OldBoy

First off, I can't believe it took me so long to finally see this movie (and i call myself a horror lover). Anyway, it was fantastic. Stuff I haven't seen before and done in ways that are still not done today (which is a shame). Overall, great performances and imagery that just seemed so fresh and new. No way this movie is outdated by horror standards and it is too bad many today can't grab the tension and the palpable terror that this movie portrays. Excellent, excellent master work from Friedkin.

So couple questions that i am sure Blatty's book explains more plainly:
1) what was the significance of the artifact that Merrin found in Iraq?
2) why pick Regan to possess?
3) who or what was it that possessed her if it wasn't the devil itself?

Rival11

I can't really answer your questions as after many years of watching I still don't know myself. Glad you liked it though - now you need to watch III a very worthy/equal follow up IMO.

And as many DVD Talker's know (I say this a lot) - Both the first and III scare the living shit out of me to this day.

Giantrobo

I read the book 4 or 5 years ago but after all these years I'm still kinda afraid to see more than bits and pieces of the movie.

Anyway, I could be wrong but...

1. If I remember correctly they found a Totem representing a Sumerian(?) Demon. The Same demon that took Regan. I believe it was Father Merrin who found it.

2. In the book Regan was lonely girl and the same Demon was actually possessing her to fuck with Father Merrin who had dealings with the same Demon many years ago. It was also just fucking with those around Regan.

3. See No. 1

redskull

The movie doesn't really explain why the demon possessed Regan, but if I recall correctly there was an explanation in the book. The demon chose her because she was so pure and innocent, to demonstrate that if God would allow such a horrible thing to happen to someone like her, then the rest of us are right and truly boned.

inri222

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pazuzu

At the beginning of the book and film The Exorcist, when Father Merrin is at the site of an archaelogical dig in Northern Iraq, the menacing sculpted figure is Pazuzu, whom he had battled in an exorcism several years earlier. When Merrin is later appointed to perform the exorcism on Regan MacNeil, he suspects it is Pazuzu that possesses her. There is a foreboding scene in which Pazuzu recognizes his old adversary Merrin arriving to perform an exorcism.

Trevor

I can echo pretty much all of that. I'm a big horror fan, and yet waited to watch this until the horror challenge in October.

One reason for waiting? Demon possession scares the crap out of me. It is real, and I prefer my movies to be fake.

kantonburg

Really? I thought there has never been an actual documented case of one? That and the church doesn't really recognize the exorcism?

I could be wrong though.

dick_grayson

I saw this as a kid and then again when it was re-released in the theaters a few years ago. It didn't scare me as a kid, but as an adult I was terrified. The eerie sounds they added and "demon" faces and whatnot was brilliant. Also, I remember being paralyzed with fear during the "spiderwalk" scene. It reminded me of the fiddler scene from The Gift.

I'm a pussy when it comes to horror movies.......obviously.

Trevor

Yep. The Church doesn't like to talk about it much, as it is an easy target for non-believers to ridicule, but it still happens.

d2cheer

Just curious...

Do you believe in Ghosts and Psychics as well?

I am not trying to belittle you here I just want to know if you believe in one but think the other is a load of bs...

Trevor

Not at all.

Groucho

Even if the church did recognize it, it wouldn't make it any more real. What used to be thought of as "demonic possession" is today easily recognized as a psychological disorder.

Doc MacGyver

What happens are situations in which emotionally, mentally and psychologically challenged children and adults are tortured in an arcane and monstrous practice still secretly condoned by the Catholic Church. It's voodoo with a Roman Catholic twist and it's just as full of shit. Instead of getting the psychological help they need from an acredited medical professional, they are instead subjected to the modern day crucible by a priest who actually thinks he's doing battle with one of Lucifer's demonic warriors. It makes me ashamed of my species when I see this sort of mysticism and supersticious brutality still being practiced. It's like a modern-day witch-drowning and it is just as ludicrous.


Awesome movie, though.


-Doc

ChristopherS

Never thought a split second of this (very well done) movie was scary. I don't get it. On the other hand, it's pretty amazing they managed to be so over the top and not cross the line to unintentional comedy, even today.

OutRun2

Hello gentlemen and Happy New Year!

Guys I have a two part question:

1)I am about to order the Exorcist Anthology boxset. When I get around to watching Exorcist: The Beginning and Dominion, which one should I watch first? Which one is the better film?

2)Are there any good documentaries available on dvd discussing the topic of exorcism? I'd be interested in seeing them.

Thanks in advance

JumpCutz

Answer to question one is Dominion. Simply put, Schrader always trumps Harlin. Still watch The Beginning, it's worth a look as they were both shot by Vittorio Storaro.

Anyone who followed the production and the ensuing travails of these two films knows they have a unique place in cinematic history.

mike2

I've got this movie on dvd but I'm still scared to watch it sometimes. lol I keep my glock very close.

DthRdrX

On Question 2:

I always think back to this conversation in which the demon seems to know what is going to happen as a result of possessing Regan. Father Merrian was a two for one deal.

GoldenJCJ

I feel guilty about this but I prefer the Harlin version. I usually always support the director's vision without having the studio interfere but in this case I think harlin made a scarier, more interesting story. Schrader's version bored me to tears...

I would, however, suggest watching both back-to-back. It's rare (has it ever happened before?) that the same actors appear in two totally different versions of one movie.

GoldenJCJ

Now that you've seen The Exorcist, I would suggest going out and getting The Exorcist III. IMO, you can just skip part 2.

After that might I suggest The Exorcism of Emily Rose; I like to think of it as an unofficial sequel to The Exorcist...

wm lopez

The Exorcist 2 is o.k.
The trailer is really cool.
I don't understand how the movie bombed, because you would think people would turn out opening weekend on just the title & cast.

OutRun2

I heard emily rose was sort of a letdown. and wasn't really a thriller, but more like a drama. is this true?

mike2

Emily Rose was imo not scary @ all. It had a lot of court room crap in it too.

CreatureX

As a huge fan of The Exorcist, I highly recommend The Exorcism of Emily Rose.

DeputyDave

Unless I'm mistaken wasn't Exorcist 2 a made for TV movie? Exorcist 3 is incredible and always scares me. It may not be a better movie (although it is almost there) but I certainly find it scarier.

As for the original question: I think the demon chose Regan because she represented not only innocence but the new American family values; Single working mother, liberal political views, and no real religion.