Fun fact: Max von Sydow, the actor who played Father Merrin, was 43 at the time the movie was filmed in 1972. The old age make-up used to make him appear as the 80 year old priest is considered some of the best ever put to film. In fact, it was a close match to how he looked when the actor reached 80 years old in 2009. Also fun fact: the character of Damien Karras was Greek, the writing on his St. Joseph medallion was in Greek. Legion (the name of sequel as written by William Peter Blatty), or The Exorcist III as the film named by the studio, is one of the best sequels ever made. I'd suggest reading the books first, as they give more context to the entire story. Avoid 'The Exorcist II: The Heretic' at all costs, unless for purposes of the Pazuzu Drinking Game ;)
yea they made some realistic surroundings too, I believe they used a room that was barely above freezing and had that actress Mercedes McCambridge drink her booze AND REALLY sound nasty as the devil.
When I saw “ The Force Awakens” in 2015, I was surprised that he looked the same age. I didn’t realize (at the time) he was wearing make-up in “The Exorcist”.
@@corvus1970 Dick Smith created makeup techniques prior to this movie making Max Von Sydow (43) a lot older as an 80 years old Priest. Dick transformed then young Dustin Hoffman into 121 years old man for 1970's Little Big Man, story about man who was 10 years old living in old west to living in Hospice - 110 years span. Dick used his knowledge for Exorcist like his crew created life like head of young Linda Blair (Regan) that rotates 360 degrees. Max lived to be 90 in 2020, as his last acting credit in 2018
"Why does it have to be so weird and sexual like that?" Because it's a demon. It exists to corrupt and destroy everything it touches. As for Karras' medallion, it was a St. Joseph medallion, not St. Christopher, which is a common misconception. The inscription reads "Sancte Joseph ora pro nobis," which translates to "Saint Joseph pray for us". One of St. Joseph's patronages is against doubt, which is very fitting for Father Karras, who is filled with doubts, but regains his faith at the end.
there's also a theory that Reagan was sexually abused, possibly by Burke (hence his voice when she asks if she knows what Reagan did after the crucifix scene).
I remember a thread in the IMDb site when you could post questions. Someone asked about the sexual nature of the demon, and someone replied something like: it's a fucking demon, he's supposed to do fucked up stuff, what did you expect him to do? Go downstairs and bake a cake for the family?
@@mrskinszszs No one abused Regan. Pazuzu impersonated Burke Dennings and said "Do you know what she did? Your ******* daughter?" In reference to Pazuzu, controlling Regan's body, killing Burke and turning his head backwards. Pazuzu telepathically put an image of Regan's head backwards into Chris' mind.
@@raydonahue1978 I distinctly said it's a theory. Someone even made a video going into further detai (even if he doesn't agree with the Dennings theory, but finds it interesting and mentions it within): th-cam.com/video/BlLrD1CC5wQ/w-d-xo.html
And mentally/ emotionally exhausted. It’s the helplessness of the mother watching her daughter break apart before her eyes and she’s tried everything to help. Plus, imagine what Reagan was going through. Body breaking down and no control. She’s a prisoner in her own body while a demon is pulling the strings.
I was only 18 (now 67) when I first saw this movie and I did not sleep on my back for months. The bedroom lights were on for many months too. The ignorant, yet arrogant doctor torturing Reagan at the onset of her possession still upsets me.
Congratulations! Not many movie reaction viewers figure out that the medallion protected Father Karas and when the demon had a chance to rip it off him, Father Karas was no longer protected. One thing that many viewers neglect to notice is when Father Karas comes to visit Regan with the tape recorder, the demon clearly said he wanted Karas' soul! The demon said that the exorcism would bring him and them together. You see that is the whole reason why the demon possessed Regan. It was to get to Karas because to get the soul of a priest is a high prize to obtain for the devil! But Karas was smarter than the devil and he got the devil to come into him and then he sacrificed his life for Regan. The highest gift one can give is one's life for others. Karas is the hero!
@@jeffreykaufmann2867 Of course the Devil KNEW! He was being deceitful. He knew that Father Karas was there to gain evidence to obtain permission for an exorcism. So he had an adverse reaction to the Holy Water so that Father Karas would have LESS evidence of possession. That's part of who the Devil is. He fools people. He manipulates people. You CAN'T trust ANYTHING when it comes to the Devil except that you're sure he wants your soul!
@@jeffreykaufmann2867 Yes, because the devil believed he could resist the exorcism long enough to get into Karas and obtain Karas' soul. This is the point in the movie where a lot of people miss because the devil makes it very clear that the whole idea of possessing Regan was to get Father Karas' soul. The soul of a priest is a highly valued prize for Satan because priests are holy men.
William Peter Blatty, who wrote the novel and screenplay, said the whole point of the "crucifix" scene and such wasn't as a sexual thing. He said, when he was writing it, he came to that point in the story and he thought to himself what was the worst thing he could think of that would finally convince this atheist mother that this was supernatural and she needed to go to a priest.
It's a rape. You hear Regan beg for it not to happen. The demon literally wipes Chris's face in her inability to protect her child. It's horrific as all rape is.
@@Concreteowl don't know if you've ever read the novel, but that scene is actually worse in the book. Way more graphic and intrusive. But, I definitely see Blatty's point about it being the worst thing he could think of. It's a total violation of innocence.
@@robertkramer2271 Also, the fact that the kid is getting raped! Everyone calls it the "Crucifix Masturbation Scene", but the poor kid isn't masturbating... she is actually getting raped by the entity!
Linda Blair is a great actress! She was never the same after this movie! Can u imagine what all she went through! Prayer of protection for anyone watching 🙏
I agree. The winner that year was Glenda Jackson for "A Touch of Class", but Burstyn really should have nabbed it. The Academy likely realized its "mistake" and awarded her next year for the far inferior "Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore" (there was an 80's tv show based on it called "Alice"). In 2000 Burstyn would be nominated for another horror film, "Requiem for a Dream" which is equally as disturbing as "the Exorcist", but she lost that year to Julia Roberts in "Erin Brockovich". The Academy is pretty hesitant when it comes to rewarding Horror, Fantasy, and Sci-Fi films, which means that many deserving actors and (especially) actresses have been overlooked.
@@macc.1132 I believe Burstyn was also nominated for best actress for the 1980 film Resurrection. Another sci fi and excellent film about a healer. SHe lost that year to Sally Field for Norma Rae and her "So you do love me " speech. Burstyn still alive and kicking pushing 90 and working hard.
Director William Friedken; when asked what the movies about he never says it's about a girl who gets possessed. He always says "It's a movie about Non Believers becoming Believers"
@@rogeriopenna9014 Demon that was worshiped as pazuzu by the sumerians. The devil playing heathen gods is very common through the ages, like with Baal for whom the carthaginians burned their own babies alive inside an statue of it(even the romans were quite shocked by it).
@@kinsmart7294 yeah, but the Romans also accused Christians, at the beginning, of doing human sacrifices, orgies, etc. It seems a common trend of accusing your enemies of doing horrible hideous things. I wonder if the Carthaginians really did what you say, or if it was Roman propaganda, to justify mass genocide.
@@rogeriopenna9014 The jewish accounts also say something similar for the carthaginians. But its not like a lot of things from carthage were left after it was destroyed.
I hate the ones that say, well it wasn't that bad. Uh sure but all those 100s of movies you've heard and seen were inspired by this film and in 1973 this might as well been a documentary
"It has a snake penis." One hour and forty minutes later and remarking on the same thing "Nope, never seen it." LOL! Perhaps she has early alzheimer's?
"It has a snake penis." One hour and forty minutes later and remarking on the same thing "Nope, never seen it." LOL! Perhaps she has early alzheimer's?
I heard an adult interview with Linda Blair a few years back on the radio. She touched on a lot of things about like about the difficulty getting roles, how back then (like now, but worse in that era) child stars often went into addiction issues, and both the fun and difficulties on set for this… two neat things about her that she talked about during it and one general film bit of trivia that makes sense: 1). To get it cold enough to cause the breath of people in her room to show they had to refrigerate the entire thing… and then th that dehydrated the air so much the breath still wouldn’t show so they had to have the rom freezing AND then pump in moisture to get it to work. So those scenes were performed in an icy cold, moisturized-air room…. And the others got to, under their robes, wear layers of warm clothing but she had to be in just that nightgown so she was freezing her ass off during it. 2). She expressed that no, since it was all just making a film, she wasn’t ever seriously afraid during the making of it…. Youre the one in makeup, surrounded by staff, cameras, lighting, mics, etc…. But for continuity the makeup/prosthetics team had an almost life-sized doll they kept in the prep room that looked like her as she was at the point of each shooting scene. She wasn’t afraid making the film, but she was afraid of the doll of herself. And the just generally neat thing about the making is that for the vomiting scene they had to test, as makes sense when you think about it, various brands of pea soup. They found Campbell's was their first try and it didn’t work and so went on and found an off-brand they could make the right consistency lol.
Another bit from the "trivia and useless information files" that seem to fill my head - Campbell's Chunky Beef Soup with Country Vegetables works best as fake vomit in most applications.
"It has a snake penis." One hour and forty minutes later and remarking on the same thing "Nope, never seen it." LOL! Perhaps she has early alzheimer's?
The dichotomy of an innocent little girl possessed by the most perverted, disgusting and sadistic demon is a good part of what makes this movie a horror classic. It is very disturbing, particularly for the 1973 audiences, and i love that there was zero background music letting you know beforehand about the scary moments. I made the same assumption as you about the medal, so i'd say it's accurate and it was indeed for protection against evil. You watched with an open mind and the right attitude and awareness of the time when it was made. I enjoyed revisiting one of my favorite movies EVER through your reaction.
Fr. Dyer (played by an actual priest) gave last rights to Karras at the foot of the stairs about 15 times, but couldn't put enough emotion into it. Director Friedkin asked him, "Do you trust me?" Dyer nodded. Friedkin hauled back and SMACKED Dyer in the face, and yelled "Roll it." The last take is what you saw.
The neckless represents faith in God (or trust in the Catholic church). At the end of the movie, the Mom handed it to the priest and said, "I thought you might like to keep this." He gave it back to her and said, "Why dont you keep it." In other words, it was a conversion message. He told her to have and hold onto faith in God.
Congratulations on graduating from horror school. Not trusting the happy ending and asking 'are you sure....' is a sure sign of experience. Another awesome job guys. I am again thoroughly entertained.
Got teary eyed with the end confession scene. Just seeing a man help his dying friend to transition into the afterlife and making sure he is pure of heart before he goes, all the while he is crying is so heartbreaking.
