[Janson Jinnistan]

The Exorcist - The classic, directed by William Friedkin. Phenomenal. My RT review:

There's a backlash towards the religious aspect of this film by those who fail to understand the Church's incendiary strictness, and its obsession with the essential human capacity for both evil and existential fear, and why this makes such a potent fuel for inflaming the subconscious. Of course, this is simply an extremely effective horror film, realistically portrayed by its cast, hypnotically compelled by director William Friedkin, and displaying the culturally relevent anxiety of a corrupted pubescent girl. It seems strange now that anyone could see this as a religious film, although penance and sacrifice, through Jason Miller, figure into its conclusion. Its success and cultural sensation is deeply rooted in the post-60s era where teenage sexuality was still somewhat taboo. In a world today where Girls Gone Wild and Katy Perry are considered 'respectable' businesses, this must seem quite quaint. It would all be beside the point if it wasn't such a well made shocker. The downside is that there are still fools who believe in "possession", much less demons or a devil, and we get to deal with these external (rather than internal, existential) evils as exploitated in various rip-offs and paranormal TV shows. The religious hysteria remains, as does its fuel: the simultaneous fear and exploitation of immature sexuality. What's lost is the more essential story, not necessarially religious, of a fallen, faithless man who is redeemed by saving an innocent child.

Exorcist II: The Heretic - The Catastrophe. Interestingly, there's been an effort to redeem this little monster. Although at one time universally reviled, it has found friends in fiendish quarters. Pauline Kael, for one. What is most interesting is how proportional the sequel's champions' hate for the original seems to be. Many of the positive reviews seem almost out of spite, a spit in the face to the popular phenomenon of the original. This is usually manifested by these "heretics", not content to simply say that this film may be better than is generally given credit for, actually claiming the vast superiority of this one to the original.

A glittering riposte to the original's earthbound viciousness

Very enjoyable in retrospect, and a big improvement on its source material.

One fascinating disaster--an anti-Exorcist sequel from a filmmaker openly contemptuous of the original.

(I actually haven't been able to find this open contempt that director John Boorman had for the original. He turned it down because he didn't want to be involved in "the torture of a child", but no opinions on Friedkin's final result. Judging from Boorman's own film, I guess he prefers sexier breasts on his children.)

Even Martin Scorsese claimed that the sequel "surpassed" the original, giving a lot of evidence about the more esoteric subject matter about the good/evil ("Does great goodness bring upon itself great evil?") that probably has more to do with William Goodhart's original screenplay than the final film which was rewritten at least five times, even during the shoot. To be fair, Scorsese made these comments in 1978 when he was still a heavy cocaine user, and I must admit that I have failed to watch the sequel under the influence of that drug.

What I can say, rather soberly, is that the film is a mess. The editing and staging are static and suspenseless. The hypnosis segment was ludricrous, with Rachel arm-wrestling Pazuzu for control of Louise Fletcher's heart. In fact, all of the make-up effects were atrocious, with a rubber faced imposter standing-in for Linda Blair. The ending is hysterical, with zero amount of the tension from the original. Some of the African scenes are effective and evocative, and are really the only parts of the film where John Boorman shows some of his signature visual taste. Even then, once we get to "ride my wings" on the back of a locust, things get silly real quick. No less than two scenes of burning alive that don't look believable in the slightest. And, as has been proven elsewhere, Linda Blair just isn't a very good actress, and no one gives a performance they would be proud of.

The Exorcist III - William Peter Blatty once again gets his hands on his story and shows a much better hand for horror than Boorman. Great sense of suspense and atmosphere for the first 2/3's of the film. George C. Scott and Brad Doriff give fine performances, and even a return of Jason Miller. What seems to be the recurring problem for all of the sequels is that they tend to go total bats#it over the top with their endings, in some kind of desperate attempt to top the thrilling climax of the original. Like the others, the ending of this film is too hysterical to be satisfying.

Exorcist: The Beginning - Renny Harlin receives a call on his hack-line that his formulaic services are needed to make a nonsensical remake of an unreleased film that expands on the unused flashback story from one of the worst sequels ever made. Of course, he gleefully complied. His final fecal contribution - he perverts the main thread connecting it to the original by changing the person who was supposed to be possessed.

