User Name
Password
AppleNova Forums » AppleOutsider »

The Exorcist: Believer review(?)/butt-ripping :D


Register Members List Calendar Search FAQ Posting Guidelines
The Exorcist: Believer review(?)/butt-ripping :D
Thread Tools
psmith2.0
Mr. Vieira
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
 
2023-10-18, 18:22

Well, against everything - online reviews, overall box office numbers, word-of-mouth from friends, etc. - I gave in and saw this movie.

I LOOOOOOOVE the original 1973 movie (one of my favorites, period, of any genre). It's just so well-written, acted and filmed, it stands totally on its own apart from all the "shock" and iconic scenes. It's just A Good Movie™, first and foremost, that just happens to be about something weird and unsettling.

The short take? It's quite awful, as so many have said.

It's stupidly-written, and plays more like a Syfy fan film, frankly.

It hits all the stupid tropes of this genre. The one girl even has an upside-down cross carved/cut into her forehead. Definitely fan-fiction/film level stuff. Just a little too on the nose.

It's just dumb. There's none of the deep thoughtfulness or philosophical aspects of the original (and certainly the novel). It's like someone got hold of a couple of cameras and few million dollars and said "hey, let's do one of those exorcism/possession movies! We'll kinda make it up as we go".

I don't even know how much to get into this, but its cardinal "sin" is that it simply isn't scary in the least.

It's just boneheaded and weird, full of people who wouldn't act they way they're acting in real life (the Walking Dead syndrome, which I absolutely hate in a movie or TV show).

Evern the couple of things that were supposed to be "twists", if you just halfway allow your mind to play things out and remember/pick up on clues doled out in the first hour, you're already kinda ahead of the thing. It felt like I was being led around by the nose by people who don't like the original movie/story anywhere near as much as I do. "What are you gonna shock/surprise me with, hacks?"

They didn't. There was one brief scene that kinda perked me up in my seat. It wasn't a "jump scare" (which I hate), or outright terrifying, but oddly creepy and "wait, WTF was that?!", and the closest they got to shaking hands with the original. But you can't base a 2-hour movie around that. They shot their wad with that one little thing and it's like they had nothing else in their quiver.

Spoiler (click to toggle):
Kinda playing homage to the original with its out-of-nowhere, subliminal(?) flashes of a white demon face, there's a sequence in this movie where the single, widowed dad is talking to his daughter, Angela (she's the young black girl you see in the trailers; she and her friend Katherine, the one you see screaming/being an asshole in church in the trailers, both manage to get possessed, so the movie already ups the ante...two possessed pre-teen girls, folks!). She's laying in bed and her dad, Victor, is sitting with her asking about what's going on with her, etc. and during one exchange, Angela's eyes quickly shift to the side, as though she sees something in the room beyond her dad, and when it cuts back to the dad, he's got this creepy white face (demon? ghost?) over his right shoulder, slightly moving side to side. Hallucination? An actual spirit/demon present in the bedroom, seen only by the young girl? Just a cheap "Captain Howdy" scare tossed in by the filmmakers to help remind everyone this is a horror/possession movie?"


You tell me.

From what I've read, Universal paid $400M(!) for the rights to the property to create a new "franchise"/trilogy from. Based on this idiot movie, and its reception/impact, I have to believe that trilogy, like any further Rian Johnson Star Wars fare, is dead in the water.

And, as with Star Wars, this movie, too, cannot break away from its origins/past. Girls with matted hair in nightgowns, weird eyes, facial cuts, gross body horror stuff, music cues and (no spoiler, she's in all the trailers) the return of 90-something Ellen Burstyn, as Chris MacNeil, Regan's mom in the 1973 original. It was kinda insulting what they did with her, but these "legacy sequels" always have to heavy-handedly bring in someone from the original (Burstyn, Jamie Lee Curtis, Mark Hamill and Harrison Ford, Bill Murry, Dan Aykroyd, etc.) to "give it some weight" (aka groveling fan service wink/nod).

I don't wanna go into spoilers because...well, I just don't. None of them are worth it.

It's just a lazy, poorly-written and tacky/tawdry, low-rent attempt to tie into/latch on to one of the greatest movies ever mad (IMO), and it just blows it at every turn. Honestly, I think I could've made a better, true sequel to the Exorcist. This movie doesn't acknowledge or build on any of the existing sequels, really.

It has all the trappings - the physicality, the gross stuff, the blasphemy, weird voices, etc. - of the original, but none of the depth and heart or the sense of "of course that what they'd do...".

For years, I've had an idea in my head about a sequel to the original, but it's now no longer needed/necessary, so I'll just delete it because it's just wasted pixels at this point. Haha. But you can't base a movie on all the surface tropes, but none of the "why" or "what if" and expect it to impact.

This is exactly the kind of movie I hate, because it springs off the near-perfect original and then just completely shits the bed for two hours. People in the theater were jumping and screaming, but I honestly don't know how/why. If you've never seen or read the original novel or movie, then yeah...this is probably some creepy, weird-ass stuff. But as someone who has, and am currently re-reading the novel - it's kinda like seeing a weak, lame tribute band, where nobody actually looks like Mick Jagger or Freddie Mercury in a convincing enough way for it to be enjoyable. Instead, all your "lame" filters kick in and you, instead, see it more from a "oh, I see what they were going for here..." standpoint, which isn't a fun way to watch a movie.