When my mother was young she saw this at the cinema in 1973 and had nightmares for months after (it was the "headturner" that pushed her over the edge). At that time there had been nothing so disturbing and graphic, most horror movies up to that point being campy, monster-of-the-week style popcorn horror movies. When I watched it the first time in the mid-late 80'ies (VHS rental) I didn't really find it particularly scary but I have always been a horror buff and had seen so many horror movies at that point. These days I can appreciate how scary and disturbing it must've been for people back then to experience this at the cinema for the first time. It's a great movie at any rate which I rewatch every couple of years.
Yup, I was 8 in '73 when I snuck in with my friend and his older brother. I didn't have a good nights sleep for a long time. I met Linda Blair I 2018 and told her my trauma stories. She's really sweet and definitely realises the affect she and the film had on individuals and society as whole.
@@sca88 I seen this movie when I was about 10 or 12 years old. Yeah.... it's NOT a movie for kids. It will mess your ass up. Adults were leaving the theater, sick, back when this came out. It's the most hardcore horror movie of all time. The language, mechanical effects, everything. The ironic thing is: the catholic church is not good. So it was really like "evil fighting evil", which wouldn't work. TODAY: satans influence is everywhere. Demons do not directly possess people, but they influence people. People sin. When people reject Jesus, they open themselves up to demonic influence. And then they think and do evil. The Holy Spirit protects those who are saved, from such influence. So demons have no power over the saved, but worldly temptations are still ever-present. "The Exorcist" is a bold and vulgar illustration of satanic forces. satan is far more subtle with his evil attacks today. Remember the old saying: "the devils greatest trick is convincing the world he doesn't exist".
Not a great movie. Great movie stays scary and timeless. Even if you don't get scared at all, you can recognize whether the movie is really scary or not. For example, I am not scared by horror movies at all anymore, but I can easily tell that the scene from "The Ring" movie can be extremely scary to most people, if properly watched. The movies felt like reality back in the day, and that is the reason people were very scared, not because this was great. I was scared of horror comedies back then
I first watched "the version you've never seen" in theaters when it was released. First time I was exposed to the film and I believe it was 2001 or 2002 making me 11 or 12.... Scared the SHIT out of me
It is still very disturbing even by today's standard. The closest thing I have seen to the excorcist in today's cinema had to be hereditary. Unfortunately hereditary wasn't very original in that almost every horror indie film features a pagan God and a cult. The excorcist was just straight up good vs evil and those who get caught in between. Edit: the most disturbing parts in hereditary was the head and the girl cutting her throat with a wire or something. That was horrifying
This movie went further than any other movie before, and actually it went further than any other possession movie after! If you think about all the movies about possessions and exorcisms, from The Conjuring to Deliver Us From Evil, Emily Rose, or whatever, none of those movies took it that far in terms of the sexual tone of the possession. And we're talking about a little girl here. Now, think about the impact this movie had in 1973 when no one had ever seen any of these movies about possession that we're already used to, that are so common now. It was the first time for people to witness something like that, so sick, so disturbing, so inappropriate, so terrifying, so fucked up. People thought that it was all real, that this thing was actually happening to that little girl, for real. People were running away from the theaters screaming and vomiting and passing out in the streets, many people had to be hospitalized. I think this movie was traumatic at a deep level, at a collective level, it fucked up the world I think. Even now, that after all the atrocities we've seen in horror movies we are kind of used to it, this one has imagery that can still disturb us. In 1973 it was traumatic. And even today it stands out as the movie that took it there where no other movie before or after went.
I think this movie has one key quality that put's it on another level compared to any other film in it's genre. And that quality is, 'Authenticity.' It was written by a guy who clearly had intimate knowledge of the Catholic church. The prayers are real; the ritual is real; the clothing is real; the humanity of the priests is real; the required proof of possession is real. These priests are NOT cookie-cutter caricatures of infallible pious men in robes ready to do battle with the Devil. No, they're real human beings, with real human problems-- including struggles in faith. Plus, the film played like a documentary... and that's no mistake. The writer chose this director because he was a renowned documentarian before he got into directing written screenplays. I mean, what other horror film would spend half it's running time showing all the exhaustive medical tests conducted to disprove the horror? And it's that constant feeling of doubt that made this film so genuine. Even the priest struggled through the entire film to believe any of this shit was real. In other words, the film itself was it's own biggest skeptic of the possession. And lastly, the Exorcist had one jump-scare. The rest of the movie ran on pure psychological horror. Every other horror film I've ever seen relies almost entirely of edit-room-created jump scares.
@@jeffreykaufmann2867 I agree that those scenes are unnecessary. The spider walk has sensationalism going for it, but serves no real purpose other than the shock factor. It shows too much too soon, and somewhat takes away from the traumatic effect of the crucifix sequence. Without the spider walk preceding it, the crucifix scene is like suddenly being pushed into the deep end of a very deep pool.
@@JakkFrost1 No, he was an actual nurse. Friedkin used actual personnel from a New York hospital for the hospital scenes. Also it's kind of funny that the victim of the only murder he was convicted of was a film critic.
I've noticed that most people get confused by her candle flaring up in the attic. Old cobwebs collect fine dust and a naked flame incinerates the whole web in an instant.
The demon Pazuzu was the demon of the west wind. A few scenes early in the film depict a wind signifying Pazuzu's arrival to Georgetown, especially the Halloween scene. The wind that flared up the candle was caused by Pazuzu. However the demon is smart enough to make us believe it was just cobwebs.
Always felt bad for Jason Miller, the actor who plays Father Carras. He struggled with alcoholism, which profoundly harmed his career and his health. It was great to see him back in part 3.
With the beginning of the film, Father Merrin uncovers the head of a little figurine of the demon Pazuzu, whom he recognized because he had previously exorcised the demon years ago. So then he has a premonition later that another battle with Pazuzu is coming, with the clock randomly stopping and him almost getting ran over by the carriage. So to confirm his suspicions he goes to some old ruins where there is an old statue of Pazuzu and knows for certain when he sees the dogs fighting each other (the dogs of war have been unleashed). The dissolve to Georgetown right after is to show you where this battle between good and evil is going to take place.
That's actually a St. Joseph medal found in Iraq versus the St. Christopher one that is worn by Karras. Here's a good source explaining with the link: The St. Joseph medal (commonly mistakenly referred to as a St. Christopher medal), appears in the film The Exorcist. It features an engraved picture of St. Joseph with Baby Jesus. It is inscribed with the Latin phrase, "Sancte Joseph ora pro nobis," which translates to "Saint Joseph pray for us".[1] There is a common misconception that the medal found by Father Merrin in Iraq and the one worn by Father Karras (and his mother) are one and the same, however, that is not necessarily the case. Many people have asked William Peter Blatty about it. William Friedkin's reason for adding the medal to the film was to "'add resonances' to the film". According to Blatty, instead of asking how the medal got from Iraq to Father Karras, people should really be asking "how a contemporary Christian medal got into an archaeological ruin from pre-Christian Nineveh in the first place." When Merrin finds the medal in Iraq, he speaks in Arabic and the English subtitles say "This is strange," however, in Arabic, he is actually asking "What's this doing here?" Blatty believed that this question would never be answered. Source: exorcist.fandom.com/wiki/St._Joseph_medal
Nice research.. Thats the third interesting thing I've learned about this film, the other two being that Ellen Burstyn ( the mother) played the older sick and dying Murph in Intersteller and also that one of the extra's in the movie (a doctor) was in fact a real life serial killer later caught. Amazing.
In the book the medal that father merrin found was actually an amulet of the demon pazuzu. In ancient Mesopotamia pregnant women would wear the amulet, or hang it over their children's beds in order to be protected from a demon named Lamashtu. Lamashtu was known for stealing children and causing miscarriages. This always made me ask why Blatty picked pazuzu out of all the other demons for his story when that particular demon was known for protecting children.
You really should have shown her Rosemary's Baby, then The Omen, then The Exorcist. Those were the 3 biggest religious-themed horror films of the 70s, from the lesser one to the best. To this day, The Exorcist is the only movie that scares the crap out of me.
Exorcist scares you? Sounds like you did not watch any of the later horror movies that did much better job at horror, and that are genuinely scary in comparison to this anti-climatic horror with very disappointing ending
@Bryan Mack I don't know, I am not a horror fan. I can only recognize if it is scary or not. I don't get scared. I loved horrors in the past, and I was getting scared back then, but turned out, many of those horrors were actually bad. Now I don't remember which of those were actually good and scary. I know that the famous scene from "The Ring" is scary, but that was just one scene out of entire movie. I love when there is more to the movie than just horror. If mystery is involved or something. For example I liked "The Others", even though big chunk of the movie was boring, they could do better, but it was worth it for the ending. I am pretty sure you watched it, but if there is a small chance you haven't, avoid reading anything about it like a plague before you watch it
I'm french, totally atheist anti Catholicism Church and we are for blasphemy BUT it's the movie of my entire life with "The Godfather", it's not a movie for bullshit gods and religions but an interrogation about good /bad. Example Karras and his mother, he's a good man, he loved her absolutely but she dies alone in a cold asylum so not a sacrifice, a suicide because he could not deal with it and of course it saves the little girl's life. Because it's an American movie...
22:03 - that was a movie mistake there, the vomit was supposed to go on or over Karras' shoulder. Instead the aim was off and got him right in the face, the director used that take as the final one so the priest's shock was all real
The director took great pains to make sure Linda Blair was kept in a light mood and having a good time on set. She said herself she was too young to understand any of what she was doing and had fun the entire time playing pretend. There's "making of" footage that shows how the movie magic is made and what is put on screen is not what is happening while the work is being done. It was after she became world famous and the pressures of Hollywood that messed her up, not the imagery made in post production which she didn't even see until she was much older. She was stunned how diffetent the dialogue she mouthed was so much different than what the voice over actors put in.
Yes, I seen the documentary about the making of this film. It was quite interesting. Mercedes McCambridge did the voice of the demon PAZUZU. Linda Blair was so cute back then. I had a childhood crush on her.
In the interview I saw, she said making the movie was mostly fun. It was the reaction to the movie she had a hard time with. being the devil girl and all that
This was my favorite movie of all time. Filmed almost entirely on location, it felt very real. I've seen the movie several times since I was a kid, and I've read the book at least twice, if not three times. I know demonic possession is a problem. But don't even mention Poltergeist in the same breath with The Exorcist. I don't think there was anything that significant about the necklace other than it was for memorabilia of the man who once had doubts but saved a girl from the powers of Satan, and who gave his life for hers. On second thought, the necklace is symbolic of the acquired faith they've all gone through over the experience.
Can we appreciate that Max von Sydow was playing an old guy in 1973 and was STILL playing old guys as late as 2015 (Force Awakens) and 2016 (Game of Thrones)? What an incredible career.
