Off the Cuff Reviews The Exorcist (1973)

It's one of the most renowned horror films ever made. It's a classic, it's instantly recognisable, it's revered, it's one of the most culturally significant films of the last century, it's... good. It's... it's good. I don't think am as in love with The Exorcist (1973) as I'm supposed to be, and I'm not exactly sure why that is. Hopefully by the end of this review I'll have a better grasp of it. Starring Ellen Burstyn as Chris MacNeil, Max von Sydow as Father Lankester Merrin, Jason Miller as Father Damien Karras, Linda Blair as Regan MacNeil, Lee J. Cobb as Lieutenant William F. Kinderman, Kitty Winn as Sharon Spencer and Jack MacGowran as Burke Dennings.

The Exorcist (1973)

I don't want it to sound like I hated this movie; there's a lot in here that I really like. The story itself was fairly simple, not a lot of side-stories to complicate things, but that actually works in the movie's favour, for the most part. Keeping the story focused on this one possession allows the movie to be more character-focused, for the most part. We get a lot of opportunities to get to know our characters, and pretty much all of them are super likeable. The inspector doesn't have much to do in the story, all things considered, but I really liked his character. The acting was great across the board as well, particularly from Linda Blair as Regan. It shouldn't come as any surprise at this point, but she was excellent, especially for a child actor. Ellen Burstyn was great as the pushed-to-the-end-of-her-rope mother, Jason Miller gives an absolutely heart-breaking performance as Father Karras, basically everyone was great in this movie and let's just leave it at that; you don't need me telling you what you've already heard a thousand times.

Linda Blair as Regan

That said, I would like to go over the plot in a little more detail. I know this review has had a godawful structure so far, but hear me out. There's a very slow build which I do think is necessary for a film like this; if they jumped straight to the exorcism itself there wouldn't be much point. I do like how long it takes for the topic of an exorcism to come up, and even when it does, it's only suggested as a placebo; it all feels really natural in that regard. The build-up also works with the escalation of the possession itself. It gets more and more serious as it goes on, and the tension just ratchets up throughout, which is great. The movie never had me screaming, or jumping out of my seat, but it's not really that kind of horror movie. It's meant to creep you out, unnerve you, unsettle you, and it certainly succeeds in that regard. When we finally do get to the exorcism, however, it's all fantastic. The movie had been building up to it for about 100 minutes and the payoff is remarkable. I'll mention this here; the effects hold up incredibly well for the early 70s, it never comes off as cheesy or dated. I'll also quickly gush over the ending; without going into spoilers, I didn't see it coming, but it seems perfectly natural in retrospect. It was a shock, certainly, but it was the perfect ending for this kind of story.

Jason Miller as Father Karras

So, for as much as I've gushed over the 3rd act, I have less than admirable feelings about the 1st and 2nd. For, while I've mentioned the slow build worked for the payoff, I do feel like more could have been happening to get there. The first act just crawls along, it feels like it moves at a snail's pace, and beyond introducing us to our characters, not a lot happens. I feel like the structure of the film is fairly weak overall; a lot of the scenes feel like they have no reason to be there or end too soon: that one 10 second should of Father Karras boxing comes to mind. I don't know, maybe I'm missing something, maybe it's because I don't watch a lot of horror movies, but I think it's just because of the way older movies like this are generally structured; I've mentioned similar things in the past with a few other older movies I've reviewed. I'm also not saying I need something to be happening constantly, but in the moment I need a reason to pay attention; hold my interest beyond knowing it'll pay off by the end. I think there's a reason a lot of satires and parodies I've seen of this movie tend to focus on that one element (the exorcism itself): the rest is sort of boring. It's a tough call, I know, but, again, hear me out.

Ellen Burstyn as Chris

I know a lot of audiences in 1973 were appalled by what they saw. There were boycotts, people were puking in the cinema, all that jazz. And, that may have been fine for the time, but it's almost 50 years later (good God) and a lot of it just doesn't have the same impact anymore. Like I said, I don't watch a lot of horror movies, so it's not even the Seinfeld effect where I've seen the same things done but with more added on top, in newer horror movies. It's a little weird that hearing a 12-year-old say c*** doesn't shock as much anymore, but there were shocking things in the movie that still hold up. I just think the majority doesn't quite land as well as it may have in the past. It's still creepy, but not so creepy that it's creepier than other things I've seen, even outside horror movies. And I hate to keep coming back to the film's structure, but why is the opening 10 minutes focusing on this one priest in Iraq, and then nothing that he did is seemingly relevant to the events that follow and he isn't even mentioned until an hour and a half later? I'm sorry, as a writer, the way this film is structured broke me. Again, it might be because I'm not familiar enough with the horror genre; maybe I'm just not a fan, but some of these elements really let the film down overall.

