They’ve removed the line from the script because they didn’t want Pazuzu to be furious about Merin dying. They wanted the demon to be happy about it in the film in order to simplify the storyline. So, within the context, the line didn’t fit. Even though, I adore the book, the film is excellent in my opinion (including its visual effects). It’s a masterpiece in terms of filmmaking and every time I watch it, I get something new out of it. Also, I’m glad they’ve reduced Kinderman’s role in the film as he was seriously getting on my nerves in the novel with his unfinished sentences, it drove me nuts.
The Exorcist film is in my Top 5 movies of all time, but just got done reading the book and it was absolutely incredible as well. Getting to spend more time with the demon in the novel was really haunting. Great review!
One of the things I liked about the book was Karl's back story about his daughter Elvira. For those who have not read the book, Karl and Willie had a daughter, Willie believes she is dead, but she is alive and a hopeless drug addict. Karl visits her and gives her money, that was why his alibi for where he was when Burke was killed didn['t check out. There is a scene where Karl visits her and its heart wrenching, then Kinderman-who followed him-discovers the truth and eliminates Karl as a suspect. Obviously the movie didn't have time for everything, especially in Kinderman's investigation which leans me to another favorite chapter where Kinderman is in his office putting all the fact together. In those "what if" moments that all good movies and books give us, I found myself always wishing Kinderman would have seen possessed Regan at the end and what he would have done?
I agree. When I read the novel I found this aside to be tremendously harrowing and effective. We wonder what Karl is doing walking the streets and when this is exposed it's an extremely disconcerting augury in relation to the main plot. I'm glad to see someone mention this aspect of the novel. I wish it was explored in the film.
I've read the book once when I was a kid and then again recently . It impacted me differently both times. As for the movie, I prefer the original cut over the new version. The ending feels so much chillier
I had to stop reading the book at 15 coz of the spider walk stair, ankle licking scene. I had to put the book out side and give it back to it's owner the very next day. I agree, the original cut was superior to the 'Director's Cut'.
in the book I really liked the dialogue between the psychiatrist and Chris, and Father Damien and Chris when they tried to explain how it’s all in Ragen’s head and the temporal lobe etc. Very interesting stuff.
Hi! 55-y/o guy here. I can tell by your reaction to all this your age. It's interesting! The movie came out when I was 6, but as I got older its influence was felt thru-out cinema. It came out in '73, played theatres for a good 2 yrs, & came to CBS TV in '79 (?), a good 6 years later. So you know it was making money elsewhere (it got a few rereleases b4 then, btw). There were lots o' references in movies, the news, & in movie/book titles about the devil, possession, or demons (Bk: Demon Children, movies: The Strange Possession of Mrs. Oliver, The Possessed, This House Possessed, The Omen, Good Against Evil (a lousy Exorcist ripoff for TV). It's a long list!). The movie had an unparalleled impact on its decade. I'd read the bk in 6th & 8th grade & likely would appreciate it better today. The movie removed the mystery the bk developed well, & cut out the side story about the daughter. Moviegoers who fainted did so during the medical scenes when her artery is opened, not during the possession scenes....
I think what’s special about the movie and book is the character arc of father Damien karras, he’s so connected to me as a Christian and Damien karras crisis of faith then being full faith restored with him sacrificing himself. That’s what makes it truely one of the greatest and scariest movies of all time
I was only 14 when the movie was released, so I couldn't get into the cinema to see it, so my only option was to read the book. Being Roman Catholic, it was page 183 (I think) that contained the most offending incident (along with, of course, the desecration of the Virgin Mary statue which, in itself, was relatedly very scary). However, it's been so long now that I can't really remember much about the book in relation to the movie, the latter of which I've seen a million times now. At the age of 16, though, I managed to sneak in to the cinema with my cousin and saw the movie. It terrified me. I agree with you regarding the line "This time you're going to lose", but it seems to me that Friedkin did - more subtly - convey the fact they'd met and battled before by the 'stand off' scene at the end of the Iraq archaeology beginning sequence. This was enhanced later by the Reagan/demon lying in bed staring into the ether and realising that Merrin had arrived, shouting "MERRIN!" at that same time of his arrival. I originally saw the pre director's cut version which, in my opinion, is better than the director's cut. The reason I say this is that the 'spider walk' sequence is pretty poor... not only in effect/quality but also that it was just a little tooooo much and completely unnecessary. Also, one 360° rotation of the head was enough... they didn't need to do it twice. Each time, it was obviously plastic, more so in one of the two (can't remember which, but I think the second time). I disagree that the film is now dated. The power it still carries, the fear it continues to instil, the quality of writing, direction and acting along with the cinematography - for me - completely masks any sense of dating. By the way, the inclusion of the great character actor Lee J. Cobb as the detective was a genius bit of casting.
I would love to see a comparison of the book Legion versus Exorcist III. Surprisingly there are no videos on TH-cam at least from what I can see, that have tackled the difference between the book and the film
The novel was better. I just finished reading it. But it was difficult to read because I was thinking about the film while reading to compare. But the novel was really frightening. A Master piece.👍🏻 Ellen's reaction in the film was more frightening to me than the possession scenes. Smh... really a master piece, novel film. Nothing will ever compare.