If. you love the original 1971 novel or the 1973 movie, as I do, you won't like this. You can't, there's just nothing there. It's the Star Wars Holiday Special of the Exorcist franchise. A weird, "someone really asked for/greenlit this?!" point-missing misfire.

I love spending October diving deep into Exorcist lore, reading, watching and backstory. Been an October tradition for 6-7 years now, it just fits so well with the cooling weather and all around "spooky"/creepy vibe settling over everything. I wanted this to be something that would make me come home and close all my curtains and sleep with a pillow over my head. All it did was make me load of a couple of documentaries about the real one, and then re-open the book from my Apple Books shelf/gallery.

Out of a 1-to-10, I truly have to give this a 2. There was one character that kinda saves it from a 1, but, ultimately, it was kinda pointless, really. I just gotta give them something for the balls/effort it took to latch so heavily onto a classic, and then do nothing the classic actually did.

Spoiler (click to toggle):
Yes, a grown, mature and MILF-ish Linda Blair appears in about 14-second (if that) cameo at the very end, reconciling with her mom, after decades of estrangement). A better, smarter movie would've made that plot line the anchor/hook of this movie, not a retread of two other 12-year-old girls in nightgowns, scary makeup, acting crazy and doing/saying stuff we've already seen done/said better 50 years ago. What a waste of film, makeup, lighting, everyone's time, catering, vehicles, Photoshop/marketing, jump scares, etc.

Last edited by psmith2.0 : 2023-10-18 at 18:39.
  quote
psmith2.0
Mr. Vieira
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
 
2023-10-18, 22:06

PS - My first time at the theater/multiplex since December 2019 and The Ballad of Kylo Ren.

It bums me that my most recent two moviegoing experiences, 3.5+ years apart, were both less-than/underwhelming outings. Means I’m due for a good one, next go-around!

I definitely wanna see the new Scorsese, DiCaprio and De Niro movie, Killers of the Flower Moon. That’s got as good a shot as anything. I’ve never lost money on a Scorsese or Tarantino movie, or haven’t been conpletely entertained: Django Unchained, The Irishman, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood and The Wolf of Wall Street, some modern favorites.
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2023-10-19, 07:34

You can re-watch Rosemary’s Baby and The Shining to take away some of the stench while you wait for the new releases. For some reason thinking about the original Exorcist always makes me want to watch those two as well - I think it’s the way the camera plays in each one, The Shining being the most overt. Edit. Overt is the wrong word, in each of these the camera is a character onto itself, and the Shining does it better than almost anything.

Last edited by Matsu : 2023-10-19 at 09:42.
  quote
turtle
Lord of the Rant.
Formerly turtle2472
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Upstate South Carolina
 
2023-10-19, 08:41

Quote:
Originally Posted by psmith2.0 View Post
PS - My first time at the theater/multiplex since December 2019 and The Ballad of Kylo Ren.

It bums me that my most recent two moviegoing experiences, 3.5+ years apart, were both less-than/underwhelming outings. Means I’m due for a good one, next go-around!

I definitely wanna see the new Scorsese, DiCaprio and De Niro movie, Killers of the Flower Moon. That’s got as good a shot as anything. I’ve never lost money on a Scorsese or Tarantino movie, or haven’t been conpletely entertained: Django Unchained, The Irishman, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood and The Wolf of Wall Street, some modern favorites.
This is why I set myself up for success when going to the theaters.
1) Assume it will be the most horrible piece of garbage I will ever see in my life with no depth of character and no plot.
2) Assume I will fall asleep from complete boredom the whole time I'm in the theater seat.

When I the movie is over I'm almost always pleased!

Actually the last two times I went to the theater were with my sons to watch the two most recent Sonic movies. I was there for them and they loved the movies so it was a good time for me. I didn't mind them either... but I set my bar REALLY low.

Louis L'Amour, “To make democracy work, we must be a nation of participants, not simply observers. One who does not vote has no right to complain.”
Visit our archived Minecraft world! | Maybe someday I'll proof read, until then deal with it.
  quote
psmith2.0
Mr. Vieira
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
 
2023-10-19, 10:26

I never set out, with the money/hassle involved in a multiplex outing, hoping/planning to dislike something. I want the experience to be worth it! I knew the final Star Wars was a tall order because I disliked the previous two (“how are they gonna wrap this craziness up?”). And the negativity I heard re: this latest one, I still hoped for something and blocked out/ignored, which I try to do with all negative, pointless entities/situations, cinematic and otherwise.