Dominion - Paul Schrader is called in to make the long rumored prequel relating the story of Father Merrin engaged in an exorcism in "Africa" (the different films are never very consistent on the specifics, but generally either Kenya or Ethiopia, even though the original was more accurate by opening in Iraq since Pazuzu is a Babylonian wind demon. The original does not specify that Merrin's African exorcism was necessarially Pazuzu, despite his determined monodiabolism). The more psychological nature of Schrader's film is very promising and maybe would have been a much better film if it had actually been Schrader's own original project. As it was, he was a last minute replacement for John Frankenheimer, and the script was written by a far lesser psychological talent William Wisher (best known as co-writer of Terminator 2 and script doctor on the 3rd and 4th Die Hard films). Had Schrader been working from his own script, I have no doubt he could have made something truly impressive. For one thing, he could have axed the actual exorcism, which is just embarrassingly tepid and dull. Boorman's scenes of Merrin's exorcism are far more striking and haunting than anything in either of the new films. The film works much better when it lingers around the horror elements and drenches in dread. The actual shock and scare elements simply don't work and seemed forced. Schrader doesn't seem to be very adept at making an actual horror film, and even his Cat People draws its atmosphere from sexual tension rather than actual fright. Still, it makes for a more admirable effort, and it's speedy release in light of its predecessor was a welcome gesture of a studio who knew how badly it had f#cked up.

Xtra Credit: Something else for discussion. Going back to William Goodhart's original script for Heretic while considering some of the potential for Dominion, it's interesting to note that Goodhart switched the inspiration for Merrin to Jesuit priest Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. The only problem is that he never appears to have ever performed an exorcism. But he does resemble Max Von Sydow and he was one of the brightest Catholic intellectuals of the early 20th Century. For his brightness, his books were banned by the Vatican, and he remains controversial among the papacy today. In his life, the rap on his knuckles had to be softened due to his eminence among the scientific and academic societies of the time. His only other resemblence to Merrin was his work in paleontology. Teilhard conceived what he called the "Omega Point", a montheistic interpretation of evolution that would prove very influential on emerging evolutionary synthesis theories, as well on a number of science fiction writers, including Asimov, Dick (he's quoted in A Scanner Darkly), and Arthur C. Clarke, who used this idea of evolutionary consciousness as a basis for his script of 2001: A Space Odessey. This has to be seen against the thematic ambitions for what Heretic and Dominion were trying to accomplish to fully appreciate.

[Stryder]

Friedkins Exorcist is the only Exorcist. Everything else can be burned.

[BobHarris]

The original is probably the greatest Horror film ever, 5/5. I have not seen the others.

[Janson Jinnistan]

Well, I was hoping to lure some of these fans of the second one in here. Make them explain themselves. But, yeah, obviously the first one is THE EXORCIST, and the others are something or another. The third one is quite effective though. Everyone who's seen it knows THAT scene.

[BobHarris]

im not opposed to seeing the sequels, just havent gotten around to it yet.

[Marv]

The Exorcist 10/10
Legion: The Exorcist III 7/10

Haven't seen the others due to their bad reputations.

[Rock]

I've only seen the original, and it's pretty great. You have piqued my interest in the third one (and in the second, although not in the same way).

[TeamCanada]

B+ My first complete viewing was the theatrical re-release a few years ago. Fine production value, great atmosphere; grown up horror is always welcome (even if this, like say Jaws, has no horror effect on me- I thought the creepiest thing was the cold open in Iraq lol).

[Todd1700]

Friedkins Exorcist is the only Exorcist. Everything else can be burned.

Wrong. The third one is an excellent horror movie as well.

[Ed]

The Exorcist - 10/10
Exorcist 2 - 1/10
Exorcist 3 - 6/10
Exorcist 4 (either version) - 3/10

Anyone claiming that part 2 is better than the original does not understand film in any way, shape, or form.

[billwh2]

"The Exorcist" (1973) 10/10

None of the others are worth watching.

[Skinless]

Originally Posted by billwh2

"The Exorcist" (1973) 10/10

None of the others are worth watching.

Exorcist II is maybe the worst fall from grace sequel out there (until I saw Blues Brothers 2000), but E3 is passable (6/10).

[rocknblues81]

Originally Posted by Janson Jinnistan

The Exorcist - The classic, directed by William Friedkin. Phenomenal. My RT review:
Exorcist II: The Heretic - The Catastrophe. Interestingly, there's been an effort to redeem this little monster. Although at one time universally reviled, it has found friends in fiendish quarters. Pauline Kael, for one. What is most interesting is how proportional the sequel's champions' hate for the original seems to be. Many of the positive reviews seem almost out of spite, a spit in the face to the popular phenomenon of the original. This is usually manifested by these "heretics", not content to simply say that this film may be better than is generally given credit for, actually claiming the vast superiority of this one to the original.



(I actually haven't been able to find this open contempt that director John Boorman had for the original. He turned it down because he didn't want to be involved in "the torture of a child", but no opinions on Friedkin's final result. Judging from Boorman's own film, I guess he prefers sexier breasts on his children.)

Even Martin Scorsese claimed that the sequel "surpassed" the original, giving a lot of evidence about the more esoteric subject matter about the good/evil ("Does great goodness bring upon itself great evil?") that probably has more to do with William Goodhart's original screenplay than the final film which was rewritten at least five times, even during the shoot. To be fair, Scorsese made these comments in 1978 when he was still a heavy cocaine user, and I must admit that I have failed to watch the sequel under the influence of that drug.

