpse of the unconvincing digital landscape that lies beyond. But the result resembles something from a noughties TV show. I never really believed the characters were in Kenya, and the final shot of Merrin strolling through St. Peter's Square is one of the worst green screen effects I've seen in a film of this vintage. The quality of the digital effects in general is poor, with the worst example being the CG hyenas. The make-up and practical effects are good, but anything involving chroma key composition or CG imagery looks dated and cheap.


The bad effects work also contributes to the lack of verisimilitude I mentioned earlier. One of the reasons Friedkin's film is so effective is that it feels grounded. Chris doesn't instantly seek a spiritual solution to her daughter's sickness, but rather acts the way a real mother would by first pursing every avenue of medical science. She consults doctors, specialists, psychiatrists, and it's only when every other option has been exhausted that she turns in desperation to the church. The futility aroused by that fruitless process of investigation only adds to the horror, and the angiography scene in particular is one of the most painful to watch. The ordinary setting of Georgetown also feels believable, and before they expose us to any excesses of supernatural horror Blatty and Friedkin first take their time presenting us with vignettes of everyday life that establish the initial state or normality. That normality is gradually disrupted in such a way that preserves the film's verisimilitude as the supernatural elements are introduced by degrees. If the movie had opened with the exorcism scene it wouldn't have worked as well. The excesses of that final sequence had to be earned by the preceding escalation.

In contrast, Harlin's film doesn't bother to establish a believable status quo. Instead we're thrown in at the deep end, with heavy use of CG effects and orangey-yellow lens filters that are typical of noughties horror flicks. Consequently the film's aesthetic leans towards stylisation rather than realism, and this makes the over-the-top set pieces feel even further removed from reality. Harlin tries to shock the viewer, likely in an attempt to match the impact of Friedkin's film, and this results in some suitably horrible imagery: a little girl being shot in the head by a Nazi officer, a small boy screaming in agony as he's torn apart by hyenas, maggots crawling on a stillborn baby as its bloody corpse is presented before its devastated mother. But the film just isn't frightening, and the violence, which is more excessive than any other entry in the series, feels less meaningful than it ought to.

The performances generally aren't bad, and there is some striking imagery. The basic premise of the movie also has a lot of potential, and perhaps that potential was better actualised in Schrader's Dominion. I assume the script for Dominion was better, as the script for Harlin's film comes across as heavy-handed and conspicuously lacking in wit. It attempts to tackle serious themes of faith and despair – themes which were much better handled by Blatty – but the film's theological pretensions aren't particularly thought-provoking and tend to get buried beneath the chaos of the action scenes. All in all, it's a pretty bad film and not one I would recommend. It's watchable enough, but it fails to capitalise on its interesting premise and feels unworthy of the best instalments of the franchise (i.e. Friedkin's film, TNC and The Exorcist III).

Here's how I would rank the films in the series, starting with the best:

•   The Exorcist: Director's Cut (2000)
•   The Exorcist (1973) theatrical cut
•   The Ninth Configuration (1980)
•   The Exorcist III (1990) theatrical cut
•   The Exorcist III: Legion (1990) director's cut
•   Exorcist: The Beginning (2004)

Now I just need to see The Heretic and Dominion.

Here are a few more observations concerning The Ninth Configuration.

The final scene of TNC has parallels with the final scene of the first Exorcist film. Both end with the passing of a medal (a Saint Joseph medal in The Exorcist and a Saint Christopher medal in TNC) as characters drive away from the building in which the bulk of the story took place.

TNC is the source of the 'Howie scream', which went on to be used in countless other movies, TV shows and videogames. It's probably the second most famous stock sound effect of its kind after the Wilhem scream, and it's first use was during the bar fight in TNC when the gang leader attacks Kane.


Stacy Keach's face is awesome. He looks like he was drawn by Frank Miller, which is perhaps why he was cast as Wallenquist in Sin City: A Dame to Kill For (2016). If it weren't for the scar from his cleft lip, I think he'd have made a good Batman back in the eighties.


There's a scene in Exorcist: The Beginning that strongly resembles a scene from The Ninth Configuration. (Minor spoiler) In both films, a character approaches another character who is sitting on the floor cradling an object in their lap. The first character asks what the other character is holding, and then the camera moves to reveal that the seated figure is cradling a severed head.

I'll cap this post off with some amusing Friedkin clips. Here he is commenting on Exorcist II: The Heretic.


This is him discussing the possibility of an Exorcist remake.


