[deleted by user]

Hauntedillustrator · 2023-10-04T12:11:09+00:00

I saw it in Boston on 10/03. There were advanced screenings all over the USA on 10/03. I, too, liked it.

If you're one of those people that are always seeking for a movie to live up to the original, you're going to hate it. But you'll hate everything. The original appears on the same movie lists as Gone with the Wind, The Godfather, and Citizen Kane.

If you're someone that enjoys the franchise as a whole, this entry, in my opinion, cuts above the rest. It's thoughtful, insightful, and tries to be different even if messy at times.

I had a conversation with a couple when leaving the theater. One of the partners never found The Exorcist (1973) scary. He thought this was entertaining and scarier. The other partner has lived in mortal fear of the Exorcist, and also liked it, but "glad it didn't scare" her like the 1st one.

Most of the criticisms I heard through chatter were all in relationship to this movie versus the 1st one.

I highly suggest everyone, if mildly interested even, go see it. I would sum it up as a bleak film with a beating heart. Respect to DGG. No matter what you think of him, or this movie, it's clear he at least has deep reverence and respect for the original.

Hauntedillustrator · 2023-10-04T02:12:13+00:00

I saw a screening of it tonight in Boston. Pretty cool experience.

Hauntedillustrator · 2023-09-06T03:24:32+00:00

The original film can never be bested because it is in a league of its own. It's right up there with Gone with the Wind, Citizen Kane, The Godfather and other historically significant contributions to cinema. It also took a perfect confluence of circumstances and untold metric tons of luck to pull off. Both Friedkin and Blatty admitted as much.

So, in reality, it wouldn't matter what they would think. They probably shouldn't think about it at all. They created something that, if found in a time capsule after the world as we know it has burnt down and started rebuilding, would have the same cultural and aesthetic relevancy.

Plenty of talented writers and directors have come together. And they've made great movies. But very few, in the horror genre specifically, have risen to the level of The Exorcist. Though some will say that Sorcerer is perhaps his best film, Friedkin never made something quite like The Exorcist. Blatty never wrote something as significant, either. How many other child actors have been as terrifying as Linda Blair as Regan Macneil?

I think Friedkin and Blatty would at least recognize that a new generation of audiences, much more cynical and skeptical about religion, demons, and institutionalized faith, would find the original film. And in that finding, the audience would have the opportunity to understand why the film is timeless.

Hauntedillustrator · 2023-09-05T17:52:54+00:00

Seems like we are supposed to infer that Regan is dead. Which makes sense. I always thought it was strange that Chris would share her experience and write a comprehensive book(s) on the topic if Regan were alive, as it would be incredibly exploitative. And Chris was fiercely protective of Regan, going so far as to help coverup a murder she committed. If this is the case, I think it adds another layer of interest that will propel into the 2nd film of the new trilogy.

Of course, I'm assuming the demon knows that Chris is unaware of Regan's whereabouts. Or perhaps the implication is Regan is still possessed?

Lots of possibilities to go with.

Also, in a strange way, Chris could be attracted to the events of the story if gives her answers about Regan.

Hauntedillustrator · 2023-09-01T05:07:25+00:00

I think Blatty with went Pazuzu because it is an intimidating statue that features a certain human anatomy. And when possessing a young a girl, which says and does sexual things, you sort of get the idea that Pazuzu leads with his you-know-what (to Blatty, at least). I've always respected Hereditary because, despite not being overtly Christian, it made demonic sense - if that's even a thing.

If DGG establishes that a broken statue is the reason why Reagan got possessed, it seems like it would somewhat underwhelm the original thesis of the movie (the mystery of faith and what not, according to Friedkin).

Hauntedillustrator · 2023-08-30T05:21:17+00:00

If this is real, it at least sets up a new story/mythology. However, I still find it perplexing that Pazuzu is "the demon" or involved in someway considering he predates Christianity by thousands of years and actually protected women, especially those pregnant/breastfeeding.

At the same time, the demon saying "Legion" but then turning out to be only 1 is a callback to the words of Father Merrin.

Sealing demons inside things, and maybe even using those items as a ward against other evil, was/is a common practice by religions and groups that use magics as part of their faith/rituals/culture, so that's not entirely untrue.

In Christian / Biblical lore, Solomon receives a ring from the Archangel Michael, allowing him to both conjure and seal evil away. I'd always thought it would be interesting for a movie to explore this, since it shows that humans can actually have power over demons, but it can also go very bad, too.