What I can say, rather soberly, is that the film is a mess. The editing and staging are static and suspenseless. The hypnosis segment was ludricrous, with Rachel arm-wrestling Pazuzu for control of Louise Fletcher's heart. In fact, all of the make-up effects were atrocious, with a rubber faced imposter standing-in for Linda Blair. The ending is hysterical, with zero amount of the tension from the original. Some of the African scenes are effective and evocative, and are really the only parts of the film where John Boorman shows some of his signature visual taste. Even then, once we get to "ride my wings" on the back of a locust, things get silly real quick. No less than two scenes of burning alive that don't look believable in the slightest. And, as has been proven elsewhere, Linda Blair just isn't a very good actress, and no one gives a performance they would be proud of.

The Exorcist III - William Peter Blatty once again gets his hands on his story and shows a much better hand for horror than Boorman. Great sense of suspense and atmosphere for the first 2/3's of the film. George C. Scott and Brad Doriff give fine performances, and even a return of Jason Miller. What seems to be the recurring problem for all of the sequels is that they tend to go total bats#it over the top with their endings, in some kind of desperate attempt to top the thrilling climax of the original. Like the others, the ending of this film is too hysterical to be satisfying.

Exorcist: The Beginning - Renny Harlin receives a call on his hack-line that his formulaic services are needed to make a nonsensical remake of an unreleased film that expands on the unused flashback story from one of the worst sequels ever made. Of course, he gleefully complied. His final fecal contribution - he perverts the main thread connecting it to the original by changing the person who was supposed to be possessed.

Dominion - Paul Schrader is called in to make the long rumored prequel relating the story of Father Merrin engaged in an exorcism in "Africa" (the different films are never very consistent on the specifics, but generally either Kenya or Ethiopia, even though the original was more accurate by opening in Iraq since Pazuzu is a Babylonian wind demon. The original does not specify that Merrin's African exorcism was necessarially Pazuzu, despite his determined monodiabolism). The more psychological nature of Schrader's film is very promising and maybe would have been a much better film if it had actually been Schrader's own original project. As it was, he was a last minute replacement for John Frankenheimer, and the script was written by a far lesser psychological talent William Wisher (best known as co-writer of Terminator 2 and script doctor on the 3rd and 4th Die Hard films). Had Schrader been working from his own script, I have no doubt he could have made something truly impressive. For one thing, he could have axed the actual exorcism, which is just embarrassingly tepid and dull. Boorman's scenes of Merrin's exorcism are far more striking and haunting than anything in either of the new films. The film works much better when it lingers around the horror elements and drenches in dread. The actual shock and scare elements simply don't work and seemed forced. Schrader doesn't seem to be very adept at making an actual horror film, and even his Cat People draws its atmosphere from sexual tension rather than actual fright. Still, it makes for a more admirable effort, and it's speedy release in light of its predecessor was a welcome gesture of a studio who knew how badly it had f#cked up.

Xtra Credit: Something else for discussion. Going back to William Goodhart's original script for Heretic while considering some of the potential for Dominion, it's interesting to note that Goodhart switched the inspiration for Merrin to Jesuit priest Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. The only problem is that he never appears to have ever performed an exorcism. But he does resemble Max Von Sydow and he was one of the brightest Catholic intellectuals of the early 20th Century. For his brightness, his books were banned by the Vatican, and he remains controversial among the papacy today. In his life, the rap on his knuckles had to be softened due to his eminence among the scientific and academic societies of the time. His only other resemblence to Merrin was his work in paleontology. Teilhard conceived what he called the "Omega Point", a montheistic interpretation of evolution that would prove very influential on emerging evolutionary synthesis theories, as well on a number of science fiction writers, including Asimov, Dick (he's quoted in A Scanner Darkly), and Arthur C. Clarke, who used this idea of evolutionary consciousness as a basis for his script of 2001: A Space Odessey. This has to be seen against the thematic ambitions for what Heretic and Dominion were trying to accomplish to fully appreciate.

The Exorcist- One of the most creepy horror films ever. Great cast.

The Exorcist II - What the Hell is this ****? How did John Boorman go from Deliverance to this ****?

The Exorcist III - Own it, but haven't seen it in probably 15-17 years.

[Jackal P.I.]

Exorcist was great. Of the others, you recommend 3 and the Schrader prequel?

[Janson Jinnistan]

Originally Posted by Jackal P.I.

Exorcist was great. Of the others, you recommend 3 and the Schrader prequel?

I would recommend 3, under the understanding that it shouldn't be judged against the original.