This final clip has nothing to do with the Exorcist. It's just Friedkin tormenting Nicolas Winding Refn.

Russell Crowe is playing Father Gabriele Amorth in a new film titled The Pope's Exorcist. The project is being directed by Australian filmmaker Julius Avery, whose other credits include the WWII horror movie Overlord (2018) and Sylvester Stallone's upcoming superhero film Samaritan (2022).

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/russell-crowe-popes-exorcist-1235169682/

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Tue, 19 Jul  2022, 18:33
Russell Crowe is playing Father Gabriele Amorth in a new film titled The Pope's Exorcist. The project is being directed by Australian filmmaker Julius Avery, whose other credits include the WWII horror movie Overlord (2018) and Sylvester Stallone's upcoming superhero film Samaritan (2022).

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/russell-crowe-popes-exorcist-1235169682/

I'm tempted to go see this. It might not be very good, but the subject matter interests me.



The Critical Drinker interviewed Russell Crowe about it last week.


Another exorcist-themed film coming out later in the year is Nefarious, starring Sean Patrick Flannery.

Hey SN, do you like The Conjuring series? Watched the three main Conjuring films in that franchise over the past few days and had a blast with them.

The Conjuring is my favourite horror franchise of the past decade. :)

I watched The Conjuring (2013) repeatedly when it first came out. The first half of the movie, where the scares are comparatively subtle and implicit, is terrifying. The Annabelle story, the clapping game, the music box, the scene where the girl wakes in the night and tells her sister there's someone standing in the shadows behind their bedroom door – all of that stuff's very effective. I'm less keen on the second half of the film, where the horror becomes more obvious and visual. But on balance, it's a good movie and genuinely scary in places. Regardless of whether or not the Warrens were frauds in real life, their fictionalised screen counterparts make for extremely likeable protagonists. Wilson and Farmiga have great chemistry, and it was a smart move to focus the series on them rather than the monsters.


I personally don't find The Conjuring 2 (2016) particularly scary, even though most viewers seem to find it more frightening than the first. However, in some ways I think it's a better film than the original. It places a strong emphasis on the characters and their relationships, and it's tremendously atmospheric. Several movies and TV shows have been made about the Enfield poltergeist, and while most evidence points to the haunting being fake, TC2 does a good job of incorporating those suspect details into a fictionalised narrative wherein it's real. It's a rare example of a good horror sequel that's more than just a retread of its predecessor.


I've only seen The Conjuring: The Devil Made Me Do It (2021) once. I need to see it again. I thought it was ok, but suffered from the absence of James Wan. It felt like a step down from the first two, but I give it credit for doing something different. It's not bad.


I've seen all of the spinoffs except the first Annabelle (2014) movie, so I can't comment on that one.


Annabelle: Creation (2017) is decent. It's an unnecessary prequel to a prequel, but it's well made and reasonably effective.


The Nun (2018) has an intriguing premise and is strong on gothic visuals and ambience. Unfortunately the second half of the film sacrifices plot in favour of repetitive set pieces that aren't very scary. It's not offensively bad or anything, but it's one of the weaker instalments in the series. I'm hopeful the upcoming sequel will be an improvement.


I have seen The Curse of La Llorona (2019), but I can barely remember it. From what I recall, it's the worst of The Conjuring movies and very generic.


Annabelle Comes Home (2019) is surprisingly good. I rate it just below The Conjuring 1 and 2. The Warrens feature more prominently in this than they do in the other spinoffs, making it feel a bit like The Conjuring 2.5. If you like the main entries in the series, then I recommend this one.


I also highly recommend Insidious (2010) if you haven't already seen it. It's directed by James Wan, stars Patrick Wilson and feels like a test run for The Conjuring series. It's very scary and has one of the most unnerving scores in horror movie history.


Going back to a point I made in the John Wick thread, I'm always eager to support fresh IPs that bring new characters and storylines to the screen instead of just retreading old ones. You can see how Wan and his team were influenced by things like The Haunting (1963), The Exorcist (1973), The Amityville Horror (1979) and Poltergeist (1982), but I love that they took those influences and used them as the foundation for something new. The Conjuring is one of the few shared universe franchises that isn't adapted from a comic book or pre-existing film series, and it's one of the few modern horror brands that isn't based on a movie from the seventies or eighties. I also appreciate that for all their hokey over-the-top visuals, these films take the underlying theological and demonological themes seriously. They're creative, spooky and fun.