Adding the book to my Christmas list 🙂 always wanted to read it because the film looks a bit (A lot really) terrifying for a 12 yeah old. Yeah I'm just over halfway through now and, the things Pazuzu's done to her is just outrageous! It's creepy, disgussting, magnificently written, and I can't keep my nose out of it!! The part he mentioned at the beginning with the crucifix I just read yesterday and, I was curious by what he meant, I said to myself, 'it's just a crucifix, it's just a cross!!' but I wasn't expecting her to do what she did with it!! Also I'm reading the 40th anniversary edition so, there might be some new stuff in it! I don't regret putting it on my Christmas list and am definitely happy with what I've read so far!! Just finished it! Great book! Also, can you compare It by Stephen King blood Vs film please?
Enjoyed the film because of the terrific story telling with well developed characters, which is typically missing from movies these days. Now will absolutely have to read the book, which I understand was based on an actual case from the 1940's. I also noticed your sub count was at an ironic three digit number, which certainly fit this topic. However, in the spirit of Father Merrin, I'll gladly subscribe to make the sub count 667.
I remember going to the theater with my date to see this. The theater was packed and we sat on the aisle next to the exit (in case we couldn't take it). There were a few moments when the audience had a subdued laughter. But it was either laugh or you would scream as it was so scary.
I say don't read the book yourself. Listen to Blatty read it. On TH-cam. Perfection. I wish he had recorded a lot of other books. I lived in Georgetown during the Clinton years. It was disappointing to learn the house in the movie is not near the what were still called The Exorcist Steps back in the 90s. Makes me sad. It used to be much easier to park. I was nostalgic because except for the Hot Shoppe which was long gone, The Exorcist felt familiar. Dumbarton Oaks had a $5 admission. I think even a one walked almost alone some afternoons.
Some of the practical effects are hokey? Care name which ones because I think they hold up incredibly well. Unless of course you’re talking about the “extended cut” which no one should watch over the theatrical version.
If it helps, while the book was being shopped around Hollywood, the Lt. Kinderman character was used to model the Colombo detective. If you notice how Columbo asks questions, it's similar to Kinderman's method. For its time, the language in the movie stunned even Max von Sydow, who had to stop filming after Regan initially curses him out. The movie did get an X rating in Wash., DC. Linda Blair told me (& media sources) that the contraption that banged her on the bed injured her back & she had problems for years (Mom, not one to sue, appears briefly as a nurse in the flick). I thought Linda Blair was a NASTY person, & that the possessed girl was way nicer! Even horror mags have commented that she's nasty. She is NOT the sweet, smiling girl in the movie. She's just an angry woman who smiles for photos but is otherwise a grouch. (So avoid her!) The original story the movie/bk is based on was debunked in a 5-part serial in "Strange Magazine," which you can easily find online. In short, the boy was likely molested by an aunt & was acting out & manipulating his Old World Mom & Grandmom to get away (Dad drove a truck & was never home). The priests recorded 2nd-hand info in a diary & believed he was possessed (the bed had springs & moved easily, he mimicked the Latin they said but didn't speak it fluently, he spat distance accurately but it was a childhood talent, etc.). Kinda cool, no? Thanks again for your perspective! The movie scared audiences at the time, but during its rerelease w/the new footage, the kids in my audience weren't scared. One 20-y/o told a friend, "It wasn't scary, it was disgusting," & sipped her soda. But back in the '70s, it had folks lined around the block & multiplexes showed it in 4 theatres. How times have changed! :-)
Of course the book is creppier. It's more complete, there's a lot of more details. The Blatty's style of writing is difficult of to do a adaptation because it has a lot of information and when you know the book, you feel that the movie is very dry. If they do the reboot, they should do a movie with the same duration of "The Dark Knight Rises", and short the build up of the first arc of the story.
There was a psychic and a book that was never mentioned in the movie. There was a lot of things that could have been done with this in the movie. Missed opportunities.
It is Regan. It looks like you (the viewer) are walking up next to her he bed and she’s glaring up at you with her eyes rolled into the back of her head (she rolls her eyes up like this many times in the book)
@@Layyschipss William F. said to Linda Blair before shooting “you do know what masterbation is dont you.”she said sure you do it right everone does it.”what a gem a real mature actress.she gives so much m💰to animal shelters & really doesn’t put up w bullshit.
I really enjoyed your review! I just finished the exorcist book last night. I've seen the movie before but I am going to watch it again. Have you seen the sequels? Are the sequels books also? If so, have you read those?
I just re-listen to it recently. This time the book had me hooked and I enjoyed it much more than previous listens for some reason. However, I found the demon to be a bit silly at times with his/its talks with Karras, especially when he/it adapts the Burk voice. I also found it a bit incredulous, that three deaths by mysterious circumstances were just simply explained away by the police without an in-depth investigation. You didn't mention that in the book Kinderman sermised what was going on the house concernning Regan.
I loved the movie growing up but didn't read the book until now. I was surprised how rushed the movie feels in comparison. It's a great movie, but Karras is done dirty in the movie in comparison. Jason Miller is great, but his character loses so much of the depth. Maren feels like an afterthought and is much worse in the movie. I did like how Karl and Kinderman were less prevelant in the film though. Felt like they took away from the main characters and didn't really add much. I also hate Kinderman in the book Legion (but that's for a different video I hope!). Great movie but it really felt like it rushed it a bit.