"Or she's possessed? have you considered THAT?" that's the best thing about this movie imo. No movie quite like this had come out before. Like the doctors describe in the film-- at the time, exorcism was kind of a hush-hush thing not many people knew about, even in fiction. and it's so realistic and stressful how they really do try any and all medical solutions at first. and all the now-cliche things leading up to it are so SUBTLE. we never learn the demon's name (but now we know because of the book and the sequels) or if there really was more than one demon or if it was The Devil like it says. and the ouija board is only brought up once, and it's a scene full of little hints like the idea that Reagan has an imaginary friend we never hear about later or the fact she's been making lots of weird animal figurines. maybe they're just art, or maybe they're part of a ritual that "Captain Howdy" has been manipulating her into performing. so much to get your mind racing, even years after the movie's first release, all without spoon-feeding you every little answer. nowadays, any new exorcism film p much owes its entire existence to this movie, tropes and all. and they'll try to be more original by explaining all the nuances to set it apart from this film, but that ends up ruining the subtle mystery like The Exorcist has. Interesting choice to watch the Director's Cut rather than the theatrical version. I kinda like the theatrical cut more because it doesn't flash the demon face on screen so many times, and it starts the "infection" of Reagan a little more subtly but more quickly. However, the Director's Cut has a little more creepy build-up and I think it's the only version with the crab-walk scene. Each version kinda has its own thing going for it. Wish there was a third cut that combines the best of both. Also! I think Linda Blair has actually really cleaned up over the years. She does small-time roles, but last I heard, she's doing quite well. Even guest-starred in a decent episode of Supernatural a few years ago. Sorry for yet another LONG comment lol. This is one of my all-time fav movies. One of those that has something new to take away from it every time I watch. The behind-the-scenes trivia is fascinating, too. Yet another director whose methods are basically why we have labor laws for movie sets lol....
"Why does it (the devil) have to be so sexual?" Nothing more evil than the destruction of a child's innocence. That's why all the copycats of this movie are so lame? They have Nickelodeon versions of the what the devil would be like.
@@Rachelleluluful As Merrin said, it will lie to confuse us; *A* devil, not *the* devil... but still a powerful force of evil. This is still an incredible film, outshines almost all other horror films since.
@@tonydebruin1052 true. However, father Karras also said “if that’s true that you’re the devil, you can undo the restraints yourself!” It is complex though. I can definitely see where people would think that.
@@tonydebruin1052 they don't need to say his name for us to know who he is, they show his image several times throughout the movie, it is Pazuzu, though it makes no sense he targets a little girl but Hollywood does like to mix ancient deities with Satan, I mean he was the king of demons, yes but he was also a protector of sorts to Sumerian people, they prayed to him to keep them safe from other demons, including his consort Lamashtu, who was believed to be responsible for miscarriages and babies who died in the craddle, which is why pregnant women often wore his image on a necklace and little idols of him were placed on cribs, to keep Lamashtu away
To answer the Mrs question about Sal Mineo being a boxing insult. Sal Mineo was a actor best known for his role in the 50's film Rebel without a Cause. He was murdered 3 years after this film was released in 1976.
In the scene where Father Dyer was giving the last rites to Father Karras, the actor playing Father Dyer could not show the appropriate amount of distress that the director (William Friedkin) wanted. Friedkin asked the actor playing Father Dyer if he trusted him, when he said yes Friedkin slapped him across the face just before the next take. When Father Dyer's hands are shaking that was from the after slap shock.
Good reaction video! I think you’ve fallen into what I call, “viewer bias” a bit when you say to just bring in a priest / exorcist early. Although, you didn’t fall very hard into it, certainly not as hard as some reactors, (i.e. call in the priest as soon as the Ouija Board is brought out). Viewer bias, especially for this movie, is when everybody knows the movie is titled, “The Exorcist”. So the characters should go to that immediately. And after every occurrence of “off” behavior from Regan. Back in 1973, there was little knowledge of exorcism or the possession of people by malevolent spirits / demons / devils. So the characters followed the normal progression, physicians, specialists, psychologist (hypnotists), and then, finally, because the doctors suggested it, the church for an exorcism. Most people don’t catch Regan was put on Ritalin. Then, the night Burke died, Sharon went out to refill Regan’s prescription for THORAZINE. Also, something ALL reactors seem to do is go, “Uh Oh!” when the Ouija Board is brought out. Viewer bias, again. At this time, there were no movies (horror or otherwise) about or highlighting Ouija Boards as “contacting evil spirits”, etc. At the time, Ouija Boards were sold in the games section of toy stores. “The Exorcist” is the movie that took it from a party game into the realm of the occult. And yeah, medical testing has come a LONG way since then. A couple of interesting tidbits: Jason Miller (Father Karras) was a Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright (“That Championship Season”). “The Exorcist” was his first screen role. And was nominated for the Best Supporting Actor for his role in “The Exorcist”. Linda Blair (Regan McNeil) was nominated for Best Supporting Actress. Ellen Burstyn (Chris McNeil) was nominated for Best Actress. The film itself was nominated for Best Picture (the first horror film to be nominated) and William Freidkin for Best Director. Max Von Sydow (Father Merrin) was only 44 when he filmed the role. There is an actual supposed serial killer in the movie. In the scene where Regan is undergoing the medical procedure to get pictures of her brain, the guy with the beard (not the mustachioed doctor - an actual neurosurgeon) helping Regan onto the procedure table was convicted for the murder of a film critic and bragged he had killed six men from homosexual bars (Paul Bateson).
I remember watching this when it came out in the theaters. Today's audiences have been exposed to so much gore and violence that they are no longer affected in the same way as they were in 73. Nothing like this had ever been seen before, the presence of real evil in a nice, upscale Washington DC subburb freaked out many people, no matter if they were catholic, protestant or Jew. To see a young acctress like Linda Blair be subjected to the horror of demonic possession seemed far too real. Many wanted the film banned. Before this horror movies were simple Dracula, Frankenstein and werewolf stories with the occasional witch or wizard. Nothing that touched upon peoples core belief. It may have gone unnoticed that Reagan's mother had never even heard of the term excorcism before, the devil had become a fairytale with no real meaning. Priests, Rabbis and others except for a few old fashioned fire and brimstone evangelicals who preached about damnation and he'll fire actually believed in the Devil and evil as real things. Scientists had become unbelievers, young people who were part of the 60s drug culture and anti war movements believed in God and love but not in the devil or evil. Along with an awakening of more traditional religious faith the film spawned so many immitations and copies that soon the power of the films images had faded until most people had lost the fear and terror felt back then. Today like she said it was not scary but more revolting and inappropriate. A big change from 1973 to 2021
Fun fact. At the end when Damien is getting his last rites read, the priests hand is shaking. Apparently after repeated takes, the actor wasn’t getting it right, so the director slapped the shit out of him to shake him up. Apparently it worked.
That is an old fashioned way of doing a CT scan with contrast. They inserted the needle and pumped the dye straight into the jugular vein for images of the brain, which needed to be done awake for the doctors to see the dye doing through while the brain is actively functioning.
Great reaction. The third instalment is considered the best psychological thriller of all time. The Exorcist III ( Aka Legion ) 1990. Could not recommend it more. It is a companion to the original.
Yup. Karras being stuck in his body doesn't make sense (after getting Last Rites and whatever, he would be protected by God) but it is a good sequel. I did that a fridge-thought. Perhaps being stuck in his body with Gemini would make sense if Karras never actually died here, like we assumed. The Last Rites were premature, and Karras survived (but in a coma). Now, THAT WAY, Gemini could possess Karras rather than just Karras' dead body.
The part that got audiences getting sick in the theater was not the crucifix scene or the vomiting scene. It was the part where they are doing the test on Regan. When the blood squirted out onto her gown. Because all those happened quickly, that scene the camera lingered on that shot.
If you pause the movie you can see it's a St. Joseph's medal. There's an image of St. Joseph holding Child Jesus with an inscription in latin saying "Sancte Joseph ora pro nobis" - S. Joseph pray for us. It is quite fitting, because one of the titles assigned to S. Joseph is "Terror of Demons", and according to exorcists the intercession of St. Joseph has proven to be very helpful in their ministry.
Absolutely loved watching you guys watching this. I am 60 years old and have seen this film a zillion times - starting when I was 15 and my brother took me to see it. How cool is it that this film still packs the punch. I think she is right about the necklace. Also poor Linda Blair had real life wackos coming up to her after calling the Devils Child. She was not able to go into public for years after. To me the most amazing point about this film is the fact that the Pope Endorsed it and thousands of Christians fled back to church with this film putting the fear of God in them.
If I remember correctly Linda Blair wasn’t as mentally traumatized by playing Reagan instead being physically traumatized. I recall they walked her through the whole thing as to make her used to the scary stuff, gore effects, makeup effects etc but when it came to the scene where she was flopping around in the bed and she was violently sitting up and laying down over and over again the board used to do so was so violently jerked up and down that it fractured her spine.
That DEVIL FACE that keeps appearing is Eileen Dietz who was Linda Blair's stand-in and was also on the soap operas Guiding Light and General Hospital.
Fun facts. For the film, they actually ran a real scan of the actress, so the blood and injections were real. So was the technician, who was later discovered to be a real life serial killer.
Nominated for 10 Oscars including Best Picture but won for Best Adapted Screenplay and Best Sound Mixing. It lost 7 Oscars including Best Picture to The Sting, Starring Paul Newman and Robert Redford.
I recently watched this movie and since I had watched so many other horror movies I was confident, I was surprised how much this movie scared the crap out of me.
The Exorcist, the film that dared, ripped up the rule book & crossed the line in many a persons eyes, i loved the film but i've only seen it once in my 49 years & i wont go there again LOL, but i also love watching people react, still to this day the film disgusts, offends, & traumatizes people of all ages & for that i give it a big thumbs up. I do feel for the young Linda Blair she actually fractured her spine in that bed scene, imagine if that had happened today she would have earned more from suing than wage income. You me & the Movies i've been watching your channel for a while now & you two are fantastic. I'd love to recommend a movie, i've not seen anyone react to this psychological horror it was early 2001 Bill paxton & Matthew McConaughey the film Frailty it was brilliant.
Normally I don't comment or watch reaction on films like these but because I have seen this one several times I will. First of all, this movie is based on a true occurrence and when this film was released in theatres there were incidences of suicide based on the showing. You two did a good job of trying to provide comedy relief, but the stark harshness of this film is hard to just shake off. And, you gave to really understand that the reality of this is really well executed in the film, particularly by the practical effects and the main actress. A lot of people may try to displace the scariness with the drama, but because it was REAL at one point should make the audience aware of just how scary this is. Good job, peeps!!!