This franchise is only a decade old and still has a lot of life left in it. They've already shot The Nun 2, which comes out later this year and will hopefully fix the flaws of the first movie, and The Conjuring 4 is in pre-production. I'd rather see Wan direct that than another Aquaman movie.

Does anyone else like The Conjuring franchise? If so, it might be worth starting a separate Conjuring Universe thread for posting further discussion, news, trailers, etc. If there are any horror fans on the site who haven't seen these movies yet, they're worth checking out.

I have only seen the main Conjuring films. The spinoffs look very appealing. But I haven't prioritized watching them. And mostly because I want to buy them and they haven't gone on sale yet.

As you say, this is an original IP unrelated to film or comics or novels or whatever. And that's just as attractive to me as it is to you. And for the same reasons, I imagine. It would be nice if Hollywood could get back to relying on original IP's, even if they make endless sequels to them.

Were the Warrens frauds? It's not easy to say. Plus, I'm not an expert on demonology. But what little I do know harmonizes just about perfectly with what the Warrens always said. Still, the conclusion I've reached is that I don't need the Warrens to have been real and truthful in order to enjoy these Conjuring films.

As to a Conjuring thread, I'm not sure if there's enough interest to warrant that. But hijacking The Exorcist thread seems wrong somehow. So, I'm open to whatever.

Also, your remark about Wan's absence from TCTDMMDI is certainly true. I do enjoy the film. And yet, I have to wonder where Wan would've taken the same material. The Occultist probably would've been a more menacing villain in his hands, frankly.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Mon, 10 Apr  2023, 20:11I also highly recommend Insidious (2010) if you haven't already seen it. It's directed by James Wan, stars Patrick Wilson and feels like a test run for The Conjuring series. It's very scary and has one of the most unnerving scores in horror movie history.

Insidious has been on my list for a while now. Frankly, I don't know much about it. And I've avoided learning anything (other than the participation of Wan, Wilson and Byrne) precisely so I can watch it fresh and enjoy it (or not).

Well, wouldn't you know? The four movie bundle went on sale so I snapped it up. I'm guessing the upcoming Insidious movie has something to do with that.

Separately, I don't understand the impetus behind releasing the next Insidious film any time this month considering the virtual onslaught of other films coming out. This is especially true considering that there are better/less competitive release windows later in the year.

Anyway, I'm about to get the first Insidious going. I'll follow up later with my thoughts about it.

re: Insidious

Very enjoyable film. I've got another horror franchise to follow now. I definitely understand what SN means by referring to Insidious as a warm up for The Conjuring.

Here's hoping the sequels can measure up.

So far, I think I like the storyline and the characters of The Conjuring better. But at the same, Insidious has creepier and more atmospheric visuals. So, I guess it's kind of a wash.

Both franchise are definitely worth checking out for those of you who haven't done so already. In a thread ostensibly dedicated to The Exorcist, if you enjoy that film, then Insidious and The Conjuring should be in your wheelhouse.

I am compelled by Exorcist: The Beginning and Dominion: Prequel to the Exorcist because it was one of those remarkable cinema occurrences where not only was a film completely rewritten and re-shot, but the result is two films completely on opposite ends of the spectrum. On their own the films aren't anything but minor footnotes, but together it is incredible to see two wildly different takes that are the result of a production company not understanding what they wanted. They went from a film that was too 'indie' to a movie that was the epitome of mindless blockbuster schlock.

Of the two, Dominion is superior as it has a better handle on characters and drama and creates a more suitable mood for something like the Exorcist, but it lacks 'pop' and often times the supernatural aspect feels like an afterthought. It is missing the oomph and is too easily left in strange, existential territory that, while interesting, never has that big payoff. It is well directed and acted, but it needs a push.

Beginning is an overreaction. Instead of doing minor re-shoots they redid the whole movie. It's like being in a car and seeing that you are slightly crossing over into the shoulder, so you jerk the wheel in the other direction as far and as hard as you possibly can. So, the car fishtails and then flips over. You slide through the retaining wall, tumble down a hill, and then plummet into a quarry. Renny Harlin, basically competent yet unremarkable action movie director extraordinaire steps in to do do what he does and there ya go. This was the guy who managed the second worst Die Hard movie which entertains only because it literally just follows the Die Hard blueprint. It's Die Hard, ya know, but like...in an airport.   

I still haven't seen Dominion, but I'd like to. It's Paul Schrader after all, and Blatty liked it, so I imagine it must have some merit.