I'd like Detective Kinderman to have his own book series. Other than that the book is creppy as fudge. Also there's much more conflict going on with Father Karras who tries to find "reasonable" answers for what is going on with Regan. The book turned out to be better than I expected. Great reading
I only have two gripes about the movie. First, the hypnosis scene in the book was 1000 times better. It just was. Second, there is a line by the demon right before the last encounter during the exorcism where he tells Father Karras that he should not have given Reagan the last dose of Librium. In that moment you realize it's not the demon that is killing Reagan, it's all of the intervention by the people around her. It was by design. The demon played them all for fools and now he will get this little girl's soul to torment for eternity... Chilling. This part is not in the movie at all.
The book is more dimensional than the movie in exploring the lives of the characters and the history of demonic possession. I read the book first, but always accept the movie in its own right, so no judging. I recommend the narration by William Peter Blatty. Getting to hear an author's narration is a trip, and with Blatty, there is added weight for he was involved the world of the book. He attended the university (Georgetown) featured in the story, and corresponded with the priest who performed the original exorcism. The priest convinced him the case was real, and he reads like a true believer.
🤔 every time I watched the movie the exorcist I always kind of felt there was scenes cut because of the tone of the movie already and the seriousness of some of the scenes I always felt they probably took it a step further but then we’re just like (we can’t put this in the movie) 🤷♂️😂
There's a lot of subtext in the book that can be easily missed, especially if it's only viewed as genre fiction. It's engaging genre fiction, of course, but that wasn't the only goal. Many viewed it as an anti-Christian/Catholic book; it's actually the reverse. It takes a very harsh view of science and psychology. These themes play out in the negative. In the novel, medical science never provides answers. It only performs torturous tests, which only confuse matters. Psychology's guidance only leads Father Karras astray. And the only character with the answers is Father Merrin, a man led by simple faith. It also takes digs at the typical targets, Hollywood, hippies, divorce, etc.
I believe 1000% that the book is SCARIER! I can't even imagine reading this book, ever! Lol that movie scarred me for life, I was way too young to watch it and then couldnt sleep for months. Books are ao much more intimate and get inside you like you are holding on to these characters and that would freak me out. 😂 I do love horror movies, though, go figure.
A fairly common criticism of the book I see that I personally also agree with is that Kinderman is kind of annoying...his scenes really drag and get repetitive.
They do mention that a previous exorcism "almost killed" Father Merrin. Presumably it's what left him with the heart condition that killed him during Regan's exorcism. It's not specifically spelled out that this is the same demon. In fact, the demon isn't named as Pazuzu until the sequel.
I listen to the recent audiobook the 40th anniversary edition read by the author. While he does a decent job, they could have done so much more. They could have had different people doing the characters especially the demon. Despite that, the book is good but Bladdy writes really long chapters. Some find it too long and that it takes forever to get to the core plot.
If different people "read", a.k.a. play the book characters it wouldn't be an audiobook but an audio drama/radio play, which is a completely different genre. You can't expect this from an audiobook that is marketed as such, which means it's straight read through by one narrator, two at most, but even then the focus is on narrating it, not voice acting. I don't mean to snub you but just clarify the distinction between those two. Otherwise I'd love an audio drama version of "The Exorcist", it would be a great chance of a remake without having the burden to top the movie.
@@-lorepheus-Hi, I love audio dramas but I have listened to audiobooks with multiple narrators I just finished the audible edition of Dracula which had about 4-5 narrators There was no incidental music or sound effects but each narrator did adapt a certain character of the book. I just wished they had given the demon part to a different voice in this case. BTW there is an audio drama version of the Exorcist. It was produced by the BBC the first time I heard it I thought it weak but I recently gave it a second listen and found myself enjoying it. Marron is played by the same actor who played Darth Sidious/Palpatine in the star Wars Franchise. Cheers
I don't think she levitates in the book. Also the furniture didn't move so dramatically. Definitely no statue of Pazuzu appearing at the bedside. This definitely a movie that should not never no way have Smell-a-rama.
Although I prefer the novel over the film, the novel didn't convince me that Regan was possessed. With a the medical analyses and jargon, I felt Regan was a very badly behaved pre-teen seeking attention with a knack for convincing others that they witness actions which never happened. She manipulated their minds to succumb to the power of suggestions. Typical spoiled rich kid antics, where permissive parents think it's either cute or ignore the gravity of their misbehaviors. Chris is not a disciplinarian. She giggles, when the psychiatrist alerts the mother of Regan's obscenities during their medical meetings. She has no intention of punishing her child for her complete lack of respect for her elders and dignitaries. My.mom would have beaten the hell out of me, had the scenes unfolded in my house. She wouldn't have needed a priest to drive out the antics. The film drives home the possession notion better, but I still live the novel. It's a great psychological drama with me left to question, whether Regan is possessed by a demon and whether the church can really help. The film takes away that choice from the viewer and insists the girl must be exorcized. The actual case involving a teen boy was disputed by witnesses at his own exorcism, including family members and clergymen. Having read the actual basis for the film, I admit feeling the real case lacked enough evidence to assert that Ronald was truly possessed. That spilled over into the novel for me, and I doubt Regan was either. Blatty truly knew his medical and psychological backgrounds, and he crafts a question from beginning to end. He allows the reader to evaluate Regan's conditions and decide for ourselves what her state is. Still, the film was so sensationalized, that we must live the film because of and in spite of it's shenanigans and shock.