Max von Sydow as Father Merrin

I really wanted to love The Exorcist (1973). I didn't want to be the one person who doesn't love this movie. Let me know if I'm missing anything big, but at the moment, I only like this movie, mainly for the final act. There's good things throughout, but not enough that it works as an overall package for me. 7/10.

Off the Cuff Reviews The Fall (2006)

You ever thought you had a movie pegged in the first 15 minutes only to be completely wrong? I was not expecting this movie to turn out the way it did; it really ended up surprising me. What I thought was going to be this super artsy 'all spectacle, no substance' snooze-fest ended up being a powerful story that really hit me by the end. The Fall (2006) is a very clever movie, in that I'm sure I'll pick up on things more clearly on a 2nd watch, but it was nuanced enough that the 1st watch didn't leave me in the dark. Like I said, a clever film. Starring Lee Pace as Roy Walker, Catinca Untaru as Alexandria and Justine Waddell as Evelyn.

The Fall (2006)

I feel like I should clarify something I said in the opening paragraph. I don't necessarily mean 'spectacle' as a bad thing. The beauty of an artform like film is they can be, well, beautiful. And there are those films that go for style and flair over a unique or compelling story, which isn't to say those films are bad either. They have their audience, I'm just not it. I'd prefer a pretty standard-looking movie that tells an interesting story over a beautiful one that doesn't. Of course, the ideal scenario would be a film that does both, but the balance is hard to find. This film might have found it. Not that it's incredibly stylistic to the point where it's off-putting for a general audience, but this is certainly a unique film in terms of its style... eh, like I said, it's a tough balance to hit. It's even tough to describe. I'll do my best, though.

Lee Pace as Roy

The movie is basically told in two portions. The first is what's happening in the real world, in this hospital with the young girl and the stunt double. I will say that these sections took a while to really get going for me. Without really knowing what's going on, a movie needs to grab you early to keep you invested while you figure things out, and this movie didn't quite nail that, not really piquing my interest until around the 30 minute mark, which is a lot of movie to get through before things start really getting good. I imagine that now I know what's going on, the first part of the movie will grab me more on a rewatch, but do be wary of it going in for the first time. Not to say the hospital scenes are bad, far from it. I really enjoy seeing this little community operate, especially around the little girl, who I'll get to in a bit. I think what the hospital scenes do best it set up the world we're in: the time period, the personalities, the relationship between the girl and the stunt double; it all works by the end, and, really, by the 30 minute mark.

Justine Waddell as Nurse Evelyn

The second chunk of the movie is the story Roy is telling Alexandria in a very 'Princess Bride' way, in that it doesn't matter if elements of this section are non-sensical or don't make sense, since it's unapologetically not real. I've always liked this handy work around for storytelling. You can do things like have someone be practically birthed from a tree without turning the audience off, since it's just a story being told between two characters in 'the real world'. And, as far as made up stories go, it does its job really well. It's your classic revenge story, although, really, I guess it's like 5 of them. This is where the imagery really takes over. These landscapes are stunning, and the cinematography is among the best I've seen. This story in general has that 'epic odyssey' feel to it, and you really get invested in the plight of our heroes to get revenge on Odious, even though it's all patently not real.

Leo Bill as Charles Darwin

What makes it work is something that Princess Bride didn't do, and that's the parallels between the two parts of the movie. As the movie goes on, you realise the movie is far more clever than you first thought, and the story being told by Roy has a purpose and certain elements overlap and Alexandria starts interjecting and it's all a big metaphor and... I can't say much more without giving anything away, and I really don't want to spoil anything. Basically, the entire final act of this movie is some of the most heart-wrenching, tense and meaningful storytelling I think I've ever seen. It's the kind of thing I've always wanted to write: something that seems like one thing, but ends up being something much deeper. And while I give overwhelming credit to the script for this, a lot of it goes to the acting. I see Lee Pace in a completely new light now; having only seen him as Ronan the Accuser prior to this, what a complete turnaround. And credit to Catinca Untaru as well, she has a lot to do in this movie and she turned out to be a child actor who not only wasn't unbearable, but kept up with Lee Pace, relative to her age of course. Seriously, I was on the edge of my seat for the entire climax of this movie, and nothing was really happening. That's an impressive feat.