It’s just weird to me that a big company can pay $400M for the rights to a property and greenlight something that they must know isn’t gonna help them recoup that. They’re not some struggling little indie outfit with no awareness of the business side of moviemaking/show business, so that’s very odd. It’s almost as though they wanted the prestige/bragging rights of owning this property more than they wanted to do it justice and make a really worthy installment/entry. Most haven’t been, so they’re in good company. The Exorcist might be like Superman. It’s harder than you’d think to make something good from it? So much history, expectations, where can you possibly go with the sky is, literally, the limit, etc.? For crying out loud, they’re starting up a new Superman movie now, to be part of the newly reconfigured DCU that’s been reworked, once DC/WB realized their existing one was a complete mess and only making unwatchable movies. I believe I’ve seen the only good Superman movie they’ll ever make, back in 1978. It isn’t perfect, but being the first of its kind, a big budget, mainstream comic book/superhero movie released in a different, less cynical, knowing period, it works and is still fun to watch, unlike so many other movies from 1978.

I hear they’re alread at work in the second installment, hitting in 2025, The Exorcist: Deceiver. If they’re smart, and want any chance for this planned trilogy, they’ll not springboard from/continue this dopey movie. This isn’t the kind of strong, focused and well-written movie you build a trilogy around. It was tried in 2015 with The Force Awakens, and we all saw how that went. This is almost like Universal telling Disney/Lucasfilm “hold my beer”.

Man, $400M. I honestly don’t know how they’re getting that back!

I love The Shining, Matsu. I’ve already had my yearly watch, so I’m good. As with other aspects of life, the conspiracy clowns have taken the shine off this movie a bit. There’s been a docementsry or two, and more than a few websites and YouTube channels devoted to some really ginned-up, outlandish nonsense, and a lot of folks speaking for Kubrick, and reverse-reviewing this movie through all kinds of whackjob prisms, making it about everything except what it’s actually about: an overacting ham going bonkers in a haunted hotel. The movie is good despite Nicholson, not because of him. He showed up already looking insane/shot out of a cannon in the opening scenes, so it wasn’t hard, or surprising to buy his descent into madness. Dude showed up looking/acting 3/4 nuts to start with. I always thought another actor, who didn’t give off that vibe quite so hard, and who truly transformed into batshittery would’ve been neat to see. Some upstanding actor who comes across as more of a nice-guy, everyman in his roles, and watch him lose it for two hours and is then lumbering around with an ax in the final moments, looking to off his wife and son. Nicholson already looked the part in the first 10 minutes. There was nowhere else to go. “Of course this evil, twisted-looking guy is bad news.” As I’ve gotten older, I hate his character so much, and I feel so sorry for Duvall’s Wendy, that watching this movie makes me sad more than anything else. I’m rooting for her the entire way, mouthing dialogue I wished she’d say to her husband when he’s being so mean and dickheaded to her.

I’ve never seen Rosemary’s Baby. I know the basic gist, I’ve just not seen it. Nor The Omen. I’m not an across-the-board horror fan, so I typically don’t seek out/watch such fare. The Exotcist just hit me/landed right, I guess? It isn’t, to me, the “scariest movie ever”, but certainly in the running for creepiest, most unsettling and stays with you for a while. It’s a murder drama, a medical/psychiatric thriller and a sad story about a sad-sack priest who’s lost his faith, couldn’t save/help his elderly mother and is wrestling with himself over what he’s seeing/talking to in that cold bedroom. “If this shit is legit, there is evil/a devil, and it’s real/exists. So that has to mean the other side does too, and I’m in the wrong career to be doubting/questioning that!” The rest is just weird, gross trimwirk to elevate things a bit out of standard soap opera fare.

The novel covers far more than the movie, to be expected, but when you think about a 12-year-old little girl (11 in the novel), running around at night performing church desecrations and murder only briefly touched on in the movie), that real-world stuff creeps me out more than all the horror/“shock” elements ever have. An altar card, typed in perfect Latin describing some really blasphemous stuff is left behind at the church, and small fingerprints, those of a child, are found on it… The stuff we don’t see this little brat get up to, but that we know she did, terrifies me. Twisting a grown man’s head around backwards and throwing him from her window, then cruelly taunting/teasing a mother about it later…”do you know what she did, your cunting daughter?!”, while turning her own head around backward, and in the accent/voice/persona (and in the novel, the facial features) of the man she killed. in the novel, the mother “screamed until she fainted.” I would too!

You knife the kid, then and there, and move to Sweden or New Zealand.

I don’t know. That her mother, Chris, experienced such heartache/terror and they bring her back 50 years later to basically be the do-nothing Luke Skywalker figure in this new one was so bad. Universal wanted the callback/fan-service more than the actual contribution or place in the story. Cheap!

Last edited by psmith2.0 : 2023-10-19 at 10:48.
  quote
Posting Rules Navigation
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Post Reply

Forum Jump
Thread Tools
Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Butt Butt Butter drewprops AppleOutsider 1 2006-10-18 06:49
My new laptop bag kicks butt! Gregg General Discussion 23 2005-04-21 22:55
Do you have an eco-friendly butt? Kickaha AppleOutsider 55 2005-04-07 19:39
The Exorcist (true story) alcimedes AppleOutsider 1 2004-10-30 23:34
Pain in the butt movie websites... psmith2.0 AppleOutsider 10 2004-10-17 23:31


« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:48.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2024, AppleNova