The Exorcist is among the worst books that I have ever read. My history with this goes back to the 70's. I was only 9 when it was initially released in '73 but I was well aware of the film's existence from a cover story in an issue of Famous Monsters of Filmland which featured a vividly coloured illustration of Linda Blair in full possession by the demonic force. I read the book long before having the opportunity to see the film when it aired on HBO. I was somewhat prepared for what I was about to see. The film well made but very disappointing and did not live up to the hype surrounding it, especially those stories of people fleeing the theatres into the lobby or, in more extreme cases, to the nearest church. It is a phenomenon which will never be replicated. As the culture becomes increasingly desensitized to shocking and violent images The Exorcist is somewhat tam in comparison to what exists to. The hyperbolic title "scariest film ever made" is going to be very misleading to a younger generation . It must be kept in the context of its time; we had never anything like this. Horror films existed, gory films existed, but The Exorcist brought into a area of American culture that unfamiliar with this type of horror, blending the supernatural with the safe domestication of the affluent. I haven't read any reactions to the book when it was published in '71 or any criticism about the quality of its writing. I've read it at least four times over the span of forty years, each time my opinion growing increasingly hostile. I probably enjoyed it the first time when I checked out a copy from the local library, but when reading habits change and improve Blatty's writing style became excruciating. It tries too hard to be stylized and just feels like the first draft by a student in a creative writing course. I read (for the last time) several years ago after more than twenty years since the last and was really struggling to get through it. Blatty tries to be clever and fails, he tries to inject humour and fails, he cannot write dialogue that does not sound like natural human speech but rather something a screenwriter would dredge up to bring the characters to life. It is all awkwardly and clumsily handled. To watch an interview with Blatty you'd think he just invented the wheel. Neither the novel nor the film are as great as their legends will lead you to believe. The film vastly improves on the flaws of its source but it is quite boring. When the "version you've never seen" was released I finally got to see it on a big screen. Despite its embellishments it was a dull viewing experience. Even the infamous "spider walk" was more silly than scary. The film certainly has earned a place in horror history but the novel need never be opened by any reader.
The effects looked dated and hokey? Why, because it doesn't look like fake looking modern CGI? I'll take this film over any of the bullshit that comes out these days, the horror genre is a joke now.
Once I hear or read in a review that something in an older film, TV show or book is "dated," I tune out. It's cliche, boring and obvious --- and just an overall stupid statement. It sounds so snarky too. CGI queens are the worst!
Always makes me laugh when people say The Exorcist is the scariest film ever made? Maybe for 1970's audiences - I remember getting hold of a pirate copy (when banned in the UK) in late 90s. Watched it and went "they banned this? For what?" It's as scary as a weak fart in the wind. Yes It's thought provoking and beautifully filmed, great story telling and acting..... But scary? I've never understood this maybe in the 70s it scared people but I find it hard to believe that modern audiences are still finding it scary, seeing modern horror is pretty poor with jump scares gallore and poor writing esp final Acts. It could be that in the USA they are more religous and have deep rooted religous childhood doctrines due to generational/environmental/social influences? - compare to say me growing up in the UK where religion isnt a big thing? well for most people.
I think religion is a factor, for sure. I know devout Catholics who grew up in the 70’s and this movie scared the hell out of them because they believe one can become possessed by a demon.
I love everything from 'arsenic and old lace' to 'the labyrinth'. But the exorcist movie was sooo boring! It's very poorly written and directed and is quite a boring story.
They added the "This time you're going to lose" line in the Exorcist 3. You are right. It is a very effective line.
They’ve removed the line from the script because they didn’t want Pazuzu to be furious about Merin dying. They wanted the demon to be happy about it in the film in order to simplify the storyline. So, within the context, the line didn’t fit.
Even though, I adore the book, the film is excellent in my opinion (including its visual effects). It’s a masterpiece in terms of filmmaking and every time I watch it, I get something new out of it.
Also, I’m glad they’ve reduced Kinderman’s role in the film as he was seriously getting on my nerves in the novel with his unfinished sentences, it drove me nuts.
@@RedaDoodlesI agree, Kinderman is a boring character in the novel, and i strugled reading all the scenes with him
@@ericjpdt Amen 😂
People you have to listen to the Audiobooks read by Blatty himself. Truly amazing.
NO! I'm too scared!! 😂😧😭😱 Im still traumatized from watching the movie when I was 12!
The Exorcist film is in my Top 5 movies of all time, but just got done reading the book and it was absolutely incredible as well. Getting to spend more time with the demon in the novel was really haunting. Great review!
OMG, I can't even imagine! 😱
One of the things I liked about the book was Karl's back story about his daughter Elvira.
For those who have not read the book, Karl and Willie had a daughter, Willie believes she is dead, but she is alive and a hopeless drug addict. Karl visits her and gives her money, that was why his alibi for where he was when Burke was killed didn['t check out. There is a scene where Karl visits her and its heart wrenching, then Kinderman-who followed him-discovers the truth and eliminates Karl as a suspect. Obviously the movie didn't have time for everything, especially in Kinderman's investigation which leans me to another favorite chapter where Kinderman is in his office putting all the fact together.
In those "what if" moments that all good movies and books give us, I found myself always wishing Kinderman would have seen possessed Regan at the end and what he would have done?