When this showed on tv back in the early 90s uncut for the first time, my dad, having seen this in the cinema wanted to see it again 20 years later. I remember he was 100% against me seeing this (I was only 12 at the time) so he made a deal. He said "You can go into the guest room where the big tv was and expensive VCR, watch anything you like, cartoons, Simpsons, Seinfeld whatever, but NOT this movie." So, I kept my promise and my mum and dad watched this in the regular living room. As I laid down watching Seinfeld, my older brother had just gotten home, sneaked up behind me and gave me the biggest jump scare I ever had. My Dad was furious as he was sure I broke my promise and he yelled and screamed at me, when I said what happened, he lost it with my older brother. So, my brother blamed me and stormed off and I caught the brunt of my dad's anger. Won't forget that night, and I did not do anything wrong.
Oh honey I was waiting for you to react to this movie!!!! My aunt saw it here in Guatemala back in the '70s and she loved it, but she told me people went crazy! So scared, fainted, and ran out for fear of being possessed haha It still holds up today and the acting was Amazing... I mean, the first time a Horror movie went to the Oscars!
My Jesuit priest high school theology teacher was the religious advisor to the film. He was an old, tall thin man who looked just like the Max Von Sydow Father Merrin character. We asked him if he had ever conducted an exorcism, but he would not discuss the topic. What makes the film very scary is that this happens to a normal family- there is no family curse or haunted house. Thus it could happen to you.
The beginning of the film is foreshadowing for what is to come. A show-down between the Demon and Merrin; evil vs good. The Demon's name is, "Pazuzu." It was cast out of another host by Father Merrin, which is why the Demon fears and wants revenge on Merrin. The dream sequence by Karas was to represent the Demon taking possession of his Mother. IT suggests that the Demon might have been directly responsible for her death. As for the necklace, I believe it was what was protecting Karas and a copy of it was found on that site they were digging in.
I saw this movie when I was 11 and it totally freaked me out. The crab walk down the stairs really got me. Great movie. Great reaction. Keep up the good work. Steve
Regan desecrated the statue in the church some times people are confused by this but in the basement Regan is painting her bird statue and you can see here hobby paint kit.She also does clay forms of animals and things you can see them setting on the shelf when the detective 🕵️♂️ stops by for coffee.This was what was at the bottom of the stairs.also you were right father Merrin was mentioned in the tape and by the demon in Regan cause he has fought Merrin before.It was a setup because the demon knew that the church would send him in for the exorcism….Merrin had defeated him before …
I never considered this a horror film, more of a psychological drama. I saw it at 18 when it came out in late 1973. Tidbit, Max Von Sydow, who played Father Merin, required extensive make-up as he was only 42 when it was shot.
Your wife has such an expressive face and eyes, it's really fun to watch her react, and your subdued demeanor with her is quite funny too, keep up the good work!
The Exorcist is one of my top 3 movies--and Exorcist 3 is up there too. It is an excellent movie; a bit more artsy but no less scary than the first. Also, The Exorcist has the limited honor, IMHO, of being one of few movies to be better than their original novels. The book focuses a lot more on the investigation of Burke's death. And it doesn't make it clear that Pazuzu possesses Reagan. (The other being Jaws, which had a lot more to do about the town politics(sheriff vs mayor/council) and the sheriff's crumbling marriage.)
The crazy thing is that the book is so much worse. "The Exorcist" the movie is actually the coke zero version of this story. When William Blatty wrote this book, he shut himself in a house he rented in southern California for a year and didn't leave. He had his groceries delivered to him and shut off all contact with the outside world. The result is probably one of the scariest books I have ever read in my life, and this is coming from a guy who got through American Psycho and the entire works of Stephen King.
A very powerful film. One of the greats. My mother saw this in the theater in 1973 while she was pregnant with me. Some people in my family think that's what's wrong with me now.
The movie is based on a true story of an exorcism of a boy in 1949 in Cottage city, Maryland. The real child remained in a psychiatric ward and is presumed to remain there all his life until he died. Weird experiences were documented around him but were subject to discrediting. The truth was never known
I don't know if it's the 'scariest' since scare factor is relative. But it's definitely shocking, especially back when it was released. For me, it's more like unsettling than scary.
Good review!! I was 10 years old when first saw this movie in the theaters. Can still remember the audiences reaction: people screaming; popcorn flying through the air; people suddenly praying out loud; people running for the exits; people actually barfing (do remember that barf-bags were offered to people upon entry to the theater). This is one of those movies that I can still remember audiences reactions when first watching them: Jaws, Poltergeist, The Omen, Halloween just to name a few. Also the actress Ellen Burstyn actually injure her back filming this movie - it was the bedroom scene where her daughter smacks her across the room, and goes flying and lands on the floor. Her reaction is genuine pain.
@@jeffreykaufmann2867 Mother wanted to see this movie, so the whole family went to see the movie whether you wanted to or not. At 10 years old - yep - pretty much traumatized, though really did not understand much of what was happening.
You guys are young! I saw this in the theater in Dec 1973, before it became a cultural phenomenon. My college roommate said it was “scary.” SCARY?? I almost died of fright! I spent most of the movie cowering in my seat, and slept with the lights on for two weeks.
The idea for the book and movie was based on a real case of possession but it was a teenage male in real life. Also an extra on this film was a serial killer. He’s only in one shot for a few seconds but has no dialogue. He’s the assistant in the hospital scene with the neck stick. In the book the Demons name was pazuzu.
Most people watch it now and don't find it that scary or disturbing but imagine watching it in 1973 when almost nobody knew what an exorcism was about and that language really outrageous and not witnessed that often. The movie must have been super scary.
I’ll never forget when I saw this movie. I was 14 and the most disturbing part, to me, was after doing what she did with that crucifix she then puts her mother’s face down there. I was so grossed out I couldn’t eat anything red for months lol. 🤢🤢🤢
Not true about Linda Blair! She starred the next year in "Airport 75", one of the highest grossing films of that year. She then went to reform school in "Born Innocent", the top-rated TV movie of 1974. She followed that with "Sarah T: Portrait of a Teenage Alcoholic" in 1975 and "Sweet Hostage" opposite Martin Sheen in 1976. You don't know these movies because nobody does their homework.
My mother said the roof collapsed in while she was in the theater watching this, but of course I can't verify this. A lot of people have horror stories about this movie. Exorcist 3 was my favorite, George C Scott, Brad Dourif and Ed Flanders were all fantastic in that movie. It also had Patrick Ewing as an angel.
Such a shame that Linda didn't win an Oscar for this role. I mean she was 13. You should watch some of the behind the scenes videos on here. Really interesting to see how they did the special effects.
Linda Blair was such an incredible actress in this film. Given her young age at the time it's even more impressive.
If you really love Linda Blair, i recommend that you watch Chained Heat, Hell Night, and Savage Streets.
@@timothymorris157 Savage Streets is some good sleazy fun
I can't believe people still watch this movie. Watching this invites pure evil into your home. And I don't mean just Democrats.
@@trhansen3244 I don't agree with the first part of your post but I'm on board about the Democrats.
She was even better 11 years later in Savage Streets.
I met Linda Blair a few years ago. She's really lovely, and runs an animal shelter now.
Where is her animal shelter located?
I never get tired of watching people watch The Exorcist for the first time. It's an amazing film.
Jason Miller was great in this.
Also, I like how Reagan's mother was hysterical, yet one of the more rational characters in the film.
Hysterical rationality or rational hysterics.
Fun fact: Max von Sydow, the actor who played Father Merrin, was 43 at the time the movie was filmed in 1972. The old age make-up used to make him appear as the 80 year old priest is considered some of the best ever put to film. In fact, it was a close match to how he looked when the actor reached 80 years old in 2009.
Also fun fact: the character of Damien Karras was Greek, the writing on his St. Joseph medallion was in Greek.
Legion (the name of sequel as written by William Peter Blatty), or The Exorcist III as the film named by the studio, is one of the best sequels ever made. I'd suggest reading the books first, as they give more context to the entire story. Avoid 'The Exorcist II: The Heretic' at all costs, unless for purposes of the Pazuzu Drinking Game ;)
yea they made some realistic surroundings too, I believe they used a room that was barely above freezing and had that actress Mercedes McCambridge drink her booze AND REALLY sound nasty as the devil.
You can thank Makeup FX legend Dick Smith for that.
When I saw “ The Force Awakens” in 2015, I was surprised that he looked the same age. I didn’t realize (at the time) he was wearing make-up in “The Exorcist”.
@@corvus1970 Dick Smith created makeup techniques prior to this movie making Max Von Sydow (43) a lot older as an 80 years old Priest. Dick transformed then young Dustin Hoffman into 121 years old man for 1970's Little Big Man, story about man who was 10 years old living in old west to living in Hospice - 110 years span.
Dick used his knowledge for Exorcist like his crew created life like head of young Linda Blair (Regan) that rotates 360 degrees.
Max lived to be 90 in 2020, as his last acting credit in 2018
In fact the makeup was so good many producers thought he was too old to offer parts to and it did effect his career for awhile.
"Why does it have to be so weird and sexual like that?"
Because it's a demon. It exists to corrupt and destroy everything it touches.
As for Karras' medallion, it was a St. Joseph medallion, not St. Christopher, which is a common misconception. The inscription reads "Sancte Joseph ora pro nobis," which translates to "Saint Joseph pray for us". One of St. Joseph's patronages is against doubt, which is very fitting for Father Karras, who is filled with doubts, but regains his faith at the end.
there's also a theory that Reagan was sexually abused, possibly by Burke (hence his voice when she asks if she knows what Reagan did after the crucifix scene).
@@mrskinszszs makes sense
I remember a thread in the IMDb site when you could post questions. Someone asked about the sexual nature of the demon, and someone replied something like: it's a fucking demon, he's supposed to do fucked up stuff, what did you expect him to do? Go downstairs and bake a cake for the family?
@@mrskinszszs No one abused Regan. Pazuzu impersonated Burke Dennings and said "Do you know what she did? Your ******* daughter?" In reference to Pazuzu, controlling Regan's body, killing Burke and turning his head backwards. Pazuzu telepathically put an image of Regan's head backwards into Chris' mind.
@@raydonahue1978 I distinctly said it's a theory. Someone even made a video going into further detai (even if he doesn't agree with the Dennings theory, but finds it interesting and mentions it within):
th-cam.com/video/BlLrD1CC5wQ/w-d-xo.html
Almost 50 years on and it’s still a really unsettling film to watch.
That's because it's pure evil, the type of evil that puts genuine fear, dread, and terror into you. The Exorcist is the scariest movie of all time.
And mentally/ emotionally exhausted. It’s the helplessness of the mother watching her daughter break apart before her eyes and she’s tried everything to help. Plus, imagine what Reagan was going through. Body breaking down and no control. She’s a prisoner in her own body while a demon is pulling the strings.