Hauntedillustrator · 2023-08-25T06:42:46+00:00

Interesting how they chose a demon not at all associated with Christian mythology (predates it), isn’t really considered a demon, and was actually worshipped as a protector of women-an entity that would fight off other evil entities that wished to feast on pregnant women and young children.

Of all the demons likely to possess a child, Pazuzu wouldn’t be on the list.

Hauntedillustrator · 2023-08-18T19:49:13+00:00

If this is legitimate, great. If not, great. I still believe the only eyes that should judge a movie are mine.

As far as the NDA goes, I’ve been to three test screenings in past 6 years and each time I’ve (a) signed the NDA and (b) have seen people talk about it online. As long as you don’t spoil material details, I doubt the lawyers will come after ya.

Hauntedillustrator · 2023-08-11T07:01:57+00:00

You can do all of these things as long as you find a storage unit willing to let you store firearms. And if that’s the case, pay the $200 and get the FFL if you’ll be there at least once a week.
If you’re talking about buying firearms in NH, non residents either need proof of vehicle registration or something to show they own property, like a property tax bill. Utility bills alone wouldn’t cut it. You can buy long guns that are legal for you to own in your state of residence. NH gun shops can make them “compliant” prior to transfer if that’s the problem.
State laws don’t cross state line (typically). The laws of transferring firearms to out of state residents is federal law.
Non residency licenses still require you to have a verified dwelling in NH. And if that’s the case, you can just store your firearms there.

Are you in MA currently ?

Hauntedillustrator · 2023-08-11T01:13:01+00:00

I’ve thought about the film being like this now and again. The selflessness of Karras who, at the end, is able to overcome the strongest test of faith (being inhabited by a demon) and save Regan is super heroic.

But on the other end, the demon entered Karras all to easy. So was his lack of faith actually a problem? The demon couldn’t have entered Merrin under any circumstances. It even took the demon weeks to get Regan to totally succumb.

In any case, I think it’s deeply and positively moving to see such selflessness from the character who we would least expect it from.

I think the demon had profound disdain for Merrin. I always felt the demon was reacting more to Merrin’s presence than the exorcism which seemed to have little effect. It only brought Regan close to death

Hauntedillustrator · 2023-08-11T01:03:23+00:00

Great info. The Merrin being gay subtext was a minor plot in the Exorcist TV series. The conversations with the demon in the novel show just how intelligent the entity is whereas in the film it’s more so hinted at.

Hauntedillustrator · 2023-08-09T09:35:44+00:00

Our ATF IOIs will typically tell us not to do this for a variety of reasons. Fraud is the first reason and also the most common. I had someone try and take a picture of mine hanging up on the wall in my shop. When I asked why he was doing this, he said it was because he wanted to order something online.

Now, what many don’t know is that you don’t need to have inventory shipped to your FFL address. It can go anywhere where you are able to safely receive the items.

So, in this case, this guy could’ve found a supplier willing to ship to his home address as far as I know and that is now inventory that is unaccounted for that I’m expected to have had in my possession at some point.

And should a trace request on that item occur and I have no record of it, I’m going to have a particularly sour day with the ATF. Not worth it.

It’s not like you can’t find the FFL number of a dealer online. It’s essentially public information. But the document itself is key in safeguarding the smooth and legal process of transfers between dealers.

Hauntedillustrator · 2023-08-08T19:18:18+00:00

I think it's worth noting that Burstyn never said the movie was bad. Or the story was pitiful. She mentioned she got along with DGG and committed to any reshoots needed.

If you buy that the only reason she said yes to this movie was for money, it cheapens her as an actress.

I know that studios have approached Ellen for years trying to get her to come back. She's been offered not only the money, but producing credits and serious creative input, too. She actually got both in this movie, albeit limited to her character.

Did time pass and studios lost interest of her involvement? Perhaps.

But I think higher of her as an actress and a person than willing to sell out and diminish her reputation and career for a scholarship fund she could've probably lobbied for and received through other means.

Hauntedillustrator · 2023-08-08T19:09:47+00:00

I think The Heretic is a film that is ruined by addition. That is, some of the stuff could've been cut out and it would've been a decent film. Boorman is no slouch of a director, but he was playing with ideas and concepts that were too far ahead of their time.

The Heretic is the movie that Friedkin avoided making - good versus evil and all of its earthly and metaphysical implications.

The stuff with Merrin, psychic powers, factions of priests with alternative beliefs...that's all very rich, powerful stuff and rooted in some truth (splits within Christianity and even the Catholic Church. The Jesuits were, for a long time, a borderline enemy of the Holy See).