I agree. When I read the novel I found this aside to be tremendously harrowing and effective. We wonder what Karl is doing walking the streets and when this is exposed it's an extremely disconcerting augury in relation to the main plot. I'm glad to see someone mention this aspect of the novel. I wish it was explored in the film.
I agree. I also loved the fact that Regan was psychologically abusing Karl the whole time, that was not shown in the movie.
I've read the book once when I was a kid and then again recently . It impacted me differently both times. As for the movie, I prefer the original cut over the new version. The ending feels so much chillier
I had to stop reading the book at 15 coz of the spider walk stair, ankle licking scene. I had to put the book out side and give it back to it's owner the very next day. I agree, the original cut was superior to the 'Director's Cut'.
in the book I really liked the dialogue between the psychiatrist and Chris, and Father Damien and Chris when they tried to explain how it’s all in Ragen’s head and the temporal lobe etc. Very interesting stuff.
Best review yet. Have not read the book and don’t know that I have the guts to get through it and still be able to sleep at night!
The book audio is available on TH-cam and I’d highly recommend it as William Peter Blatty is the reader.
Audiobooks is wayyyy better.
Another really complete synopsis and comparison, Adam. It actually makes me want to revisit it...either book or movie.
excellent! I really enjoy the videos you put together. thanks for your efforts. I would love to see a psycho comparison.
Thank you! Psycho is on my list 😉
@@AdamWrightReviews Regan and her mum (the characters) were atheists as well
Hi! 55-y/o guy here. I can tell by your reaction to all this your age. It's interesting! The movie came out when I was 6, but as I got older its influence was felt thru-out cinema. It came out in '73, played theatres for a good 2 yrs, & came to CBS TV in '79 (?), a good 6 years later. So you know it was making money elsewhere (it got a few rereleases b4 then, btw). There were lots o' references in movies, the news, & in movie/book titles about the devil, possession, or demons (Bk: Demon Children, movies: The Strange Possession of Mrs. Oliver, The Possessed, This House Possessed, The Omen, Good Against Evil (a lousy Exorcist ripoff for TV). It's a long list!). The movie had an unparalleled impact on its decade. I'd read the bk in 6th & 8th grade & likely would appreciate it better today. The movie removed the mystery the bk developed well, & cut out the side story about the daughter. Moviegoers who fainted did so during the medical scenes when her artery is opened, not during the possession scenes....
I think what’s special about the movie and book is the character arc of father Damien karras, he’s so connected to me as a Christian and Damien karras crisis of faith then being full faith restored with him sacrificing himself. That’s what makes it truely one of the greatest and scariest movies of all time
I was only 14 when the movie was released, so I couldn't get into the cinema to see it, so my only option was to read the book. Being Roman Catholic, it was page 183 (I think) that contained the most offending incident (along with, of course, the desecration of the Virgin Mary statue which, in itself, was relatedly very scary). However, it's been so long now that I can't really remember much about the book in relation to the movie, the latter of which I've seen a million times now. At the age of 16, though, I managed to sneak in to the cinema with my cousin and saw the movie. It terrified me.
I agree with you regarding the line "This time you're going to lose", but it seems to me that Friedkin did - more subtly - convey the fact they'd met and battled before by the 'stand off' scene at the end of the Iraq archaeology beginning sequence. This was enhanced later by the Reagan/demon lying in bed staring into the ether and realising that Merrin had arrived, shouting "MERRIN!" at that same time of his arrival.
I originally saw the pre director's cut version which, in my opinion, is better than the director's cut. The reason I say this is that the 'spider walk' sequence is pretty poor... not only in effect/quality but also that it was just a little tooooo much and completely unnecessary. Also, one 360° rotation of the head was enough... they didn't need to do it twice. Each time, it was obviously plastic, more so in one of the two (can't remember which, but I think the second time).
I disagree that the film is now dated. The power it still carries, the fear it continues to instil, the quality of writing, direction and acting along with the cinematography - for me - completely masks any sense of dating. By the way, the inclusion of the great character actor Lee J. Cobb as the detective was a genius bit of casting.
Think he said some of effects were dated, not the film.
Bro I'm obsessed with your channel you are so awesome, please make more!!!
I would love to see a comparison of the book Legion versus Exorcist III.
Surprisingly there are no videos on TH-cam at least from what I can see, that have tackled the difference between the book and the film
I used to be afraid of the Exorcist until I heard Richard Pryor make jokes about it 😂
Music name?
‘Tubular Bells’ by Mike Oldfield
The audiobook read by Blatty is fantastic. He even sounds like Mercedes McCambridge as he reads the Demon's lines.
Great book and narration!
The novel was better. I just finished reading it. But it was difficult to read because I was thinking about the film while reading to compare. But the novel was really frightening. A Master piece.👍🏻 Ellen's reaction in the film was more frightening to me than the possession scenes. Smh... really a master piece, novel film. Nothing will ever compare.
Hereditary
Adding the book to my Christmas list 🙂 always wanted to read it because the film looks a bit (A lot really) terrifying for a 12 yeah old.
Yeah I'm just over halfway through now and, the things Pazuzu's done to her is just outrageous! It's creepy, disgussting, magnificently written, and I can't keep my nose out of it!!
The part he mentioned at the beginning with the crucifix I just read yesterday and, I was curious by what he meant, I said to myself, 'it's just a crucifix, it's just a cross!!' but I wasn't expecting her to do what she did with it!!