I was only 18 (now 67) when I first saw this movie and I did not sleep on my back for months. The bedroom lights were on for many months too. The ignorant, yet arrogant doctor torturing Reagan at the onset of her possession still upsets me.
I dunno now a days it actually makes me laugh
I don’t think so. It’s pretty tame IMO.
Congratulations! Not many movie reaction viewers figure out that the medallion protected Father Karas and when the demon had a chance to rip it off him, Father Karas was no longer protected.
One thing that many viewers neglect to notice is when Father Karas comes to visit Regan with the tape recorder, the demon clearly said he wanted Karas' soul! The demon said that the exorcism would bring him and them together. You see that is the whole reason why the demon possessed Regan. It was to get to Karas because to get the soul of a priest is a high prize to obtain for the devil! But Karas was smarter than the devil and he got the devil to come into him and then he sacrificed his life for Regan. The highest gift one can give is one's life for others. Karas is the hero!
How come the Devil didn't know that it wasn't holy water that Karras sprayed on her? I guess this shows that the devil isn't all knowing
@@jeffreykaufmann2867 Of course the Devil KNEW! He was being deceitful. He knew that Father Karas was there to gain evidence to obtain permission for an exorcism. So he had an adverse reaction to the Holy Water so that Father Karas would have LESS evidence of possession. That's part of who the Devil is. He fools people. He manipulates people. You CAN'T trust ANYTHING when it comes to the Devil except that you're sure he wants your soul!
@@danielfortier2629 But the devil told Karras it would like an Exorcism cause it would bring "Us Together".
@@jeffreykaufmann2867 Yes, because the devil believed he could resist the exorcism long enough to get into Karas and obtain Karas' soul. This is the point in the movie where a lot of people miss because the devil makes it very clear that the whole idea of possessing Regan was to get Father Karas' soul. The soul of a priest is a highly valued prize for Satan because priests are holy men.
@@danielfortier2629 And that Devil Knew that Karras was Spiritually Weak. The Devil feared Father Merrin.
William Peter Blatty, who wrote the novel and screenplay, said the whole point of the "crucifix" scene and such wasn't as a sexual thing. He said, when he was writing it, he came to that point in the story and he thought to himself what was the worst thing he could think of that would finally convince this atheist mother that this was supernatural and she needed to go to a priest.
You would also expect the devil to be highly perverted as well. A biblical rendering would probably say he is the father of all sexual perversion.
It's a rape. You hear Regan beg for it not to happen. The demon literally wipes Chris's face in her inability to protect her child. It's horrific as all rape is.
@@Concreteowl don't know if you've ever read the novel, but that scene is actually worse in the book. Way more graphic and intrusive. But, I definitely see Blatty's point about it being the worst thing he could think of. It's a total violation of innocence.
@@robertkramer2271 Also, the fact that the kid is getting raped! Everyone calls it the "Crucifix Masturbation Scene", but the poor kid isn't masturbating... she is actually getting raped by the entity!
Linda Blair is a great actress! She was never the same after this movie! Can u imagine what all she went through! Prayer of protection for anyone watching 🙏
It must have put a lot of stress on her mind, and she'd have needed a lot of time to process it. I'd have been terrified to play a role like that.
Ellen Burstyn is amazing in this role and it’s a performance she deserved the Oscar nomination. She should have won.
Absolutely, her performance was pure agonizing and heartbreaking trying to hang on to her daughter who was horribly wasting away.
I agree. The winner that year was Glenda Jackson for "A Touch of Class", but Burstyn really should have nabbed it. The Academy likely realized its "mistake" and awarded her next year for the far inferior "Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore" (there was an 80's tv show based on it called "Alice"). In 2000 Burstyn would be nominated for another horror film, "Requiem for a Dream" which is equally as disturbing as "the Exorcist", but she lost that year to Julia Roberts in "Erin Brockovich". The Academy is pretty hesitant when it comes to rewarding Horror, Fantasy, and Sci-Fi films, which means that many deserving actors and (especially) actresses have been overlooked.
The role she was really robbed of an Oscar for was in Requiem for a Dream. She’s astounding in that
Agree
@@macc.1132 I believe Burstyn was also nominated for best actress for the 1980 film Resurrection. Another sci fi and excellent film about a healer. SHe lost that year to Sally Field for Norma Rae and her "So you do love me " speech. Burstyn still alive and kicking pushing 90 and working hard.
Director William Friedken; when asked what the movies about he never says it's about a girl who gets possessed. He always says "It's a movie about Non Believers becoming Believers"
The mother's Agnostic
Believers in ancient Mesopotamian gods and demons?
@@rogeriopenna9014 Demon that was worshiped as pazuzu by the sumerians. The devil playing heathen gods is very common through the ages, like with Baal for whom the carthaginians burned their own babies alive inside an statue of it(even the romans were quite shocked by it).
@@kinsmart7294 yeah, but the Romans also accused Christians, at the beginning, of doing human sacrifices, orgies, etc.
It seems a common trend of accusing your enemies of doing horrible hideous things.
I wonder if the Carthaginians really did what you say, or if it was Roman propaganda, to justify mass genocide.
@@rogeriopenna9014 The jewish accounts also say something similar for the carthaginians. But its not like a lot of things from carthage were left after it was destroyed.
I never get tired of watching reactions to this movie. It goes from, "How scary could an old movie be?" to looks of horror and disgust so quickly.
I hate the ones that say, well it wasn't that bad. Uh sure but all those 100s of movies you've heard and seen were inspired by this film and in 1973 this might as well been a documentary
"It has a snake penis." One hour and forty minutes later and remarking on the same thing "Nope, never seen it." LOL! Perhaps she has early alzheimer's?
"It has a snake penis." One hour and forty minutes later and remarking on the same thing "Nope, never seen it." LOL! Perhaps she has early alzheimer's?
I heard an adult interview with Linda Blair a few years back on the radio. She touched on a lot of things about like about the difficulty getting roles, how back then (like now, but worse in that era) child stars often went into addiction issues, and both the fun and difficulties on set for this… two neat things about her that she talked about during it and one general film bit of trivia that makes sense:
1). To get it cold enough to cause the breath of people in her room to show they had to refrigerate the entire thing… and then th that dehydrated the air so much the breath still wouldn’t show so they had to have the rom freezing AND then pump in moisture to get it to work. So those scenes were performed in an icy cold, moisturized-air room…. And the others got to, under their robes, wear layers of warm clothing but she had to be in just that nightgown so she was freezing her ass off during it.
2). She expressed that no, since it was all just making a film, she wasn’t ever seriously afraid during the making of it…. Youre the one in makeup, surrounded by staff, cameras, lighting, mics, etc…. But for continuity the makeup/prosthetics team had an almost life-sized doll they kept in the prep room that looked like her as she was at the point of each shooting scene. She wasn’t afraid making the film, but she was afraid of the doll of herself.
And the just generally neat thing about the making is that for the vomiting scene they had to test, as makes sense when you think about it, various brands of pea soup. They found Campbell's was their first try and it didn’t work and so went on and found an off-brand they could make the right consistency lol.
Another bit from the "trivia and useless information files" that seem to fill my head - Campbell's Chunky Beef Soup with Country Vegetables works best as fake vomit in most applications.
More trivia: It actually snowed overnight inside in the cold room.
"It has a snake penis." One hour and forty minutes later and remarking on the same thing "Nope, never seen it." LOL! Perhaps she has early alzheimer's?
Good to know.
The spider walk scene is one of the most iconic and scariest scenes ever.
That's what inspired spider man.
And wasn't in the original theatrical release.
@@Vertigotheatre1 Thankfully.
The spider walk is too much, too soon. It ruins Regan's gradual possession. Thankfully, it's not in the theatrical release.
@@garyglaser4998 They should've added it in later, like when the priests took a break, or something.
The dichotomy of an innocent little girl possessed by the most perverted, disgusting and sadistic demon is a good part of what makes this movie a horror classic. It is very disturbing, particularly for the 1973 audiences, and i love that there was zero background music letting you know beforehand about the scary moments. I made the same assumption as you about the medal, so i'd say it's accurate and it was indeed for protection against evil. You watched with an open mind and the right attitude and awareness of the time when it was made. I enjoyed revisiting one of my favorite movies EVER through your reaction.
Fr. Dyer (played by an actual priest) gave last rights to Karras at the foot of the stairs about 15 times, but couldn't put enough emotion into it.
Director Friedkin asked him, "Do you trust me?"
Dyer nodded. Friedkin hauled back and SMACKED Dyer in the face, and yelled "Roll it."
The last take is what you saw.
Something is off with the director
@@sweetcinnamonpnchkin sometimes you gotta trust your guts. Friedkin and Kubrick were directors that pushed their actors to the limits
The neckless represents faith in God (or trust in the Catholic church). At the end of the movie, the Mom handed it to the priest and said, "I thought you might like to keep this." He gave it back to her and said, "Why dont you keep it." In other words, it was a conversion message. He told her to have and hold onto faith in God.
Congratulations on graduating from horror school. Not trusting the happy ending and asking 'are you sure....' is a sure sign of experience. Another awesome job guys. I am again thoroughly entertained.
Got teary eyed with the end confession scene. Just seeing a man help his dying friend to transition into the afterlife and making sure he is pure of heart before he goes, all the while he is crying is so heartbreaking.
Very true.
When my mother was young she saw this at the cinema in 1973 and had nightmares for months after (it was the "headturner" that pushed her over the edge). At that time there had been nothing so disturbing and graphic, most horror movies up to that point being campy, monster-of-the-week style popcorn horror movies. When I watched it the first time in the mid-late 80'ies (VHS rental) I didn't really find it particularly scary but I have always been a horror buff and had seen so many horror movies at that point. These days I can appreciate how scary and disturbing it must've been for people back then to experience this at the cinema for the first time. It's a great movie at any rate which I rewatch every couple of years.
Yup, I was 8 in '73 when I snuck in with my friend and his older brother. I didn't have a good nights sleep for a long time. I met Linda Blair I 2018 and told her my trauma stories. She's really sweet and definitely realises the affect she and the film had on individuals and society as whole.
@@sca88 I seen this movie when I was about 10 or 12 years old. Yeah.... it's NOT a movie for kids. It will mess your ass up. Adults were leaving the theater, sick, back when this came out. It's the most hardcore horror movie of all time. The language, mechanical effects, everything. The ironic thing is: the catholic church is not good. So it was really like "evil fighting evil", which wouldn't work. TODAY: satans influence is everywhere. Demons do not directly possess people, but they influence people. People sin. When people reject Jesus, they open themselves up to demonic influence. And then they think and do evil. The Holy Spirit protects those who are saved, from such influence. So demons have no power over the saved, but worldly temptations are still ever-present. "The Exorcist" is a bold and vulgar illustration of satanic forces. satan is far more subtle with his evil attacks today. Remember the old saying: "the devils greatest trick is convincing the world he doesn't exist".