Quote from: Gotham Knight on Mon,  3 Jul  2023, 14:54This was the guy who managed the second worst Die Hard movie which entertains only because it literally just follows the Die Hard blueprint. It's Die Hard, ya know, but like...in an airport. 

Oh, I like Die Hard 2. You're not wrong about it being a play-it-safe retread, but I still enjoy it more than the fourth and fifth movies. If nothing else, it's the most Christmassy entry in the series.

Harlin also directed Cliffhanger and my second favourite Nightmare on Elm Street movie, so I confess to having a certain affection for his early work. The Long Kiss Goodnight wasn't bad either. He's not a great filmmaker by any stretch, but he made some entertaining popcorn flicks in his heyday.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIxpPMyGcpU

I'm afraid it looks like another generic legacy sequel to me. I'll probably just re-watch the original in October to celebrate its 50th anniversary.

The trailer gives me Candyman (2021) vibes - a retread that succeeds in approximating the serious tone of the original, but falls short of its quality and inventiveness. I don't think Danny McBride is up to recapturing the theological depth and precision of Blatty's work (unlike Friedkin's movie, there are no priests or doctors listed as technical advisors on the IMDb page; just one parapsychologist specialising in the occult), and I don't see why it needs to be the first part of a trilogy. If anything in this life is certain, if history has taught us anything, it's that you can kill anyone... and that it's really hard to make a good Exorcist sequel. The only person who pulled it off was the franchise's creator, Blatty himself. What makes Blumhouse think they can make one good Exorcist film, let alone three? Aside from bringing back Burstyn, what's going to separate these movies from the hundreds of Exorcist clones that have been released since 1973? Judging from the trailer, nothing.

Speaking of Burstyn's return, why would someone go to Chris MacNeil for help dealing with possession? Chris wasn't involved in the exorcism in the first film and didn't even really believe in it. She just asked for help from the church out of desperation. I get that they want to bring back an actor from the original as part of the legacy sequel formula, and that most of the other cast members from Friedkin's film are dead, but wouldn't it make more sense for the characters to contact an actual exorcist for advice?

Put another way, if there's an invisible man sleeping in your van, who you gonna call? The Ghostbusters or Dana Barrett? I'm not knocking Burstyn, whose performance in the original is superb. But bringing her character back now just seems a little desperate. Presumably they're planning to bring Linda Blair back in one of the sequels, or perhaps even the post-credit scene. That would be the obvious thing to do.

So my expectations for this are low right now. It might be good, but I'm not holding my breath. Without Blatty, it's all just fan fiction anyway.

I will try and comment more later, but I just wanted to post this short video going over the brilliance of Blatty's original 1973 film.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsqMgvSO35Y

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Tue, 25 Jul  2023, 21:23there are no priests or doctors listed as technical advisors on the IMDb page

If there had been, they would've said that a possessed person entering a Catholic parish and standing in such close proximity to the Blessed Sacrament would be a source of excruciating pain and agony. That's fairly common knowledge in the Catholic world. And since the original film largely worked with the Catholic Church's understanding of demonic possession, sequels are (or ought to be) bound by the same rules. But apparently, that's not happening.

I understand that it's a creepy visual to see a demon-possessed girl interrupt Mass. But the Catholics will be happy to tell you that something like that is very unlikely, and maybe even completely impossible. Simply being in close proximity to a Catholic parish is thought to be torturous for the demon-possessed. But actually entering one? Yowch!

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Tue, 25 Jul  2023, 21:23If anything in this life is certain, if history has taught us anything, it's that you can kill anyone...

Never get tired of these references.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Tue, 25 Jul  2023, 21:23it's really hard to make a good Exorcist sequel. The only person who pulled it off was the franchise's creator, Blatty himself. What makes Blumhouse think they can make one good Exorcist film, let alone three? Aside from bringing back Burstyn, what's going to separate these movies from the hundreds of Exorcist clones that have been released since 1973? Judging from the trailer, nothing.

I get the idea that McBride thinks he discovered a formula in Halloween 2018 and is now applying it to The Exorcist.

But as you say, the number of deceased cast members combined with the numerous copycats makes it very difficult to recapture what made the original Exorcist so special in its time.

Plus, Halloween is a special case. What works for that franchise can't easily be exported to other franchises. I think history shows us that. Just because bringing JLC back worked for Halloween 2018 doesn't mean that bringing Burstyn back for this new Exorcist will work too. And who knows? It very well might. But I have my doubts.