I would be more careful recommending the Schrader. It has serious flaws. I would only recommend it for a more abstract viewing, to see where the potential was, and, if you're a Schrader fan, to look for some of his fingerprints in it. I wouldn't say that, by itself, it's a very enjoyable film.

[Marv]

Watching George C. Scott devour the scenery in the third installment is great. Plus it has a creepy performance from Brad Dourif.

[Marv]

Oh, and the scene the always gets to me...Select the black box below with your cursor to view the spoiler text

the long shot in the hospital hallway where a nurse enters a room, puts on and off the light, then shuts the door and walks away. Then bam someone covered in a sheet comes at her with huge shears.

*shudders*

[Eraser]

The Exorcist - 9.5
The Exorcist II: The Heretic - 1
The Exorcist III - 7
Exorcist: The Beginning - 6
Exorcist: Dominion - 5

[Janson Jinnistan]

Originally Posted by Marv

Oh, and the scene the always gets to me...Select the black box below with your cursor to view the spoiler text


*shudders*

That's THE scene I was talking about. One of the rare jump scares that actually creates a sustainingly haunting image long afterwards. I wish the film had a couple more scenes like that.

[Thief12]

Originally Posted by Stryder

Friedkins Exorcist is the only Exorcist. Everything else can be burned.

This.

I think I saw the second one a long time ago, but don't remember it and don't feel like watching it.

I saw the third one and didn't care much for it. A bit of a mess, and gets too much praise for the infamous "scene", which isn't that great anyway.

Haven't seen the others.

[Mounix]

The Exorcist - 10

One of the greatest horror movies of all time. The first time I saw this was the new version in cinema in 2000 and it left a lasting impression on me.

The Exorcist II: The Heretic - 2

About the only thing I remember is that it's terrible.

The Exorcist III - 6

"That" scene is creepy as hell, but unfortunately rest of the movie is not quite as memorable

Exorcist: The Beginning - 3

CGI-Hyenas.

[porchmunky4liFE]

Originally Posted by Marv

Oh, and the scene the always gets to me...Select the black box below with your cursor to view the spoiler text


*shudders*

This is potentially the only jump scare that has ever affected me for more than just a few seconds. Such a haunting image, it scared the hell out of me for years haha

[Errol Flynn]

I just realized I have E3 in a box set but have never watched it.

Will check it out tomorrow.

[Harry Caul]

The first one is great, the second one is terrible, the third one isn't terrible and the Schrader/Harlin films are both terrible.

I'm sure there will be more, but I hope not.

[tomlet]

The Exorcist: Great film, beyond creepy, great practical effects, great acting, and a role so disturbing that child protective services should have removed Linda Blair from her mother's care.

Exorcist II: laughable and almost unwatchable.

Exorcist III: Not a great film, but watchable, even enjoyable in parts, well acted, and is directly related to the story and characters of the original film in a good way.

The Beginning: laughable and almost unwatchable. Better than the second film though.

[Errol Flynn]

Originally Posted by tomlet

The Exorcist: Great film, beyond creepy, great practical effects, great acting, and a role so disturbing that child protective services should have removed Linda Blair from her mother's care.

No kidding! She had to masterbate with a crucifix!

And the Muslims get pissed of and murderous about an anti-Islam film.

Sheesh!

[Janson Jinnistan]

Bump for Halloween

[BobHarris]

Originally Posted by Janson Jinnistan

Bump for Halloween

(screams)

[Eat the Meat]

The Exorcist - 8/10
Exorcist 2 - 0/10
Exorcist 3 - 7/10

[The Iron Invader]

The Exorcist: Great, great film. A masterpiece of cinema. It's not the scariest horror movie ever made, but it sure is one of the most intruiging and haunting. 10/10

The Exorcist II:

"Reeeeeeagaaan!!"

"Pazuuuzuuuuuu!!"

The Exorcist III: a rather surprising sequel with good production values and acting. I don't really like the basic concept behind it, though. Some dead serial killer entered the body of Damian Karras at the exact moment where the demon spirit left it? Eh, whatever. However, Blatty's use of the power of suggestion is effective enough for the movie to remain somewhat grounded, allowing the film to work on other levels. Gotta love the atmospheric set pieces, the music and the brilliantly evoked sense of dread in the many quiet and dreamy scenes.

Select the black box below with your cursor to view the spoiler text

I loved the part where we see Father Dyer ominously sitting behind that piano with that look on his face, while he was probably being brutally murdered at the very same time. That was so creepy. Good stuff.

And then there's that ending. I remember liking it as a kid, because it was very much in line with the elaborate spectacle at display in the stream of horror movies that I was obsessing over. Nightmare on Elm Street, Necronomicon, etc etc. It was exactly what I wanted from genre movies at the time. Not sure how I would feel about seeing it now. It seems so ridiculously tacked on.

7/10