Not a great movie. Great movie stays scary and timeless. Even if you don't get scared at all, you can recognize whether the movie is really scary or not. For example, I am not scared by horror movies at all anymore, but I can easily tell that the scene from "The Ring" movie can be extremely scary to most people, if properly watched. The movies felt like reality back in the day, and that is the reason people were very scared, not because this was great. I was scared of horror comedies back then
I first watched "the version you've never seen" in theaters when it was released. First time I was exposed to the film and I believe it was 2001 or 2002 making me 11 or 12.... Scared the SHIT out of me
It is still very disturbing even by today's standard. The closest thing I have seen to the excorcist in today's cinema had to be hereditary. Unfortunately hereditary wasn't very original in that almost every horror indie film features a pagan God and a cult. The excorcist was just straight up good vs evil and those who get caught in between.
Edit: the most disturbing parts in hereditary was the head and the girl cutting her throat with a wire or something. That was horrifying
Max Von Sydow (Father Merrin) was only in his early 40s when the film was shot.
His old age make-up is incredible; the best I've ever seen in a film.
This movie went further than any other movie before, and actually it went further than any other possession movie after! If you think about all the movies about possessions and exorcisms, from The Conjuring to Deliver Us From Evil, Emily Rose, or whatever, none of those movies took it that far in terms of the sexual tone of the possession. And we're talking about a little girl here. Now, think about the impact this movie had in 1973 when no one had ever seen any of these movies about possession that we're already used to, that are so common now. It was the first time for people to witness something like that, so sick, so disturbing, so inappropriate, so terrifying, so fucked up. People thought that it was all real, that this thing was actually happening to that little girl, for real. People were running away from the theaters screaming and vomiting and passing out in the streets, many people had to be hospitalized. I think this movie was traumatic at a deep level, at a collective level, it fucked up the world I think. Even now, that after all the atrocities we've seen in horror movies we are kind of used to it, this one has imagery that can still disturb us. In 1973 it was traumatic. And even today it stands out as the movie that took it there where no other movie before or after went.
Exactly! very good Text
And to realize this... This is based on a true story. Happened to a boy in the 1940s.
I saw somewhere, where they said Linda Blair was really possessed during the making of this movie
@@alricaneshama Roland Doe from Maryland 1949 it really was real
I think this movie has one key quality that put's it on another level compared to any other film in it's genre. And that quality is, 'Authenticity.' It was written by a guy who clearly had intimate knowledge of the Catholic church. The prayers are real; the ritual is real; the clothing is real; the humanity of the priests is real; the required proof of possession is real. These priests are NOT cookie-cutter caricatures of infallible pious men in robes ready to do battle with the Devil. No, they're real human beings, with real human problems-- including struggles in faith. Plus, the film played like a documentary... and that's no mistake. The writer chose this director because he was a renowned documentarian before he got into directing written screenplays. I mean, what other horror film would spend half it's running time showing all the exhaustive medical tests conducted to disprove the horror? And it's that constant feeling of doubt that made this film so genuine. Even the priest struggled through the entire film to believe any of this shit was real. In other words, the film itself was it's own biggest skeptic of the possession. And lastly, the Exorcist had one jump-scare. The rest of the movie ran on pure psychological horror. Every other horror film I've ever seen relies almost entirely of edit-room-created jump scares.
Crazy fact: the actor of the male nurse helping Reagan get ready for her cat scan turned out to be a serial killer
More accurate to say the actor _playing_ the male nurse. The way you put it, someone might think you're giving spoilers for a future movie or book. 😜
The added scenes like the Spiderwalk and Regan acting weird and falling to the floor diminishes the film. The Theatrical Version is better
And William Friedkin himself ended up making a movie loosely based on his murders called “Cruising”
@@jeffreykaufmann2867 I agree that those scenes are unnecessary. The spider walk has sensationalism going for it, but serves no real purpose other than the shock factor. It shows too much too soon, and somewhat takes away from the traumatic effect of the crucifix sequence. Without the spider walk preceding it, the crucifix scene is like suddenly being pushed into the deep end of a very deep pool.
@@JakkFrost1 No, he was an actual nurse. Friedkin used actual personnel from a New York hospital for the hospital scenes. Also it's kind of funny that the victim of the only murder he was convicted of was a film critic.
I've noticed that most people get confused by her candle flaring up in the attic.
Old cobwebs collect fine dust and a naked flame incinerates the whole web in an instant.
The demon Pazuzu was the demon of the west wind. A few scenes early in the film depict a wind signifying Pazuzu's arrival to Georgetown, especially the Halloween scene. The wind that flared up the candle was caused by Pazuzu. However the demon is smart enough to make us believe it was just cobwebs.
Always felt bad for Jason Miller, the actor who plays Father Carras. He struggled with alcoholism, which profoundly harmed his career and his health. It was great to see him back in part 3.
Miller was an incredible actor. His first movie role and he was nominated for an Oscar for his portrayal of Father Damien Karras.
@@gregyear201 Yes and he was also a playwright, won the 1973 Pulitzer Prize for "That Championship Season".
With the beginning of the film, Father Merrin uncovers the head of a little figurine of the demon Pazuzu, whom he recognized because he had previously exorcised the demon years ago. So then he has a premonition later that another battle with Pazuzu is coming, with the clock randomly stopping and him almost getting ran over by the carriage. So to confirm his suspicions he goes to some old ruins where there is an old statue of Pazuzu and knows for certain when he sees the dogs fighting each other (the dogs of war have been unleashed). The dissolve to Georgetown right after is to show you where this battle between good and evil is going to take place.
Glad to know I'm not the only one who's studied this film like crazy.
@@epep50 I just listened to the commentary.
Father Dyer, who gets the kiss at the end, was actually played by father William O’Malley, SJ, originally brought in as an advisor.
And Friedkin slapped him before the final confession on the steps which was why he looked so shaken! He was having trouble acting shaken up
He was the author of one of my (Jesuit) high school textbooks
That's actually a St. Joseph medal found in Iraq versus the St. Christopher one that is worn by Karras. Here's a good source explaining with the link:
The St. Joseph medal (commonly mistakenly referred to as a St. Christopher medal), appears in the film The Exorcist. It features an engraved picture of St. Joseph with Baby Jesus. It is inscribed with the Latin phrase, "Sancte Joseph ora pro nobis," which translates to "Saint Joseph pray for us".[1] There is a common misconception that the medal found by Father Merrin in Iraq and the one worn by Father Karras (and his mother) are one and the same, however, that is not necessarily the case. Many people have asked William Peter Blatty about it. William Friedkin's reason for adding the medal to the film was to "'add resonances' to the film". According to Blatty, instead of asking how the medal got from Iraq to Father Karras, people should really be asking "how a contemporary Christian medal got into an archaeological ruin from pre-Christian Nineveh in the first place." When Merrin finds the medal in Iraq, he speaks in Arabic and the English subtitles say "This is strange," however, in Arabic, he is actually asking "What's this doing here?" Blatty believed that this question would never be answered.
Source: exorcist.fandom.com/wiki/St._Joseph_medal
Nice research.. Thats the third interesting thing I've learned about this film, the other two being that Ellen Burstyn ( the mother) played the older sick and dying Murph in Intersteller and also that one of the extra's in the movie (a doctor) was in fact a real life serial killer later caught. Amazing.
Good info... Thanks!
In the book the medal that father merrin found was actually an amulet of the demon pazuzu. In ancient Mesopotamia pregnant women would wear the amulet, or hang it over their children's beds in order to be protected from a demon named Lamashtu. Lamashtu was known for stealing children and causing miscarriages. This always made me ask why Blatty picked pazuzu out of all the other demons for his story when that particular demon was known for protecting children.
You really should have shown her Rosemary's Baby, then The Omen, then The Exorcist. Those were the 3 biggest religious-themed horror films of the 70s, from the lesser one to the best. To this day, The Exorcist is the only movie that scares the crap out of me.
Rosemary's Baby came out in 1968. 😏
@@sixtiesfreak4858 it's also not at all the lesser of the three. It is a bit more cerebral than most can grasp.
Exorcist scares you? Sounds like you did not watch any of the later horror movies that did much better job at horror, and that are genuinely scary in comparison to this anti-climatic horror with very disappointing ending
@Bryan Mack I don't know, I am not a horror fan. I can only recognize if it is scary or not. I don't get scared. I loved horrors in the past, and I was getting scared back then, but turned out, many of those horrors were actually bad. Now I don't remember which of those were actually good and scary. I know that the famous scene from "The Ring" is scary, but that was just one scene out of entire movie. I love when there is more to the movie than just horror. If mystery is involved or something. For example I liked "The Others", even though big chunk of the movie was boring, they could do better, but it was worth it for the ending. I am pretty sure you watched it, but if there is a small chance you haven't, avoid reading anything about it like a plague before you watch it
Not being scared ever doesn't make you cool. More like it makes you a sociopath or something.
For such a dark movie, Regan kissing the priest at the end made it one of the more hopeful endings.
The catholic church was the Cavalry in this film. No anti clericalism here.
@@wendellbatts2477 Cavalry.
@@LeshaAnn Yes corrected it. Thanks.
@@wendellbatts2477 Oh, it was kinda fun the other way, too. Don't mind me.
I'm french, totally atheist anti Catholicism Church and we are for blasphemy BUT it's the movie of my entire life with "The Godfather", it's not a movie for bullshit gods and religions but an interrogation about good /bad. Example Karras and his mother, he's a good man, he loved her absolutely but she dies alone in a cold asylum so not a sacrifice, a suicide because he could not deal with it and of course it saves the little girl's life. Because it's an American movie...
When Jason Miller asked the stunt man how he managed to roll down the stairs he simply said "Zen". He just left his body.
22:03 - that was a movie mistake there, the vomit was supposed to go on or over Karras' shoulder. Instead the aim was off and got him right in the face, the director used that take as the final one so the priest's shock was all real
24:42 'I don't speak demon very well' hahaha great!
The acting in this film is absolutely unbelievably good
I know I enjoyed it and it's good that it was nominated for 10 Oscars even though it won only two
That devil face imprints on your subconscious and you close your eyes and keep seeing it 🥺
The director took great pains to make sure Linda Blair was kept in a light mood and having a good time on set. She said herself she was too young to understand any of what she was doing and had fun the entire time playing pretend. There's "making of" footage that shows how the movie magic is made and what is put on screen is not what is happening while the work is being done. It was after she became world famous and the pressures of Hollywood that messed her up, not the imagery made in post production which she didn't even see until she was much older. She was stunned how diffetent the dialogue she mouthed was so much different than what the voice over actors put in.