If you're determined to do it, I say own the fact that few other surviving cast members are available. Position Chris as an authority on the Catholic understanding of demonology, possession, etc. Don't go to such a length as to make her a clone of Lorraine Warren. But definitely set Chris up as a font of information as well as someone with a personal stake in this kind of spiritual warfare. Her agenda is to spare other families the pain and trauma that she experienced.

Of course, the public thinks of Chris as a fringe weirdo because sumthin sumthin possessions aren't real. Nevertheless, she keeps plugging away in the hopes that she can help at least one person.

Lacking any alternative, the characters in the new movie decide to reach out to Chris for an opinion on the matter. And after some convincing, Chris agrees to do it... only to discover that she's encountered this particular demonic entity before. And that makes her a viable threat to the demon because she knows (or can find) his name.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Tue, 25 Jul  2023, 21:23Presumably they're planning to bring Linda Blair back in one of the sequels, or perhaps even the post-credit scene. That would be the obvious thing to do.

That, I think, is the plan.

And a glance at her wiki page indicates that her schedule is wide open for such a thing.

The one thing I can say for this new film is that the father gives me serious Denzel vibes. From his overall screen presence to even his voice, he just has that kind of energy to him. I'm not about to fork over a ticket price just to see him in action. But I have to say he is very impressive in that trailer.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Wed, 26 Jul  2023, 02:36If there had been, they would've said that a possessed person entering a Catholic parish and standing in such close proximity to the Blessed Sacrament would be a source of excruciating pain and agony. That's fairly common knowledge in the Catholic world. And since the original film largely worked with the Catholic Church's understanding of demonic possession, sequels are (or ought to be) bound by the same rules. But apparently, that's not happening.

I understand that it's a creepy visual to see a demon-possessed girl interrupt Mass. But the Catholics will be happy to tell you that something like that is very unlikely, and maybe even completely impossible. Simply being in close proximity to a Catholic parish is thought to be torturous for the demon-possessed. But actually entering one? Yowch!

The bit in the trailer where Chris says something along the lines of, "Every culture and religion use different methods, it's going to take all of them.", if I'm gauging this correctly, seems to imply that the Catholic faith and authority, as far as this film's storytelling is concerned, is going to be reduced to some degree. To what extent? And does this route ultimately hurt the film since this is taking place 50 years following the previously established events (as Colors mentioned above depicted largely under the lens of the Catholic Church's understanding of Exorcisms) of the 1973 original?

I can understand the desire to be more broad, but at the same time, it does come across as going against the grain. So to speak.

Quote from: The Joker on Wed, 26 Jul  2023, 02:24I will try and comment more later, but I just wanted to post this short video going over the brilliance of Blatty's original 1973 film.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsqMgvSO35Y

The dream sequence is very effective. According to literature on the subject, nightmares are one of the commonest early symptoms of the oppression stage preceding demonic possession. Pazuzu's presence in Damien's dream foreshadows the end of the film, where the demon takes control of him. The doubt, guilt, depression and general emotional negativity Damien grapples with earlier in the story weakens him spiritually and leaves him susceptible to that possession. Pazuzu's presence in the dream shows that the demon is already working on Damien before Karras himself is even aware of its existence. It's an unsettling moment.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Wed, 26 Jul  2023, 02:36If there had been, they would've said that a possessed person entering a Catholic parish and standing in such close proximity to the Blessed Sacrament would be a source of excruciating pain and agony. That's fairly common knowledge in the Catholic world. And since the original film largely worked with the Catholic Church's understanding of demonic possession, sequels are (or ought to be) bound by the same rules. But apparently, that's not happening.

I understand that it's a creepy visual to see a demon-possessed girl interrupt Mass. But the Catholics will be happy to tell you that something like that is very unlikely, and maybe even completely impossible. Simply being in close proximity to a Catholic parish is thought to be torturous for the demon-possessed. But actually entering one? Yowch!

Bram Stoker understood this, though he was a Protestant himself. In his original Dracula novel Van Helsing is explicitly portrayed as Catholic, and his most powerful weapon is the Eucharist. Many screen versions ignore or downplay this aspect of the book, but a few get it right. Francis Ford Coppola's version, for one.


The Eucharist isn't merely a symbol of God. It is Christ's substantial physical presence. A demon, which philosophically speaking is a spiritual being that's separated itself from God, would find that presence unbearable. Accounts of actual exorcisms support this. And let's not forget whose authority modern day exorcists invoke.