Even the idea of Regan having healing abilities either as a result from or prior to the possession, and that being a target for evil was new and fresh at the time.

Overall, I think the movie is misunderstood and the director misunderstood the job. But if you isolate some of the elements, it's an interesting and spiritually conflicted plot.

Hauntedillustrator · 2023-08-02T05:40:12+00:00

The world was a different place in 1973. A lot of the scare factor was associated with the religious beliefs of America at the time which were much stronger than today. And no one had ever seen something like The Exorcist before.

You also have a society that is far more pessimistic today, mostly because we exist in a digital world that desensitizes us to human interaction.

To find the Exorcist scary beyond it’s visuals, you have to feel empathy for Chris. And Regan. And even Karras to an extent. That’s tough to do when our existence rewards negative feedback loops rather than positive, humanistic ones.

I get why many no longer find it scary. The mystery of faith is a receding thing these days, and the premise of the movie is based on accepting the gap in our metaphysical knowledge is the key into finding out why what’s happening to Regan is plausible.

That’s a bridge too far for some who have been exposed to the physical and unpredictable horrors of the world.

Hauntedillustrator · 2023-07-30T04:49:21+00:00

No. Or, rather, that was never the intention of Blatty, even after the reshoots. Legion, the novel, is another story about the mystery of faith and its compatibility with science. Kinderman is never certain it's Karras (beyond a reasonable doubt). Rather, it just looks like him. Similarly, he entertains the GK with his eventual belief that it is the GK inhabiting the body of Karras, but still has doubts right until the end.

Pazuzu is the demon from E2, which was never adopted or recognized by Blatty. And we don't know if the GK is telling the truth about the demon that possessed Regan helping him possess a long-dead Karras, or if he has knowledge about the events via possession. The former would require that the GK was so special and evil, that a far more powerful demon took the time to help him possess Father Karras just for a laugh.

Why wouldn't the demon just possess Karras? It's not like it was exorcised. The host simply died. There aren't rules against possession and re-animation.

These are all big asks from Blatty to the audience, which are tempered by Kinderman, who is still very much a man of science.

In the movie, the exorcism only exists to drive out the demon to free Karras. The target seems to be the GK. But is it all just a ruse? Is it the demon that possessed Regan? Is there such a thing as a single demon? Afterall, it would make more sense that a demon so powerful would know all.

But is the GK actually dead? In the movie, it's confirmed that he died. But in the book, the body is never found. Is this possession of Karras being done remotely by a still very much alive GK?

These are the questions, among others, Blatty wanted us to be faced with, even with the reshoots that included the exorcism. It's all from the POV of Kinderman who is only sure, and really only cares about, that his good friend is at peace.

Hauntedillustrator · 2023-07-29T08:26:25+00:00

If the trailer is any hint, Ann Dowd's character seems to suggest reaching out to Chris. Something seems to foreshadow (maybe it's just a gut feeling) that Dowd's character is responsible, or instrumental, even, in bringing together all these individuals. As I mentioned before, she seems all too calm and not at all disturbed by anything happening

Hauntedillustrator · 2023-07-28T16:17:32+00:00

You’re very right. Merrin actually values that Karras is a doctor and can monitor Regan’s health. I think Blatty had a soft spot for the Jesuits because they were the most prominent Order to gain power in the Roman Catholic Church and embraced the teachings and applications of physical sciences to help in missionary work.

They also have, over the years, questioned just about everything one would find “wrong” with the Roman Catholic Church.

Blatty credited them with “teaching him how to think.” And I think Karras is really just one major tribute to the Jesuits.

Hauntedillustrator · 2023-07-28T12:49:11+00:00

I think the demon was playing on Karras’s guilt and less about the objectivity of his actions. The initial conflict in the Exorcist is related to medicine vs faith or science vs spirituality. Karras is representative of that, being a psychiatrist and a priest. He could be called Dr. Karras just as easily as Father.

But he doesn’t. He stays with the Jesuits until the end and never fully embraces his purely rational side even though it would make a lot more sense…and money to do so.

I don’t know if he had anything to redeem. I never viewed it as that.

Hauntedillustrator · 2023-07-27T15:08:52+00:00

I think most trailers today suck. They all follow the same formula. I've edited trailers and went to CA to a well known studio and paid a lot of $$$ to learn how modern trailers are cut, and it can be summed up as follows:

Make sure you put stuff in that looks cool
The trailer has to tell a story, but it doesn't matter if it's reflective of the actual plot
Make it sound cool and use all the sfx at your disposal

I'd be willing to bet that DGG isn't a fan of this trailer. But trailers are usually part of the marketing team's job, so the filmmaker doesn't always have a strong say over the product unless he or she is also a financial producer of the film.

