Image courtesy of IMDb
Hello, everyone.
It seems history is repeating itself, as my first new review in months is for a horror movie again (and much like it was five years ago, it is a case of a legacy sequel to a beloved movie from the 70s, the start of a new trilogy, and with director David Gordon Green at the helm, but we’ll get to that later*). For now, though, we’re on the original movie itself.
Fresh off The French Connection**, director William Friedkin brought us what many consider to be the scariest movie of all time back in 1973. With author William Peter Blatty adapting his own novel for the screen, we face a different kind of horror: demonic possession.
To start off the month, I actually got to see an Anniversary Screening of this before seeing the latest installment a few days later, so I’ll be factoring some of that in as well.
Folks, for this review, I’ll be covering a classic horror film where I completely understood its significance in both the genre itself and cinema as a whole, as we celebrate the 50th Anniversary of The Exorcist.
The story is set in Georgetown, Washington, D.C., where actress Chris MacNeil (portrayed by Ellen Burstyn) is filming a movie. She and her 12-year-old daughter Regan (portrayed by Linda Blair in an equally outstanding performance) rent a house with servants. Not long after, Regan begins exhibiting increasingly bizarre behavior and undergoing unnerving physical changes.
It slowly escalates to where it goes beyond merely seeking therapy or psychological evaluation.
Ultimately, Chris has to turn to two Catholic priests for help: Father Damien Karras and Father Lankester Merrin, who come to the conclusion that the Devil has possessed Regan, and they have to resort to an exorcism.
Now, before I go into my thoughts on the movie, I must forewarn you of two things.
1: If anything you’ve heard about regarding this movie unnerves you or makes you sensitive (whether it’s pertaining to religion, the possession itself, flashing lights (though it’s not as bad as some instances now, especially strobe light effects, they come up on occasion here), or otherwise), I suggest you turn back now for both this review and the next, and come back when I’m doing another review.
For those who don’t get easily affected by those aspects, you should be fine.
And 2: I’m going to have to mention some significant moments here for context and perspective purposes, so if you don’t want spoilers and want to see the movie first, hold off on reading until you have. Besides, it’s going to be more difficult to avoid them in the next review anyway.
For everyone else, let’s continue.
What Worked: The acting is fantastic across the board. As mentioned earlier, Linda Blair’s performance feels equal to Ellen Burstyn’s performance. They really come across as authentic. You buy the mother and daughter relationship between them, and you feel horrified about their situation, especially as it unfolds.
Equally effective is the partnership between Karras and Merrin. Karras has something personal happen prior to the main events of the story, and Jason Miller does a great job conveying that crisis of faith he has for most of the movie. It makes it all the more satisfying that he has a sort of redemption arc to him. The legendary Max von Sydow also does just as good a job selling how Merrin has experience with this sort of scenario. For evidence of that, look at his first scene in the movie.
Even the minor characters have significance to them.
Blatty’s script effectively builds tension and suspense throughout, and it shows in Friedkin’s direction. It feels like they go hand-in-hand with each other.
What stood out to me in terms of technical aspects aside from that were the atmosphere, the effects, the sound design, and the score.
The sense of atmosphere shows in the locations immediately. In fact, before the movie started, there was a promo informing the audience to stay until the end. Then right after the movie ended, they showed a featurette on the locations, which was very fascinating. I appreciate when these screenings go the extra mile to show something from the home media release either before or after the movie. It allows the audience to see certain aspects from different perspectives, and this is no exception.
Speaking of home media releases, it’s also worth noting that there are two versions of this (even the recent 4K that came out has them). There’s the Theatrical Cut, and then the Director’s Cut, also called The Version You’ve Never Seen. You can tell which version it is mainly by whether the famous spider walk scene is in it. Going in, I was expecting the former, but shockingly, it was the latter, because that scene was in there.
That scene works because it’s never set up as a jump scare, and the same goes for the rest of the frightening imagery here, including the Devil’s appearance.
They never stop the music and pause for a scare, which is what we often see now.
Not only that, the scares feel very practical; in fact, some of them actually are, like the puking scene and the bed shaking scene. The former was done in one take. Despite not being filmed as intended (it was supposed to hit Jason Miller’s chest, rather than his face as you see in the movie), that’s the take you see in the movie, and his reaction is genuine as a result.
For the bed shaking scene, it was shaken so much that it hurt Linda Blair’s back, and those screams of pain you hear from her were real.
The sound design itself is some of the most effective I’ve seen in a horror movie, modern or classic. It adds to the aforementioned atmosphere, tension and suspense, as does the score, particularly the main theme.
The main theme reminded me a bit of the themes for Jaws and especially Halloween. It’s the simple, but effective approach that those had, only this was more than merely a few notes. However, the first few notes here will stick with you, like those would.
I have one very minor nitpick: There was a small pacing issue for me at first, but once the possession started, it kept going from there. Other than that, that’s really it.
Overall: The Exorcist is as iconic as a horror movie can get. With outstanding performances, a perfect sense of atmosphere, phenomenal use of tension and suspense, effects that still hold up very well so many years later, unsettling sound design, a haunting score (no pun intended), and so much more, you can see and completely understand why it’s held in such high regard by film enthusiasts, critics, and horror fans alike. In fact, this was so beloved it received ten Oscar nominations, and became the first horror film to be nominated for Best Picture. The fact that it apparently was not enough to help draw more attention to horror films is a shame, because that alone is enough to justify its cultural significance. Even so, it’s still rare even now for that to happen.
I’m very glad I got a chance to see this before the newest one came out, because I figured it would help. It certainly did with Halloween. Whether I’m right in this case, you’ll find out more next time.
For now, though, I’ll put it this way: I’ll have quite a bit to say on that one.
*The only difference is that this time, it’s not using the same title as the original movie. There is a subtitle to it this time.
**Which received 8 Oscar Nominations, and won 5: Best Picture, Best Actor for Gene Hackman, Best Director, Best Film Editing and Best Adapted Screenplay.