Filmmakers don't need to believe in any of this, but they should at least respect it if they're intent on exploiting the subject matter. We'll have to see how they handle the issue in Believer, but I have a feeling this will not be a particularly sophisticated or well-informed treatment of the subject. The Exorcist isn't just another slasher franchise where you can make up your own rules. It's grounded in theology and philosophy stretching back millennia. Blatty did extensive research before writing his novel, and the writers of the new films should do no less.

Quote from: The Joker on Thu, 27 Jul  2023, 03:30The bit in the trailer where Chris says something along the lines of, "Every culture and religion use different methods, it's going to take all of them.", if I'm gauging this correctly, seems to imply that the Catholic faith and authority, as far as this film's storytelling is concerned, is going to be reduced to some degree. To what extent? And does this route ultimately hurt the film since this is taking place 50 years following the previously established events (as Colors mentioned above depicted largely under the lens of the Catholic Church's understanding of Exorcisms) of the 1973 original?

I can understand the desire to be more broad, but at the same time, it does come across as going against the grain. So to speak.

If that line in the trailer is anything to go by, it sounds like the new film might be taking a more diverse and inclusive approach to world religions. If so, will the protagonists invoke the name of every deity to repel Pazuzu? Will they call upon the power of polytheistic gods whose existence is incompatible with the natural theology from which the Judeo-Christian God's existence is reasoned?

I'm not saying you couldn't have a story focusing on an exorcist from another religion. A Jewish rabbi, for instance. But that's not what The Exorcist series that Blatty created is about. I can imagine Blumhouse going with a 'more spiritual than religious' ending where the demon is ultimately defeated by the power of love or female autonomy. They'll have Regan get possessed again, only this time she won't need no man to save her. She'll just scream "Get out of my body" and Pazuzu will flee in terror of her girlbossness.

Or maybe I'm reading too much into that line. The film might be ok. I'm just wary, and judging by the like/dislike ratio on the trailer a lot of other people share those doubts. Some movies should be left alone, and The Exorcist is one of them. Would people be excited if Blumhouse announced they were making a new Jaws trilogy, and that they were bringing back Richard Dreyfuss as Hooper? Or better yet, Michael Caine as the quick-drying pilot with the water-resistant shirt? My reaction to that would be the same as my reaction to this new Exorcist trilogy.

The situation reminds me of what we were saying about Insidious. Rather than just remake or reboot Poltergeist, James Wan went and created a new franchise. Similarly The Conjuring is clearly influenced by The Exorcist, but it isn't a remake or sequel. Creating a new franchise is hard work, while capitalising on the legacy of an established brand is obviously much easier. Blumhouse is taking the easy route.

If anyone's looking for some decent demonic possession films that aren't part of The Exorcist franchise, I'd give moderate recommendations to The Exorcism of Emily Rose (2005)...


... and The Rite (2011).


Neither of these movies is great, and they're certainly not on a par with Friedkin's film, but they're both entertaining and reasonably sound on a technical level.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfYpvKd-aFY

As expected, Believer is getting savaged by fans and critics. But director David Gordon Green has a more serious problem to worry about. According to film and theatre critic Ed Whitfield, prior to his death William Friedkin vowed to return from the grave to possess Green and make his life a living hell. :D Here's the full quote:

Quote"William Friedkin once said to me, "Ed, the guy who made these new 'Halloween' is about to make one to my movie, "The Exorcist." That's right, my signature film is about to be extended by the man who made "Pineapple Express." I don't want to be around when that happens. But if there's a spirit world, and I come back, I plan to possess David Gordon Green and make his life a living hell."

https://www.worldofreel.com/blog/2023/10/6/g40s2lbt30b0vkas2b6ikk3a146jfo

If Green suddenly starts swearing backwards, trolling Nicolas Winding Refn on social media, and directing really great car chases, then we'll know that Friedkin's spirit has slipped into the driver's seat.

I've been meaning to post my reactions to having seen "The Exorcist II: The Heretic" via the Scream Factory blu ray, and ... it's definitely something else! Similar to "The Texas chainsaw Massacre Part 2", the sequel to the original "Exorcist" noticeably takes a much different approach than it's predecessor. Honestly, I have to say that I later viewed the film again with Project Consultant Scott Bosco commentary track, and it actually made me appreciate the sequel more than I did initially. As Bosco is an unapologetic "Heretic" fan, and meticulously elaborates on his fandom, the entire production of the film, the public and critical negative reaction (to which he doesn't push back against even though he obviously loves the film), and the more recent restoration to get it officially released on blu ray. Bosco does make the statement during his commentary track, that rather than go with the tagline, "It's four years later... what does she remember?" (especially given that this question is answered pretty early in the film), the sequel really should have gone with the line used for it's first teaser trailer. Which was effectively, to take you into the beyond. Which, given the consistent  surreal imagery and atmosphere of "The Heretic", that would have been much more apt of a tagline for John Boorman's vision.

