 |
| 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment