This is probably the best and scariest horror film ever made. But what makes it even more scary was that it was based on a true story (which many people don't know). The writer, William Peter Blatty, heard about an event that took place in the 40's. Years later, he wrote a book entitled "The Exorcist" and he eventually turned it into a screenplay. William Friedkin jumped on-board and they both created the classic that it is today. But Friedkin never really made the movie as if it were a horror film, but more like a documentary. Many loved it, some hated it (including Billy Graham who says that there is evil in every frame of the movie). Y'all decide...
I don't believe in that kind of stuff, even if it was a true story.
It's a very good film. I really like the beginning in Iraq: All those noises dry colours, hammers pounding, the rythm contrasts.
love it
I think it's really good, but a lot of stuff doesn't scare people anymore. For instance, a Christian would be VERY schocked by some of the stuff in it (you know what I'm talking about) but somebody else might find it comical. I'm not Christian, but I think that's sort of sad (I like what BROCK said in the PTA forum about people's attitude's during a Horror movie, so go read that instead)
The Excorcist has several well laid shots, I'm mainly referring to that god-awful skull that won't get out your mind because you know you saw it, but you weren't too sure of what you saw.
It may not be the scariest movie of all time, but it may be. The horrible mental disorders that happened to Linda Blair after the shooting of the film should've been grounds for child abuse...ugh...terrifying...
I first saw it at like 2 a.m. I said I would finish it in the morning to my friends because I was getting tired, but I was obviously scared shitless because I was dozing off, true, but my mind was making it a lot worse than it was.
1. I consider The Exorcist one of the greatest films of the 70s, the greatest horror film ever made, and one of the truly great films of all time.
2. Know what never fails to fascinate me about it? It's so, so pro-religion, so pro-faith. The modern world tries its, er, damndest to come up with an explanation for Regan's behavior and just simply cannot. The forces at work are primal, ingrained in us all somehow whether we're religious or not; but in this movie, an ancient Catholic ritual is a little girl's only lifeline. And the fact that it works proves two things: 1) demons exist and, therefore, 2) God must exist. It's also about Catholic guilt in all its forms: the demon in Regan is a slut, an angry man, and a bewildered, abandoned old woman all at once. Karras pays a hefty price for letting his faith wane and for letting his mother pass on in loneliness. I could go on and on about the brilliance of this movie......but I'll make one last inquiry to the xixax crowd:
What do you make of the fact that Regan's mother is an actress? Does this have anything to do with why the demon selected Regan? I have never really read the book, which may shed light on this, only skimmed it....
i doubt that the supposed "true story" that the book is based on happened exactly as depicted
A real life incident involving a young boy who was classified as being 'possessed' was the start off point for the film. That's the most I know about the 'true story'.
As for the film, it's pure brilliance (though I don't need to tell you guys that).
My fave bit would have to be*SPOILER (but who hasn't seen this flick?)
when you think its all calmed down for the meantime, after the yelling competition between the priests and the demon (using religious chants vs. hard profanity), when Damien goes downstairs, collects himself, whatever, goes back upstairs and finds Father Merrin dead on the floor and the demon sitting up on the bed, un-tied. He tries resuscitating Merrin but its too late. The demon sits there, giggling. Damien loses it and grabs the demon in pure frustration. Then it gets worse.......
The film is a masterpiece and the upcoming prequel has a lot on its shoulders.
Quote from: cecil b. dementedi doubt that the supposed "true story" that the book is based on happened exactly as depicted
obviously not. the events that inspired the book were amazing for having happened at all. however, much of the articles from around the time are unreliable and only recently hav a lot of the myths being debunked. there might never hav been a demon, but there was an exorcism.
look at this site, starting near the bottom and going on for a few more pages. (http://www.strangemag.com/exorcistpage1.html) it offers extensive info on the haunted kid, the dodgy diary kept by the real priest, the myth surrounding the location of where these events occurred, the boy's childhood best friend, and more. i suggest u read the whole 5 pages if for once u'd like to know what ur talking about.
edit- since u probably won't, here's the gist: sumthin happened but not where most ppl believe; the kid was nutty and a loner, had ultra-religious mother and grandma; refered to by his best friend as "a mean little bastard" who was emotionally unstable; the one surviving eye-witness of the exorcism Father Halloran says he didn't see levitation/abnormal strength/voice change; bah read it urselves.
my take on the whole thing: if it was a lie (likely), put on by the boy, it was a devilishly good one that has had incredible repercussions. it adds another dimension to the exorcist popularity in that the one thing the classic devil does best is deceive ppl, and obscure the truth, which is exactly what has happened on this case.
real or not the original movie is a brilliant, well-crafted portrayal of good versus evil, genuinely frightening to anyone who isn't jaded.
That's some scary stuff.
The vattican keeps an official exorcist around, just in case. He wrote a book too, my brother has it... I haven't read it though.
Exorcist is one of my favs ever.
The "Version you've never seen" is a shame though... there's some cool stuff in it like the crab walk (which is a fucking creepy scene), but changing the end like that... what the fuck?
Well, Blatty wanted to have that scene in the movie because he didn't want the audience to feel like the devil won. Friedkin didn't want it because he didn't want to tell the audience a thing. He wanted the audience to draw their own conclusions with what they've seen. He also took it out because while he was reading the ending he said, "Why the hell are we ending it like "Casablanca?".
Quote from: oakmanc234the upcoming prequel has a lot on its shoulders.
fuck the prequel. fuck it so far up it's stupid fucking ass that it chokes on itself. they couldn't just let it die and let the world pretend that 2 and 3 didn't happen? i have not seen 2 and 3 and i don't plan to, and i don't plan on seeing this one.