I still haven't seen The Exorcist II. I bought the DVD off Amazon last year, but shortly after acknowledging my order they sent me an email confirming that it had been cancelled and my money was being refunded. They offered no explanation why. Must've been the ghost of William Peter Blatty trying to prevent me from seeing it.

I've been watching and reading reviews of the new Exorcist movie, and it sounds like all of my fears were well founded. Many have described it as nauseatingly woke, with particular emphasis being given to a scene in which Chris MacNeil insults the men who saved her daughter by calling them a "damn patriarchy". ::) Modern Hollywood writers just can't help themselves. Their ideological outlook is so painfully predictable and insular, their work increasingly reads like a Babylon Bee parody.

Michael Knowles posted a damning twenty minute review in which he eviscerated the film for its poor quality, lack of scares and intellectual and spiritual incoherence. I won't post it here, because he gets quite political, but his analysis of the movie makes it apparent that the filmmakers didn't bother researching the subject matter and flagrantly disrespected the intent of the franchise's creator. It sounds as though The Exorcist brand has sunk to a new nadir, and I doubt if I'll waste my time watching it. Hopefully the plans for a trilogy will get scrapped so the IP can escape further violation.

Here's Mark Kermode's review of Believer. Say what you will about Kermode, but he is the preeminent expert on the original Exorcist film. He's contributed more articles, books and documentaries on the subject than anyone else. His response to Believer says it all.


He's right about there being only one true canonical sequel to The Exorcist.


That said, if the franchise had to be continued – if some Hollywood exec placed a gun to my head and forced me to come up with a workable concept that would honour Blatty's original work – then how about an occult detective TV show centred around Lieutenant William F. Kinderman?

Kinderman's a great character who features prominently in the original Exorcist novel and is the main protagonist in Blatty's sequel novel Legion. Lee J. Cobb played him in the 1973 movie, and then George C. Scott took over the role in The Exorcist III. Kinderman's a middle-aged homicide detective with a droll sense of humour and a love of classic movies. He lives in Georgetown with his wife and daughter, and is best friends with fellow film buff Father Dyer.


Prior to the events of The Exorcist Kinderman helped track down the serial killer James Venamun, otherwise known as the Gemini Killer. I haven't read Legion, but I gather that in the book Venamun is killed during a shootout with the police. I don't know if Kinderman killed him directly, but the Gemini Killer seems to blame Bill for his death. In The Exorcist III Venamun was executed after Kinderman apprehended him. In both versions of the story Bill is one of the detectives who ends the Gemini Killer's reign of terror.

Soon after working on the Gemini case, Kinderman investigates the murder of movie director Burke Dennings. Bill has a larger role in Blatty's 1971 novel than he does in the film, and there's a whole subplot about him tracking down the fugitive son of Karl and Willie Engstrom, the housekeepers at the MacNeil residence, who is hiding somewhere in Georgetown. Kinderman suspects their son might be responsible for the murder of Dennings, but accepts his innocence after confronting him. Bill's investigation brings him into contact with Pazuzu's influence, prompting him to research the subject of witchcraft, and he is present in the MacNeil residence on the night Regan's possession ends.

Fifteen years later, Bill finds himself investigating a copycat serial killer who is stalking Georgetown using the modus operandi of James Venamun. This leads him to discover the mysterious Patient X locked away in a mental hospital. Patient X appears to be the ghost of the original Gemini Killer who has somehow taken possession of the reanimated corpse of Father Damien Karras. This once again brings Kinderman into contact with Pazuzu's influence.

There's quite a lot of material there that could be mined for content. One idea would be a prequel series in the vein of Se7en focusing on the original Gemini Killer and Kinderman's struggle to stop him. Another idea would be a series set after Legion/The Exorcist III, focusing on an older Kinderman as he investigates occult crimes with vaguely supernatural connotations. The show could be set around Georgetown University, where Bill's daughter would be enrolled as a performing arts student.