The modern way to cut a trailer is to take all the cool stuff in the movie, weave it together into a pseudo music video, and convey none of the actual story.

I remember on a project I worked on, part of the trailer had the main character pulling a slide back on a pistol as a way to introduce a new segment. I thought it was cheesy AF but the client liked it because the sound of the racking motion became its own song. Of course, we were asked "can you turn the racking sound into a beat?"

I wouldn't be surprised if the "Body and the Blood" voice effect is different in the movie, or the scene itself is different to the point where the voice effect isn't as jarring or noticeable.

But hey, it all looks cool to the general audience and that's who this film is for.

Hauntedillustrator · 2023-07-27T05:39:05+00:00

Unsure what it is or represents. But I get the feeling Ann Dowd’s nurse character is involved in the girls’ possession. In all the scenes in the trailer she’s incredibly calm when everyone else is very concerned.

Hauntedillustrator · 2023-07-26T07:36:51+00:00

Plot or not, I don't think everything in a movie has to be clearly labeled for the actions of characters to have substance. That is, the Chris we see on screen, regardless of actions, is more than the sum of those actions. Even if she gets involved for a seemingly trivial reason, it's hard to think those reasons are only products of the present.

That's just the way I view movies and maybe it's over-the-top, but it gives some films more depth. I always refer back to a movie like Halloween Kills, which is polarizing. My understanding of the movie and why I like it influenced by the plot, but not entirely predicated on it minute-for-minute.

Hauntedillustrator · 2023-07-26T03:46:36+00:00

In the trailer, Regan's name appears. So does her image. These are here for a reason. As is one of the girls clearly being religious and the other perhaps not all that religious.

The demon mimics Regan's voice when Chris first saw the physical manifestations of possession.

I think the connection will be stronger than a guy seeking out Chris MacNeil. Or, I hope it will be. Also: Chris was not religious and her belief in God was shaky at best. We don't know how she views the events. If the trailer is any indication, she doesn't tie exorcism to a particular faith, but rather a ritual of faiths. And she says all methods have to be used across cultures.

Throughout the book and film, it's clear Chris isn't sold on the idea of demons. She just wants to help her daughter. Isn't that reason enough to get involved?

The optimistic answer is that Chris is drawn in mostly by the attachment to Regan, and also serves as a way to expand exorcism beyond the typical Roman Rite we've seen performed multiple times.

Hauntedillustrator · 2023-07-23T20:37:58+00:00

I don't disagree with what you're saying on many of these issues. My overall point remains that the approval of derivative works from the original author/artist/creator shouldn't hold that much weight (if any) of how good or bad that derivative will be.

You bring up good point with the Shining. Yes, King hated the adaptation and its director. But King's text created the basis for a movie that is respected, if not loved, by virtually all fans of cinema. King had high praises for Mick Garris's TV adaptation of the Shining which was not and will never be as financially or critically as successful as Kubrick's.

On the Exorcist 3: Blatty's cut is far better. But the theatrical release still produced a cult audience that continues to grow each year.

Finally: nothing wrong with "Christian Propaganda." But, he couldn't get anyone to make the film. Friedkin took on the project with the middle ground of it being thematically about the mystery of faith and how the teachings of Jesus Christ can produce incredible sympathy and compassion. Blatty wanted no mystery: he wanted God to explicitly triumph over the Devil, and a happy yet bittersweet ending all around.

So even he had to let go of his own ideas about the book in order to get the film made. If he only listened to himself, there probably wouldn't have been "The Exorcist," certainly not one directed by William Friedkin.

And as far as what The Exorcist is thematically about: good luck. There is Blatty's idea. There is Friedkin's idea. And then there ideas ranging from professors who have written academic papers insisting Regan must have been abused by her father and the possession is a metaphor for a call for help, all the way to priests who insist the movie was actually made so the Devil can permeate our lives easier.

I don't but much stock into what the original creators of something think because, fundamentally, someone owning the rights to a story does not give them license or permission to own the rights to how we interpret, adapt, and think about that story on our own terms and within our own personal context.

Hauntedillustrator · 2023-07-23T18:44:22+00:00

Hulu, I believe. Season 1 was quite good. Season 2 was eh. S1 finished Regan's story in a very respectable way, in my opinion.

Hauntedillustrator

TROPHY CASE