Yes, I seen the documentary about the making of this film. It was quite interesting. Mercedes McCambridge did the voice of the demon PAZUZU. Linda Blair was so cute back then. I had a childhood crush on her.
In the interview I saw, she said making the movie was mostly fun. It was the reaction to the movie she had a hard time with. being the devil girl and all that
@@gordons-alive4940 of Course Linda Blair watching the Exorcist was probably disturbing to her
This was my favorite movie of all time. Filmed almost entirely on location, it felt very real. I've seen the movie several times since I was a kid, and I've read the book at least twice, if not three times. I know demonic possession is a problem. But don't even mention Poltergeist in the same breath with The Exorcist. I don't think there was anything that significant about the necklace other than it was for memorabilia of the man who once had doubts but saved a girl from the powers of Satan, and who gave his life for hers. On second thought, the necklace is symbolic of the acquired faith they've all gone through over the experience.
Can we appreciate that Max von Sydow was playing an old guy in 1973 and was STILL playing old guys as late as 2015 (Force Awakens) and 2016 (Game of Thrones)?
What an incredible career.
He was ming too from flash gordon
"Or she's possessed? have you considered THAT?" that's the best thing about this movie imo. No movie quite like this had come out before. Like the doctors describe in the film-- at the time, exorcism was kind of a hush-hush thing not many people knew about, even in fiction. and it's so realistic and stressful how they really do try any and all medical solutions at first. and all the now-cliche things leading up to it are so SUBTLE. we never learn the demon's name (but now we know because of the book and the sequels) or if there really was more than one demon or if it was The Devil like it says. and the ouija board is only brought up once, and it's a scene full of little hints like the idea that Reagan has an imaginary friend we never hear about later or the fact she's been making lots of weird animal figurines. maybe they're just art, or maybe they're part of a ritual that "Captain Howdy" has been manipulating her into performing. so much to get your mind racing, even years after the movie's first release, all without spoon-feeding you every little answer. nowadays, any new exorcism film p much owes its entire existence to this movie, tropes and all. and they'll try to be more original by explaining all the nuances to set it apart from this film, but that ends up ruining the subtle mystery like The Exorcist has.
Interesting choice to watch the Director's Cut rather than the theatrical version. I kinda like the theatrical cut more because it doesn't flash the demon face on screen so many times, and it starts the "infection" of Reagan a little more subtly but more quickly. However, the Director's Cut has a little more creepy build-up and I think it's the only version with the crab-walk scene. Each version kinda has its own thing going for it. Wish there was a third cut that combines the best of both.
Also! I think Linda Blair has actually really cleaned up over the years. She does small-time roles, but last I heard, she's doing quite well. Even guest-starred in a decent episode of Supernatural a few years ago.
Sorry for yet another LONG comment lol. This is one of my all-time fav movies. One of those that has something new to take away from it every time I watch. The behind-the-scenes trivia is fascinating, too. Yet another director whose methods are basically why we have labor laws for movie sets lol....
"Why does it (the devil) have to be so sexual?"
Nothing more evil than the destruction of a child's innocence.
That's why all the copycats of this movie are so lame? They have Nickelodeon versions of the what the devil would be like.
It’s not the devil. It’s Pazuzu
@@Rachelleluluful As Merrin said, it will lie to confuse us; *A* devil, not *the* devil... but still a powerful force of evil.
This is still an incredible film, outshines almost all other horror films since.
@@Rachelleluluful The devil is mentioned in the movie, the name Pazuzu is not. That only came in the abominable sequel.
@@tonydebruin1052 true. However, father Karras also said “if that’s true that you’re the devil, you can undo the restraints yourself!” It is complex though. I can definitely see where people would think that.
@@tonydebruin1052 they don't need to say his name for us to know who he is, they show his image several times throughout the movie, it is Pazuzu, though it makes no sense he targets a little girl but Hollywood does like to mix ancient deities with Satan, I mean he was the king of demons, yes but he was also a protector of sorts to Sumerian people, they prayed to him to keep them safe from other demons, including his consort Lamashtu, who was believed to be responsible for miscarriages and babies who died in the craddle, which is why pregnant women often wore his image on a necklace and little idols of him were placed on cribs, to keep Lamashtu away
To answer the Mrs question about Sal Mineo being a boxing insult. Sal Mineo was a actor best known for his role in the 50's film Rebel without a Cause. He was murdered 3 years after this film was released in 1976.
For some reason, my favorite part is when they’re talking and the moment she mentions an Exorcism, he immediately stops walking and says, “excuse me?”
In the scene where Father Dyer was giving the last rites to Father Karras, the actor playing Father Dyer could not show the appropriate amount of distress that the director (William Friedkin) wanted. Friedkin asked the actor playing Father Dyer if he trusted him, when he said yes Friedkin slapped him across the face just before the next take. When Father Dyer's hands are shaking that was from the after slap shock.
Yes and Father Dyer was played by real life priest, Father O’Malley.
Wtf
Fun fact: Max von Sydow was only 44 yrs old when he played Father Merrin; the magic of makeup & good acting did the rest
Good reaction video!
I think you’ve fallen into what I call, “viewer bias” a bit when you say to just bring in a priest / exorcist early. Although, you didn’t fall very hard into it, certainly not as hard as some reactors, (i.e. call in the priest as soon as the Ouija Board is brought out). Viewer bias, especially for this movie, is when everybody knows the movie is titled, “The Exorcist”. So the characters should go to that immediately. And after every occurrence of “off” behavior from Regan. Back in 1973, there was little knowledge of exorcism or the possession of people by malevolent spirits / demons / devils. So the characters followed the normal progression, physicians, specialists, psychologist (hypnotists), and then, finally, because the doctors suggested it, the church for an exorcism. Most people don’t catch Regan was put on Ritalin. Then, the night Burke died, Sharon went out to refill Regan’s prescription for THORAZINE.
Also, something ALL reactors seem to do is go, “Uh Oh!” when the Ouija Board is brought out. Viewer bias, again. At this time, there were no movies (horror or otherwise) about or highlighting Ouija Boards as “contacting evil spirits”, etc. At the time, Ouija Boards were sold in the games section of toy stores. “The Exorcist” is the movie that took it from a party game into the realm of the occult.
And yeah, medical testing has come a LONG way since then.
A couple of interesting tidbits: Jason Miller (Father Karras) was a Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright (“That Championship Season”). “The Exorcist” was his first screen role. And was nominated for the Best Supporting Actor for his role in “The Exorcist”. Linda Blair (Regan McNeil) was nominated for Best Supporting Actress. Ellen Burstyn (Chris McNeil) was nominated for Best Actress. The film itself was nominated for Best Picture (the first horror film to be nominated) and William Freidkin for Best Director.
Max Von Sydow (Father Merrin) was only 44 when he filmed the role.
There is an actual supposed serial killer in the movie. In the scene where Regan is undergoing the medical procedure to get pictures of her brain, the guy with the beard (not the mustachioed doctor - an actual neurosurgeon) helping Regan onto the procedure table was convicted for the murder of a film critic and bragged he had killed six men from homosexual bars (Paul Bateson).
The movie is said to be cursed as most of the actors and crew got into unexplained accidents before, during or after filming.
The Omen, Poltergeist even more so.
I've never seen you guys so quiet. This shit is as real as it was in 1973.
One of the best horror films ever made
I remember watching this when it came out in the theaters. Today's audiences have been exposed to so much gore and violence that they are no longer affected in the same way as they were in 73. Nothing like this had ever been seen before, the presence of real evil in a nice, upscale Washington DC subburb freaked out many people, no matter if they were catholic, protestant or Jew. To see a young acctress like Linda Blair be subjected to the horror of demonic possession seemed far too real. Many wanted the film banned. Before this horror movies were simple Dracula, Frankenstein and werewolf stories with the occasional witch or wizard. Nothing that touched upon peoples core belief. It may have gone unnoticed that Reagan's mother had never even heard of the term excorcism before, the devil had become a fairytale with no real meaning. Priests, Rabbis and others except for a few old fashioned fire and brimstone evangelicals who preached about damnation and he'll fire actually believed in the Devil and evil as real things. Scientists had become unbelievers, young people who were part of the 60s drug culture and anti war movements believed in God and love but not in the devil or evil. Along with an awakening of more traditional religious faith the film spawned so many immitations and copies that soon the power of the films images had faded until most people had lost the fear and terror felt back then. Today like she said it was not scary but more revolting and inappropriate. A big change from 1973 to 2021
Fun fact. At the end when Damien is getting his last rites read, the priests hand is shaking. Apparently after repeated takes, the actor wasn’t getting it right, so the director slapped the shit out of him to shake him up. Apparently it worked.
That is an old fashioned way of doing a CT scan with contrast. They inserted the needle and pumped the dye straight into the jugular vein for images of the brain, which needed to be done awake for the doctors to see the dye doing through while the brain is actively functioning.
Great reaction. The third instalment is considered the best psychological thriller of all time. The Exorcist III ( Aka Legion ) 1990. Could not recommend it more. It is a companion to the original.
Yup. Karras being stuck in his body doesn't make sense (after getting Last Rites and whatever, he would be protected by God) but it is a good sequel.
I did that a fridge-thought. Perhaps being stuck in his body with Gemini would make sense if Karras never actually died here, like we assumed. The Last Rites were premature, and Karras survived (but in a coma). Now, THAT WAY, Gemini could possess Karras rather than just Karras' dead body.
19:42 "Oh, Jesus..."
The timing, it almost hurts 😅
"I'm going to be fine."
Me: choking on food I'm eating from laughing so much!
If you want a truly scary movie, I recommend "The Changeling (1980)" starring George C. Scott. A true haunted house chiller!
Now that’s good!
The seance scene was freaky!
For me the ball the comes rolling down the staircase
The part that got audiences getting sick in the theater was not the crucifix scene or the vomiting scene. It was the part where they are doing the test on Regan. When the blood squirted out onto her gown. Because all those happened quickly, that scene the camera lingered on that shot.
The emotions that the opening theme for Tubular Bells evoked lasted quite a long time after watching this movie.
If you pause the movie you can see it's a St. Joseph's medal. There's an image of St. Joseph holding Child Jesus with an inscription in latin saying "Sancte Joseph ora pro nobis" - S. Joseph pray for us.
It is quite fitting, because one of the titles assigned to S. Joseph is "Terror of Demons", and according to exorcists the intercession of St. Joseph has proven to be very helpful in their ministry.
Absolutely loved watching you guys watching this. I am 60 years old and have seen this film a zillion times - starting when I was 15 and my brother took me to see it. How cool is it that this film still packs the punch.
I think she is right about the necklace. Also poor Linda Blair had real life wackos coming up to her after calling the Devils Child. She was not able to go into public for years after.