Catinca Untaru as Alexandria

If you can get through the first 30 minutes or so, The Fall (2006) will turn out to be a movie experience you will never forget. As much as I want to, I can't really say it is perfect, since the opening scenes will turn some people away, but it's one of my personal favourites already, and I'm sure to come back to this one in the near future. 9/10.

Off the Cuff Reviews Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975)

Oh, boy, was I looking forward to this one. One of my fondest memories from my youth was watching this movie for the first time, knowing very little about it or Monty Python in general, and just being so awestruck by it. Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975) is one of the greatest pure comedy films of all time. It's honestly as simple as that. Starring Graham Chapman as Arthur and others, John Cleese as Sir Lancelot and others, Terry Gilliam as Patsy and others, Eric Idle as Sir Robin and others, Terry Jones as Sir Bedevere and others, and Michael Palin as Sir Galahad and others.

Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975)

Critically reviewing this movie is going to be a little different than what I usually do. This might end up being a little shorter as a result, but, in all honesty, if I devoted too much time to this, it wouldn't really be in the spirit of what this movie is. I can't really break down the story and what worked / didn't about it, since it is so contradictory. Characters disappear within scenes, the plot itself is paper-thin, and the ending is abrupt and anti-climactic. Thing is, all of these elements are by design, and serve as vessels for the comedy. This isn't a movie so much as it is an extended Monty Python episode with an Arthurian theme. You've got the 2D animations throughout, the fourth-wall breaks, the spontaneous musical numbers, all of which would be a detriment to a traditional movie, but it all works here. With any form of art, you need to judge something not based on what is traditional, but what it is, and what this is essentially boils down to an hour and a half of laughter disguised as a movie.

Graham Chapman as Arthur and Terry Gilliam as Patsy

Now, when I call this an extended Monty Python's Flying Circus episode, that can be a little off-putting to some people. I know Monty Python are revered as comedy geniuses, and rightfully so. So many of their pieces are well-renowned comedy classics: Dead Parrot, Ministry of Silly Walks, Lumberjack Song, the list goes on and on, but a lot of people forget that Monty Python's Flying Circus, like almost any sketch comedy show out there, could be very hit-or-miss at times. When Monty Python were funny, they were really funny, but when they weren't funny, they were really not funny. Fortunately, this movie is 95% hits; practically every scene is laugh-out-loud funny, and it was really hard for me to stop this review from just me rattling off the more memorable moments one after the other. There are really only a few moments in this entire 92-minute spectacle that don't get an honest laugh out of me. That said, if I can't criticise the ending for being anti-climactic, I can criticise it for being the weakest part of the movie, and not really all that funny. The unfunny moments are, of course, vastly outweighed by the funny, memorable and endlessly quotable moments, so it works out well in the end.

John Cleese as Sir Lancelot

Material like this is only as good as the people performing it. I've seen brilliantly written comedies ruined by non-comedic people, though it's usually a winner when you're writing for specific people. The Monty Python crew have been consistently good at performing their own material, and they're also experts at knowing which of the cast should play certain roles. Everyone feels like they were the right pick for the roles they were given, be they big roles like Arthur or small roles like the left head of the three-headed giant. The guest cast are also really great, but all eyes are obviously on the main crew. Each of them are also great at varying their voices to sound like different characters each time. Obviously they're not trying to fool anyone here, but the different voices are still appreciated. Let's see, what else... the landscapes are nice, it's a good looking movie for 1975... the animated segments are a nice change of pace... guys, I wasn't kidding, I don't have much more to say about this one. This really is one of those 'What do I think? Of course it's good' moments. There's really nothing more I can say that hasn't been said already.

Michael Palin as Sir Galahad

Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975) is a comedy that everyone should watch at least once, probably more. If you haven't seen it yet, I guarantee that after one viewing, you'll be quoting it to your friends. And they'll laugh as well. Because it's funny. Have I mentioned that yet, that it's a funny movie? 9.5/10.