Also I'm reading the 40th anniversary edition so, there might be some new stuff in it!
I don't regret putting it on my Christmas list and am definitely happy with what I've read so far!!
Just finished it! Great book!
Also, can you compare It by Stephen King blood Vs film please?
Enjoyed the film because of the terrific story telling with well developed characters, which is typically missing from movies these days. Now will absolutely have to read the book, which I understand was based on an actual case from the 1940's. I also noticed your sub count was at an ironic three digit number, which certainly fit this topic. However, in the spirit of Father Merrin, I'll gladly subscribe to make the sub count 667.
The audiobook is really great, Blatty reads it himself
As a massive fan of both, I'd have to say the book and novel are EQUAL, in different ways.
But they both PERFECTLY capture the vision.
I would also have to agree that the book and the novel are equal 😂
@@AdamWrightReviews Your video was awesome to watch! Thanks for keeping the exorcist community going!
@@Sas-freegrace yeah!!!! Thank you
I remember going to the theater with my date to see this. The theater was packed and we sat on the aisle next to the exit (in case we couldn't take it). There were a few moments when the audience had a subdued laughter. But it was either laugh or you would scream as it was so scary.
I say don't read the book yourself. Listen to Blatty read it. On TH-cam. Perfection. I wish he had recorded a lot of other books. I lived in Georgetown during the Clinton years. It was disappointing to learn the house in the movie is not near the what were still called The Exorcist Steps back in the 90s. Makes me sad. It used to be much easier to park. I was nostalgic because except for the Hot Shoppe which was long gone, The Exorcist felt familiar. Dumbarton Oaks had a $5 admission. I think even a one walked almost alone some afternoons.
Havent read the book but why have I just realize the title refers to the fathers as The Exorcist
Some of the practical effects are hokey? Care name which ones because I think they hold up incredibly well.
Unless of course you’re talking about the “extended cut” which no one should watch over the theatrical version.
If it helps, while the book was being shopped around Hollywood, the Lt. Kinderman character was used to model the Colombo detective. If you notice how Columbo asks questions, it's similar to Kinderman's method. For its time, the language in the movie stunned even Max von Sydow, who had to stop filming after Regan initially curses him out. The movie did get an X rating in Wash., DC. Linda Blair told me (& media sources) that the contraption that banged her on the bed injured her back & she had problems for years (Mom, not one to sue, appears briefly as a nurse in the flick). I thought Linda Blair was a NASTY person, & that the possessed girl was way nicer! Even horror mags have commented that she's nasty. She is NOT the sweet, smiling girl in the movie. She's just an angry woman who smiles for photos but is otherwise a grouch. (So avoid her!) The original story the movie/bk is based on was debunked in a 5-part serial in "Strange Magazine," which you can easily find online. In short, the boy was likely molested by an aunt & was acting out & manipulating his Old World Mom & Grandmom to get away (Dad drove a truck & was never home). The priests recorded 2nd-hand info in a diary & believed he was possessed (the bed had springs & moved easily, he mimicked the Latin they said but didn't speak it fluently, he spat distance accurately but it was a childhood talent, etc.). Kinda cool, no? Thanks again for your perspective! The movie scared audiences at the time, but during its rerelease w/the new footage, the kids in my audience weren't scared. One 20-y/o told a friend, "It wasn't scary, it was disgusting," & sipped her soda. But back in the '70s, it had folks lined around the block & multiplexes showed it in 4 theatres. How times have changed! :-)
The audiobook read by the author is fantastic.
agreed
Of course the book is creppier. It's more complete, there's a lot of more details. The Blatty's style of writing is difficult of to do a adaptation because it has a lot of information and when you know the book, you feel that the movie is very dry.
If they do the reboot, they should do a movie with the same duration of "The Dark Knight Rises", and short the build up of the first arc of the story.
I read the book as a kid loving horror but remember it as more as a detective novel following Kindermann. I'll have to give it another read.
You’re not far off. It definitely has way more of a detective element to it than the movie, and Kindermann has a much bigger presence in the book.
There was a psychic and a book that was never mentioned in the movie. There was a lot of things that could have been done with this in the movie. Missed opportunities.
This makes sense. Blatty complained about plots being dropped. Of course, he worked with Friedkin on the script.
Can anyone who’s ever read the book explain the cover of the book? It has always creeped me out.
It is Regan. It looks like you (the viewer) are walking up next to her he bed and she’s glaring up at you with her eyes rolled into the back of her head (she rolls her eyes up like this many times in the book)
@@Layyschipss William F. said to Linda Blair before shooting “you do know what masterbation is dont you.”she said sure you do it right everone does it.”what a gem a real mature actress.she gives so much m💰to animal shelters & really doesn’t put up w
bullshit.
I really enjoyed your review! I just finished the exorcist book last night. I've seen the movie before but I am going to watch it again. Have you seen the sequels? Are the sequels books also? If so, have you read those?
Thanks Monica! I have not seen the sequels. I don’t believe they’re based on any books.
I think the exorcist 3 was based on Legion book by William Peter blatty if i'm not wrong but with some added moments
I just re-listen to it recently. This time the book had me hooked and I enjoyed it much more than previous listens for some reason. However, I found the demon to be a bit silly at times with his/its talks with Karras, especially when he/it adapts the Burk voice. I also found it a bit incredulous, that three deaths by mysterious circumstances were just simply explained away by the police without an in-depth investigation. You didn't mention that in the book Kinderman sermised what was going on the house concernning Regan.