To me the most amazing point about this film is the fact that the Pope Endorsed it and thousands of Christians fled back to church with this film putting the fear of God in them.
If I remember correctly Linda Blair wasn’t as mentally traumatized by playing Reagan instead being physically traumatized. I recall they walked her through the whole thing as to make her used to the scary stuff, gore effects, makeup effects etc but when it came to the scene where she was flopping around in the bed and she was violently sitting up and laying down over and over again the board used to do so was so violently jerked up and down that it fractured her spine.
That DEVIL FACE that keeps appearing is Eileen Dietz who was Linda Blair's stand-in and was also on the soap operas Guiding Light and General Hospital.
Fun facts. For the film, they actually ran a real scan of the actress, so the blood and injections were real. So was the technician, who was later discovered to be a real life serial killer.
IMO The Exorcist is the greatest and scariest horror movie ever made!
Nominated for 10 Oscars including Best Picture but won for Best Adapted Screenplay and Best Sound Mixing.
It lost 7 Oscars including Best Picture to The Sting, Starring Paul Newman and Robert Redford.
Linda Blair was nominated
Ellen Burstyn was nominated
Jason Miller was nominated
I recently watched this movie and since I had watched so many other horror movies I was confident, I was surprised how much this movie scared the crap out of me.
😁 So you knew better and still stuck the fork into the socket, done that too. Freaky movie.
Captain Howdy is the one who convinced me to subscribe to this channel. He's a big fan.
That upside down downstairs crab walk is still creepy as fuck after nearly 5 decades.
Actually it wasn’t in the movie when it came out
The Exorcist, the film that dared, ripped up the rule book & crossed the line in many a persons eyes, i loved the film but i've only seen it once in my 49 years & i wont go there again LOL, but i also love watching people react, still to this day the film disgusts, offends, & traumatizes people of all ages & for that i give it a big thumbs up. I do feel for the young Linda Blair she actually fractured her spine in that bed scene, imagine if that had happened today she would have earned more from suing than wage income. You me & the Movies i've been watching your channel for a while now & you two are fantastic. I'd love to recommend a movie, i've not seen anyone react to this psychological horror it was early 2001 Bill paxton & Matthew McConaughey the film Frailty it was brilliant.
Great movie choice. That's a really good movie.
Yes, Frailty for sure. And another one from around the same time, called "Identity, starring John Cusack.
Normally I don't comment or watch reaction on films like these but because I have seen this one several times I will. First of all, this movie is based on a true occurrence and when this film was released in theatres there were incidences of suicide based on the showing. You two did a good job of trying to provide comedy relief, but the stark harshness of this film is hard to just shake off. And, you gave to really understand that the reality of this is really well executed in the film, particularly by the practical effects and the main actress. A lot of people may try to displace the scariness with the drama, but because it was REAL at one point should make the audience aware of just how scary this is. Good job, peeps!!!
This is my favourite episode so far , you guys are great keep up the good work
When this showed on tv back in the early 90s uncut for the first time, my dad, having seen this in the cinema wanted to see it again 20 years later. I remember he was 100% against me seeing this (I was only 12 at the time) so he made a deal. He said "You can go into the guest room where the big tv was and expensive VCR, watch anything you like, cartoons, Simpsons, Seinfeld whatever, but NOT this movie." So, I kept my promise and my mum and dad watched this in the regular living room. As I laid down watching Seinfeld, my older brother had just gotten home, sneaked up behind me and gave me the biggest jump scare I ever had. My Dad was furious as he was sure I broke my promise and he yelled and screamed at me, when I said what happened, he lost it with my older brother. So, my brother blamed me and stormed off and I caught the brunt of my dad's anger. Won't forget that night, and I did not do anything wrong.
Another fun reaction to a horror classic! Looking forward to you watching The Exorcist 3!
Oh honey I was waiting for you to react to this movie!!!! My aunt saw it here in Guatemala back in the '70s and she loved it, but she told me people went crazy! So scared, fainted, and ran out for fear of being possessed haha It still holds up today and the acting was Amazing... I mean, the first time a Horror movie went to the Oscars!
My Jesuit priest high school theology teacher was the religious advisor to the film. He was an old, tall thin man who looked just like the Max Von Sydow Father Merrin character. We asked him if he had ever conducted an exorcism, but he would not discuss the topic. What makes the film very scary is that this happens to a normal family- there is no family curse or haunted house. Thus it could happen to you.
If you play with a Ouija Board.
Was Was your Jesuit priest high school theology teacher Father Thomas Bermingham, John Nicola or William O'Malley?
Real exorcists are similar to war veterans, they seldomly tell tales of their battles. They don't want fame or cash.
Yep, Exorcist III is the next one to go to. Excellent script, sound edit, and direction! Also George C Scott, great overall cast!
Brad Douriff is an incredibly talented actor. Been a fan ever since Wise Blood.
The beginning of the film is foreshadowing for what is to come. A show-down between the Demon and Merrin; evil vs good. The Demon's name is, "Pazuzu." It was cast out of another host by Father Merrin, which is why the Demon fears and wants revenge on Merrin. The dream sequence by Karas was to represent the Demon taking possession of his Mother. IT suggests that the Demon might have been directly responsible for her death.
As for the necklace, I believe it was what was protecting Karas and a copy of it was found on that site they were digging in.
One of the most enlightening and happy ending movies I’ve ever seen! Such a masterpiece
9:48 He didn't do it spontaneously in real time, but I did. So you got a "bless you" all the way from England😂.
As always a great reaction, guys😁👍
In "real time" to a previously recorded video ;-)
Fr. Karras is actually wearing St. Joseph medal.
I saw this movie when I was 11 and it totally freaked me out. The crab walk down the stairs really got me. Great movie. Great reaction. Keep up the good work. Steve
Regan desecrated the statue in the church some times people are confused by this but in the basement Regan is painting her bird statue and you can see here hobby paint kit.She also does clay forms of animals and things you can see them setting on the shelf when the detective 🕵️♂️ stops by for coffee.This was what was at the bottom of the stairs.also you were right father Merrin was mentioned in the tape and by the demon in Regan cause he has fought Merrin before.It was a setup because the demon knew that the church would send him in for the exorcism….Merrin had defeated him before …
I never considered this a horror film, more of a psychological drama. I saw it at 18 when it came out in late 1973.
Tidbit, Max Von Sydow, who played Father Merin, required extensive make-up as he was only 42 when it was shot.
Your wife has such an expressive face and eyes, it's really fun to watch her react, and your subdued demeanor with her is quite funny too, keep up the good work!
The Exorcist is one of my top 3 movies--and Exorcist 3 is up there too. It is an excellent movie; a bit more artsy but no less scary than the first.
Also, The Exorcist has the limited honor, IMHO, of being one of few movies to be better than their original novels. The book focuses a lot more on the investigation of Burke's death. And it doesn't make it clear that Pazuzu possesses Reagan. (The other being Jaws, which had a lot more to do about the town politics(sheriff vs mayor/council) and the sheriff's crumbling marriage.)
The crazy thing is that the book is so much worse. "The Exorcist" the movie is actually the coke zero version of this story. When William Blatty wrote this book, he shut himself in a house he rented in southern California for a year and didn't leave. He had his groceries delivered to him and shut off all contact with the outside world. The result is probably one of the scariest books I have ever read in my life, and this is coming from a guy who got through American Psycho and the entire works of Stephen King.
A very powerful film. One of the greats. My mother saw this in the theater in 1973 while she was pregnant with me. Some people in my family think that's what's wrong with me now.
It’s entirely possible
- Joe rogan
The movie is based on a true story of an exorcism of a boy in 1949 in Cottage city, Maryland. The real child remained in a psychiatric ward and is presumed to remain there all his life until he died. Weird experiences were documented around him but were subject to discrediting. The truth was never known
I don't know if it's the 'scariest' since scare factor is relative. But it's definitely shocking, especially back when it was released. For me, it's more like unsettling than scary.
Good review!! I was 10 years old when first saw this movie in the theaters. Can still remember the audiences reaction: people screaming; popcorn flying through the air; people suddenly praying out loud; people running for the exits; people actually barfing (do remember that barf-bags were offered to people upon entry to the theater).
This is one of those movies that I can still remember audiences reactions when first watching them: Jaws, Poltergeist, The Omen, Halloween just to name a few.
Also the actress Ellen Burstyn actually injure her back filming this movie - it was the bedroom scene where her daughter smacks her across the room, and goes flying and lands on the floor. Her reaction is genuine pain.
How did you get in at 10 years old?
@@jeffreykaufmann2867 Mother wanted to see this movie, so the whole family went to see the movie whether you wanted to or not. At 10 years old - yep - pretty much traumatized, though really did not understand much of what was happening.
@@jamesbednar8625 if you were 12-13 years old you would have understood more and be more traumatized
What a excellent day for a exorcism
You guys are young! I saw this in the theater in Dec 1973, before it became a cultural phenomenon. My college roommate said it was “scary.” SCARY?? I almost died of fright! I spent most of the movie cowering in my seat, and slept with the lights on for two weeks.
Just discovered your channel and I think you two are so down to earth. The exorcist is an iconic psychological drama masterpiece.
The idea for the book and movie was based on a real case of possession but it was a teenage male in real life. Also an extra on this film was a serial killer. He’s only in one shot for a few seconds but has no dialogue. He’s the assistant in the hospital scene with the neck stick. In the book the Demons name was pazuzu.
Most people watch it now and don't find it that scary or disturbing but imagine watching it in 1973 when almost nobody knew what an exorcism was about and that language really outrageous and not witnessed that often. The movie must have been super scary.
I’ll never forget when I saw this movie. I was 14 and the most disturbing part, to me, was after doing what she did with that crucifix she then puts her mother’s face down there. I was so grossed out I couldn’t eat anything red for months lol. 🤢🤢🤢
Not true about Linda Blair! She starred the next year in "Airport 75", one of the highest grossing films of that year. She then went to reform school in "Born Innocent", the top-rated TV movie of 1974. She followed that with "Sarah T: Portrait of a Teenage Alcoholic" in 1975 and "Sweet Hostage" opposite Martin Sheen in 1976. You don't know these movies because nobody does their homework.
My mother said the roof collapsed in while she was in the theater watching this, but of course I can't verify this. A lot of people have horror stories about this movie. Exorcist 3 was my favorite, George C Scott, Brad Dourif and Ed Flanders were all fantastic in that movie. It also had Patrick Ewing as an angel.
Haven't even watched this yet and I'm so happy to see her lose her mind!!!
Such a shame that Linda didn't win an Oscar for this role. I mean she was 13. You should watch some of the behind the scenes videos on here. Really interesting to see how they did the special effects.
Amazing thing is the the actress that did win Best Supporting Actress that year was even younger than Linda Blair--Tatum O'Neil in Paper Moon.