To reiterate, I don't think they should make any more Exorcist films or TV shows. It was Blatty's magnum opus, and Blatty is gone. Now they should just leave it alone. But if it had to be done, then focusing on Kinderman would be a more interesting strategy than simply going the obvious route of bringing back Pazuzu, Chris MacNeil or Regan. Bill's an interesting character and his job as homicide detective would open things up to a wider range of stories.

I don't know who could play him though. Cobb and Scott were both such great actors, you'd need someone equally great to continue the role.

William Friedkin's recollections of "The Exorcist II: The Heretic" are very entertaining.  ;D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2D4cPXpvHjI

Even the Project Consultant, Scott Bosco, who provides a very insightful commentary track for Shout Factory's blu ray release of "The Exoricst II", addresses the film's obvious shortcomings, and states that he recalls that audiences who walked into the sequel with much interest, were looking for a fight. This was the sort of tone/approach that Bosco believes audiences were hoping for, and wound up getting something far more surreal and outright unconventional by Boorman. Evidently, according to Bosco's research, audiences for the sequel also did not take seriously Linda Blair as a sexual seductress when she is once-again possessed by Pazuzu (pretty much taking the opposite route as opposed to Pazuzu's more grisly approach with Regan in the original). I believe Blair was 17 at the time. Speaking of Pazuzu, you can say the sequel is notable due to Pazuzu actually getting a revealed name. As I'm pretty sure most audiences in 1973 with the original "Exorcist", assumed the demon was the Devil, or a random demon. Rather than dig into and research the significance of the Pazuzu iconography that begins the film.

Yeah, "Believer" seems to get either negative reviews, or people saying it's just mediocre at best. The most positive thing I've heard, is that some consider "Believer" to be a better installment in the franchise than "The Beginning/Dominion", but that's not exactly high praise either.

I like your ideas about extending out the franchise as a tv show with William F. Kinderman as the lead. That could be interesting. Another way to elaborate on this, is possibly taking a "Bates Motel" approach, where the franchise is essentially rebooted. By doing so, the show could really explore and further expand upon the Kinderman/Father Karras friendship that "Exorcist 3" brought to the forefront. Since this would be a revision, Father Merrin and his work could be placed into the narrative, in addition to the Gemini Killer case being developed upon, along with introducing the Macneil's at some point in the show. Eventually leading to a reimagining of the exorcism of Regan Macneil.

Personally, if the Exoricst is to continue on as a franchise, I'd rather something like Silver's ideas, or a complete reimagining ala "Bates Motel", than what we're currently getting.

BTW, yeah that "patriarchy" line is comically absurd. The help of two priests was sought after to save a young girl, and both died as a consequence. Is a modicum of reverence too much to ask for? lol

I'd still like to see The Heretic at some point. It's got James Earl Jones in, so it can't be a total waste of time. John Boorman is a very hit and miss director for me. Hell in the Pacific, Deliverance and Excalibur are all good films. Zardoz on the other hand is garbage, and even Boorman himself admitted he didn't know what it about since he was high when writing it. From what I've heard about The Heretic, I suspect he might have been high while making that too.

Quote from: The Joker on Sat, 21 Oct  2023, 17:36William Friedkin's recollections of "The Exorcist II: The Heretic" are very entertaining.  ;D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2D4cPXpvHjI

Friedkin was never one to mince words. Here he is talking about Pacino.


Ouch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDYFZ50KaT4

Quote from: The Joker on Tue, 25 Jul  2023, 15:45https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIxpPMyGcpU

Apparently, Blumhouse is going ahead with a sequel to Believer. They've announced that franchise-fixer Mike Flanagan has a take on this material that will hopefully revitalize the franchise in ways that Believer wasn't able to do.

I reassert my ongoing reluctance to make sequels to the original Exorcist film. However, you'd think that if anybody is capable of developing a worthwhile sequel, it would be Flanagan. But if he can't do it and if Wan is busy with other projects, then maybe these Exorcist sequels should be put to bed.

In any case, Flanagan's participation is a game-changer for me. I do intend to keep an eye on this.

Yeah, I'm on the same page.

Upon reading about this, I initially thought that whatever David Gordon Green's ideas for a follow up were would be completely disregarded, but perhaps not? The hellish fate of one particular character seemed to be a plot thread that was to be further explored (DGG said he had "ideas" on the commentary track), and we also saw a "reunion" near the conclusion came across as something that would be elaborated upon.

With Mike Flanagan now on board, I'm fairly sure he can assuredly improve on whatever DGG had in mind. His participation does make me feel a bit better about the ultimate prospect of the Blumhouse Exorcist trilogy.