I loved the movie growing up but didn't read the book until now. I was surprised how rushed the movie feels in comparison. It's a great movie, but Karras is done dirty in the movie in comparison. Jason Miller is great, but his character loses so much of the depth.
Maren feels like an afterthought and is much worse in the movie.
I did like how Karl and Kinderman were less prevelant in the film though. Felt like they took away from the main characters and didn't really add much. I also hate Kinderman in the book Legion (but that's for a different video I hope!).
Great movie but it really felt like it rushed it a bit.
it is a true bonus when an absolutely superior movie is second best when compared with an even better book
Agreed!!
I'd like Detective Kinderman to have his own book series. Other than that the book is creppy as fudge. Also there's much more conflict going on with Father Karras who tries to find "reasonable" answers for what is going on with Regan. The book turned out to be better than I expected. Great reading
I only have two gripes about the movie. First, the hypnosis scene in the book was 1000 times better. It just was. Second, there is a line by the demon right before the last encounter during the exorcism where he tells Father Karras that he should not have given Reagan the last dose of Librium. In that moment you realize it's not the demon that is killing Reagan, it's all of the intervention by the people around her. It was by design. The demon played them all for fools and now he will get this little girl's soul to torment for eternity... Chilling. This part is not in the movie at all.
The book is more dimensional than the movie in exploring the lives of the characters and the history of demonic possession. I read the book first, but always accept the movie in its own right, so no judging. I recommend the narration by William Peter Blatty. Getting to hear an author's narration is a trip, and with Blatty, there is added weight for he was involved the world of the book. He attended the university (Georgetown) featured in the story, and corresponded with the priest who performed the original exorcism. The priest convinced him the case was real, and he reads like a true believer.
My main complaint is they spent WAAAAY too much time on the detective of the book. As well done as it was
"This time you're going to lose"
Was used in the exorcist 3 movie, which coincidentally was directed by Blatty
Agreed!
🤔 every time I watched the movie the exorcist I always kind of felt there was scenes cut because of the tone of the movie already and the seriousness of some of the scenes I always felt they probably took it a step further but then we’re just like (we can’t put this in the movie) 🤷♂️😂
The novel I felt was scarier thsn the movie. Especially the extended edition. I feel like Blatty hasn't gotten enough credit for his novel.
There's a lot of subtext in the book that can be easily missed, especially if it's only viewed as genre fiction. It's engaging genre fiction, of course, but that wasn't the only goal. Many viewed it as an anti-Christian/Catholic book; it's actually the reverse. It takes a very harsh view of science and psychology. These themes play out in the negative. In the novel, medical science never provides answers. It only performs torturous tests, which only confuse matters. Psychology's guidance only leads Father Karras astray. And the only character with the answers is Father Merrin, a man led by simple faith. It also takes digs at the typical targets, Hollywood, hippies, divorce, etc.
I believe 1000% that the book is SCARIER! I can't even imagine reading this book, ever! Lol that movie scarred me for life, I was way too young to watch it and then couldnt sleep for months. Books are ao much more intimate and get inside you like you are holding on to these characters and that would freak me out. 😂 I do love horror movies, though, go figure.
A fairly common criticism of the book I see that I personally also agree with is that Kinderman is kind of annoying...his scenes really drag and get repetitive.
They say they elude to him having met the demon before in an Exorcism in Africa so you are incorrect about that.
They do mention that a previous exorcism "almost killed" Father Merrin. Presumably it's what left him with the heart condition that killed him during Regan's exorcism. It's not specifically spelled out that this is the same demon. In fact, the demon isn't named as Pazuzu until the sequel.
9 years old😭😭😭
The book is awesome, and the movie too
I listen to the recent audiobook the 40th anniversary edition read by the author. While he does a decent job, they could have done so much more. They could have had different people doing the characters especially the demon. Despite that, the book is good but Bladdy writes really long chapters. Some find it too long and that it takes forever to get to the core plot.
If different people "read", a.k.a. play the book characters it wouldn't be an audiobook but an audio drama/radio play, which is a completely different genre. You can't expect this from an audiobook that is marketed as such, which means it's straight read through by one narrator, two at most, but even then the focus is on narrating it, not voice acting. I don't mean to snub you but just clarify the distinction between those two. Otherwise I'd love an audio drama version of "The Exorcist", it would be a great chance of a remake without having the burden to top the movie.
@@-lorepheus-Hi, I love audio dramas but I have listened to audiobooks with multiple narrators I just finished the audible edition of Dracula which had about 4-5 narrators There was no incidental music or sound effects but each narrator did adapt a certain character of the book. I just wished they had given the demon part to a different voice in this case. BTW there is an audio drama version of the Exorcist. It was produced by the BBC the first time I heard it I thought it weak but I recently gave it a second listen and found myself enjoying it. Marron is played by the same actor who played Darth Sidious/Palpatine in the star Wars Franchise. Cheers
Ain't the movie based on the book from a true story??
I don't think she levitates in the book. Also the furniture didn't move so dramatically. Definitely no statue of Pazuzu appearing at the bedside. This definitely a movie that should not never no way have Smell-a-rama.
