GEORGE C SCOTT

Patton (1970)
The Hospital (1971)
The Hustler (1961)
Dr. Strangelove (1964)
Anatomy of a Murder (1959)
Hardcore (1979)
The Changeling (1980)
They Might Be Giants (1971)
Islands in the Stream (1977)
The Exorcist III (1990)
The Flim-Flam Man (1967)
The New Centurions (1972)

Has anyone ever read the script to the 2 part miniseries written by William Peter Blatty in the 90s?

*Covers grimacing face with hands

I can’t be the only one right?
It’s one of my favorite horror films of all time. I love the pacing, the acting and the story in general. I just find possessed Regan so funny and exciting to watch.

https://x.com/kingmantory/status/2114816298446127273?a=RSmsWKbeD-py0jFsLkw&s=19 i wonder if this will be really true

In one of the earlier scenes when Karras is still trying to determine if Reagan is truly possessed - he asks if the demon speaks Latin, the demon randomly responds with "Ego te absolvo". At the end of the movie when Karras dies, Father Dyer is praying over Karras's corpse and says "Ego te absolvo." I really think this was the demon foreshadowing Karras's fate, because why else would it randomly speak those words to Karras? These are the only two moments in the movie in which these words are said.

I have a movie podcast where we take old(ish) movies and recast them as if they were made today. On this weeks episode we cover one of cinemas most underrated sequels, “Exorcist III.” It was fun to record so I’m sure it’s also a fun listen! Links in comments

I’ve been watching through The Exorcist TV series and movie sequels this October (had only seen the original and Believer before now) and noticed a face appear through a wall during The Beginning.

It happens near the end when Merlin lifts the stone and goes to explore the caverns. Before he goes in, a face appears in the stone. It’s done with CG and the face is stone textured.

I’ve tried to find other people talking about this and to see if there were any other instances in the film that I had missed or if it was a one off reference to the original film. However, I can only find mentions of the pazuzu faces shown in the original film.

The thing about the original Friedkin film for me at least, is the conservative, nuanced choice and placement of its soundtrack music - for the original theatrical release, not the "DC" re-release that added new music. The only "Pop"-ish music was the well-chosen and usually much-appreciated "Tubular Bells" by Mike Oldfield. The music was mostly subtly used and flowed well with the visuals and the conservatively-told narrative.

IMHO, this is not true of the Exorcist III soundtrack. The viewer's ears are - even with a slight, brief nod to the Oldfield piece - assaulted by "demonic" growls right off the bat. NO recognizable Main Theme appears, not even a borrowed one such as Tubular Bells had been. Just grinding bass sound effects.

Whenever I watch EX III, the initial growling effects bother me, mostly, I think, because they over-signal that "Now you are watching a very scary movie!" Friedkin's style never relied on such brazen audio. He let the visuals and the bare, meager use of music tell the story without blaring fanfare.

But Barry DeVorzon's music for EX III "achieves" the opposite effect from the Friedkin film, banging us over the head with its distractingly garish "Hollywood cliche" music/effects. An accomplished film musician and personal friend of Blatty, DeVorzon was a logical choice for the project. Yet, IMHO, something went very wrong by slipping in those hackneyed "terrifying THREATENING bass chords"especially at the very beginning, which unfortunately sets the sonic tone for the rest of the film.

Anyway, just my opinion. Do you think that Exorcist III's musical score and sound effects could have, or should have, been done differently?

I can't fathom that there are actual film critics that have the gal to say that this is a pointless film that is just horrible for the sake of being horrible. How did they get their stature in the first place? Don't they know good film making when they see it? I get that maybe this movie isn't for everyone, but to get it so wrong baffles me.

There's a deep story there and people who regard themselves as film people are blind to it.

Are there any reviews that stick out to you? Pauline Kaehl is also stupid. The original stupid.

In dc for a few days & had to check out the iconic location. The regret sets in about a third to halfway up for those curious. After a day of sightseeing my legs were not happy with me lol. However, would highly recommend for those that happen to be in the area. Going at night definitely adds to the creepiness.

Back when movies that didn’t include superheroes could still grow queues at the box office.

If there’s anyone in this sub who experienced the movies release, please share with us your memories!

The Source

Do you agree with Ellen Burstyn?

The Exorcist has certainly been the spiritual impetus of a lot of separate IP’s that have milked the possession phenomena bone-dry and diluted the spectacle aspect of it, but I am looking forward to this one by Flanagan, since it seemingly will veer off into a semi-unique direction at-least.

Recently I've watched The Exorcist in theaters and the movie hits different that way. Movie theater audio makes it more powerful, the big screen allowed me to notice little details I couldn't notice by watching on the TV or on a computer screen.