I don't know why this isn't in or peoples top 10
Although I prefer the novel over the film, the novel didn't convince me that Regan was possessed. With a the medical analyses and jargon, I felt Regan was a very badly behaved pre-teen seeking attention with a knack for convincing others that they witness actions which never happened. She manipulated their minds to succumb to the power of suggestions. Typical spoiled rich kid antics, where permissive parents think it's either cute or ignore the gravity of their misbehaviors. Chris is not a disciplinarian. She giggles, when the psychiatrist alerts the mother of Regan's obscenities during their medical meetings. She has no intention of punishing her child for her complete lack of respect for her elders and dignitaries. My.mom would have beaten the hell out of me, had the scenes unfolded in my house. She wouldn't have needed a priest to drive out the antics. The film drives home the possession notion better, but I still live the novel. It's a great psychological drama with me left to question, whether Regan is possessed by a demon and whether the church can really help. The film takes away that choice from the viewer and insists the girl must be exorcized. The actual case involving a teen boy was disputed by witnesses at his own exorcism, including family members and clergymen. Having read the actual basis for the film, I admit feeling the real case lacked enough evidence to assert that Ronald was truly possessed. That spilled over into the novel for me, and I doubt Regan was either. Blatty truly knew his medical and psychological backgrounds, and he crafts a question from beginning to end. He allows the reader to evaluate Regan's conditions and decide for ourselves what her state is. Still, the film was so sensationalized, that we must live the film because of and in spite of it's shenanigans and shock.
yeah the book is better is different from the movie 👍💯
nahhh dog aint nobody faint reading the book,
it is very good tho
nothing is dated in this movie
The Exorcist is among the worst books that I have ever read. My history with this goes back to the 70's. I was only 9 when it was initially released in '73 but I was well aware of the film's existence from a cover story in an issue of Famous Monsters of Filmland which featured a vividly coloured illustration of Linda Blair in full possession by the demonic force. I read the book long before having the opportunity to see the film when it aired on HBO. I was somewhat prepared for what I was about to see. The film well made but very disappointing and did not live up to the hype surrounding it, especially those stories of people fleeing the theatres into the lobby or, in more extreme cases, to the nearest church. It is a phenomenon which will never be replicated. As the culture becomes increasingly desensitized to shocking and violent images The Exorcist is somewhat tam in comparison to what exists to. The hyperbolic title "scariest film ever made" is going to be very misleading to a younger generation . It must be kept in the context of its time; we had never anything like this. Horror films existed, gory films existed, but The Exorcist brought into a area of American culture that unfamiliar with this type of horror, blending the supernatural with the safe domestication of the affluent. I haven't read any reactions to the book when it was published in '71 or any criticism about the quality of its writing. I've read it at least four times over the span of forty years, each time my opinion growing increasingly hostile. I probably enjoyed it the first time when I checked out a copy from the local library, but when reading habits change and improve Blatty's writing style became excruciating. It tries too hard to be stylized and just feels like the first draft by a student in a creative writing course. I read (for the last time) several years ago after more than twenty years since the last and was really struggling to get through it. Blatty tries to be clever and fails, he tries to inject humour and fails, he cannot write dialogue that does not sound like natural human speech but rather something a screenwriter would dredge up to bring the characters to life. It is all awkwardly and clumsily handled. To watch an interview with Blatty you'd think he just invented the wheel. Neither the novel nor the film are as great as their legends will lead you to believe. The film vastly improves on the flaws of its source but it is quite boring. When the "version you've never seen" was released I finally got to see it on a big screen. Despite its embellishments it was a dull viewing experience. Even the infamous "spider walk" was more silly than scary. The film certainly has earned a place in horror history but the novel need never be opened by any reader.
“The novel need never be opened by any reader” seems a bit harsh coming from somebody who has admittedly read it four times.
Spoilers for a 50 year old movie... Can there be such a thing?
Haha perhaps not, but I’m sure there are people out there who haven’t seen it who may appreciate the warning!
The book was effing gross!... so good though.
The effects looked dated and hokey? Why, because it doesn't look like fake looking modern CGI? I'll take this film over any of the bullshit that comes out these days, the horror genre is a joke now.
th-cam.com/video/E-0AS9AjrQE/w-d-xo.html
@@AdamWrightReviews Touche!
Once I hear or read in a review that something in an older film, TV show or book is "dated," I tune out. It's cliche, boring and obvious --- and just an overall stupid statement. It sounds so snarky too. CGI queens are the worst!
Always makes me laugh when people say The Exorcist is the scariest film ever made? Maybe for 1970's audiences - I remember getting hold of a pirate copy (when banned in the UK) in late 90s. Watched it and went "they banned this? For what?" It's as scary as a weak fart in the wind. Yes It's thought provoking and beautifully filmed, great story telling and acting..... But scary? I've never understood this maybe in the 70s it scared people but I find it hard to believe that modern audiences are still finding it scary, seeing modern horror is pretty poor with jump scares gallore and poor writing esp final Acts. It could be that in the USA they are more religous and have deep rooted religous childhood doctrines due to generational/environmental/social influences? - compare to say me growing up in the UK where religion isnt a big thing? well for most people.
I think religion is a factor, for sure. I know devout Catholics who grew up in the 70’s and this movie scared the hell out of them because they believe one can become possessed by a demon.
I love everything from 'arsenic and old lace' to 'the labyrinth'. But the exorcist movie was sooo boring! It's very poorly written and directed and is quite a boring story.
It's a very good movie. But the book is better.