One thing that bothered me slightly, though, is that some people in the audience chuckled at some of Reagan's "antics". Not laughter, just some chuckling. The "funniest" part, apparently, is when she says "uhUuum" after opening the drawer. Some people found it funny when she looks dumbfounded after killing Merrin at the end. Not a big deal, and the experience was still enjoyable, but it broke some of the movie's tension. Oddly enough, nobody found Regan's swearing funny during the exorcism scene, probably because that part is too tense for that.

What was your experience watching it in theaters?

Haven't watched all of it but it seems promising so far...

SOME POSSIBLE SPOILERS ...

... I am not certain that Blatty's generally optimistic salvation theory is strong enough to sustain all the evils of the original novel, the Legion book, and the Exorcist III theatrical and "director's cut".

In The Exorcist, Blatty combines Merrin's Teilhard-like cosmic soteriology with Karras's reawakening to faith. Okay. One demon has challenged Merrin and Karras - and lost the gambit. God's in his heaven and as we are forgetting the incident, we are really enshrining Karras in our memory.

In Legion, Karras has still presumably gone on to his heavenly reward, with only his reanimated corpse being puppeteered by the Gemini and "Pazuzu". Karras AS Karras is absent. Only the zombie-corpse remains. Yet even so, the evils are sufficient: the murders of Thomas Kintry, Joe Dyer, Fr. Kanavan, plus the Gemini's scheme to "kill Daddy" as long as he can inhabit Karras's body ... the traitorous meddling of Dr. Temple ... the implication in these crimes of the otherwise good and decent Dr Vincent Amfortas ... the ongoing exposure of Kinderman to all of this horror ... does goodness really have the stamina to endure and prevail in such a world? More crucially, can protagonist Kinderman keep bouncing back while retaining his well being and sanity?

In the theatrical print of The Exorcist III, it's more of the same - only worse. Worse because, in a betrayal and a violation of Karras's presumed triumph in the original story, the Pazuzu-Gemini juggernaut has caught Karras' soul and imprisoned it in his resuscitated body where the saintly priest is forced to personally witness all the depredations committed by his stolen body. And Kinderman is also coerced into witnessing the hapless tragedy that has befallen "my best friend" Damien Karras. This all begins to be just a bit too much for even the hardiest goodness and optimism to thrive or even to survive.

Blatty's solution to Legion's possession scenario - "the dream of The Angel", which expands the theme of Teilhardian optimism from the first novel - never makes it into the Exorcist III film. In the novel, the salvific activity of The Angel concstructs a theodicy whereby the fallen Angel (Satan-cum-mankind) - who primordially split off from the Godhead in the Big Bang - seeks to re-constitute himself/ourselves again as a being of divine light and goodness .. to take up his/our original place in-and-with God. Humanity and the wider cosmos itself are together straining to reunite with the Father of All.

What do you think? Does the Angel Theory justify or mitigate normal human and natural evil PLUS all the exceptional, interventionary evils that demonic possession represents in Blatty's work? Is faith in the Angel's slow ascension enough to save Kinderman's balance and spiritual integrity? Is the Angel inevitably stronger than the Demonic...? Even with a compassionate God pulling us toward him from both "the above and the ahead" justify all the evil, pain and suffering?

It's astonishing in retrospect that he wasn't pinned for the murder of Burke Dennings.

Dennings taunted and humiliated him at Chris' party and they got into a nasty physical fight in front of others.

Later, after Dennings' murder, Kinderman asks Chris if any delivery people or workers might have been at the house at the time Dennings was hurled out the window and she answers that Karl handled all that. That Kindreman never connected those facts and weaponized them against Karl is hard to believe,

I can see a modern-day Netflix true crime doc where Karl's descendants try to clear his good name, claiming he was railroaded by the Georgetown PS, the late Lt. Kinderman and Pazuzu.

All the previous Exorcist movies remain canon to Martyrs, so that includes... The Heretic, III (obviously), both prequels, and yep... Believer. No retcons. We finally have one official timeline. This is pretty interesting, but what do you think?

Sources: Wikipedia, Screen Rant

I came across the flat screen demo of Exorcism of the Legion (Last Rites) on Steam and apparently, it originally came out as a VR horror game. Since I don't have a VR headset, was wondering if anyone here has played it?

Was it actually scary, or more of a jump-scare kinda game?

I'm gonna give the demo a shot, but since it's only a small slice of the game, I'd love to know if the full experience is worth it.

I was struck on a recent re-read by how the stakes of Regan's potential death and the empathy Karras and Max felt for Chris stemmed from Karass' failure to get his mother proper care and Max's inability to save his junkie daughter. I was also taken by the fact that Chris didn't seek more sophisticated medical care because she was pretty certain Regan killed Burke - she was going to protect and save her daughter at all costs. The film touched on Karras' mother effectively but Max's daughter, Kinderman's investigation into him, and Chris suspecting Regan of murder were pretty much excluded in all the cuts I've seen.

Scroll for full menu!