Yeah, me neither. William Friedkin sat through about an hour of the second one and then turned it off because it was so stupid and awful. There was absolutely no need for any sequels much less prequels.
I was glad that I wasn't aware of any sequels... Now I'm just pissed.
bonanzataz wrote: fuck the prequel. fuck it so far up it's stupid fucking ass that it chokes on itself. they couldn't just let it die and let the world pretend that 2 and 3 didn't happen? i have not seen 2 and 3 and i don't plan to, and i don't plan on seeing this one.
I meant that the upcoming prequel has a lot to live up to. A shit load. I didn't mean it's got a lot going for it (I wish I could say that). I really couldn't care less about it, especially when Liam Neeson and Ryan Phillippe were out of the picture. There is really nothing enticing about the flick other than the name Paul Schrader. And why the fuck are they calling it 'Exorcist IV:The Beginning'?! Why would they put it with any relation to those two disaster follow-ups?! ('Exorcist II' gets my vote for the worst sequel in existence).
exorcist III is okay
you should see that one.
I saw it a while ago. Pretty forgettable but a masterpiece compared to part 2.
Pretty forgettable??? It's a masterpiece no matter what you compare it to.
Quote from: bonanzatazQuote from: oakmanc234the upcoming prequel has a lot on its shoulders.
fuck the prequel. fuck it so far up it's stupid fucking ass that it chokes on itself. they couldn't just let it die and let the world pretend that 2 and 3 didn't happen? i have not seen 2 and 3 and i don't plan to, and i don't plan on seeing this one.
i'll see it just for the sake of paul shcrader's name being atached to it
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmembers.fortunecity.com%2Fthemodernage%2Fpsf.jpg&hash=fde4227e92c8fd82320881143aab0752f6edde98)
How about now?
Quote from: oakmanc234bonanzataz wrote: fuck the prequel. fuck it so far up it's stupid fucking ass that it chokes on itself. they couldn't just let it die and let the world pretend that 2 and 3 didn't happen? i have not seen 2 and 3 and i don't plan to, and i don't plan on seeing this one.
I meant that the upcoming prequel has a lot to live up to. A shit load. I didn't mean it's got a lot going for it (I wish I could say that). I really couldn't care less about it, especially when Liam Neeson and Ryan Phillippe were out of the picture. There is really nothing enticing about the flick other than the name Paul Schrader. And why the fuck are they calling it 'Exorcist IV:The Beginning'?! Why would they put it with any relation to those two disaster follow-ups?! ('Exorcist II' gets my vote for the worst sequel in existence).
i wasn't implying that you thought it'd be good. i just wanted to give people a frame of reference as to why i was bringing up the prequel...
and who the fuck is paul schrader? the guy from NYPD blue?
Writer of Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, Last Temptation Of Christ, etc., director of Affliction, Autofocus, Mishima, Hardcore, American Gigolo, etc.
oh, THAT guy. i love taxi driver, but i hate auto focus with a burning passion. i've never seen any of his other films, so i wouldn't know.
That Haunted Boy website was fascinating.
My whole family is Roman Catholic, and my great uncle was a priest and missionary who (purportedly) performed a few exorcisms. I grew up with a really open mind to the whole thing, and so the whole concept was always enough to scare me, not to mention the movie (I even got scared reading about it, before I even saw it).
So anyway, I'm closer to being agnostic now, and I'm pretty skeptical about possessions and such...but here's a good story. Two years ago, a friend of mine (one of the actors from my first film) was at a party where this kid supposedly got posessed. Apparently he'd been messing around with a ouija board a few weeks before, doing weird stuff with it. Anyway. I didn't believe it, ESPECIALLY when I heard that everyone at the party was tripping on ex, including the posessee. But the clincher was that someone was videotaping the party, and so my friend showed it to me, and it freaked me out.
It started out with just normal party activity, everyone drinking and acting goofy, and then whoever was filming gradually started paying attention to one of their friends who was acting really weird. He was sitting in the middle of the room and playing the guitar and babbling in some gibberish that, gradually, started sounding like another language. He was talking in a really weird voice -- nothing inhuman, but just creepy. He kept saying the same things over and over again, in whatever language he was speaking. Then he started contorting his neck into what looked like really painful positions. Every now and then he'd snap out of it and talk in a normal voice and ask what was going on, sounding genuinely terrified, and then he'd start contorting again and the voice would come back.
So anyway, it goes on like this for a while, and it's really creepy but nothing TOO out of the ordinary, especially since he was tripping. But then he starts growling at the camera, and the pitch of his voice was just waaayyy too low. Very inhuman. And it was clear that the tape hadn't been altered -- no sound effects or anything -- it would take some really professional sound work to get it to sound as natural as it did, and these kids defintiely weren't pros. After that, someone turned the light on in the room and the guy starts screaming and yelling at the person in the other language, and at that point the footage ended.
I'm still not quite sure what to think about it. My mind's been more open about stuff like that ever since I saw it, though.
So anyway, that's my exorcist-related story. Geez, I think this is my longest post ever.
That's some scary stuff.
Quote from: themodernage02(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmembers.fortunecity.com%2Fthemodernage%2Fpsf.jpg&hash=fde4227e92c8fd82320881143aab0752f6edde98)
How about now?
heh, no i'd see that just for reese :lol:
ghostboy, anyway we can see that footage? or is it long gone?
yeah, can i see it please
I'll see if I can manage to retrieve it. I just talked to that actor for the first time in a year or so last week, I'm sure he still knows the person who shot it. We originally watched it in on the hi8 video tape it was shot on, with the camera just plugged into my VCR, and I've kicked myself consistently for not making a copy back then. Of course, the REAL clincher to the story is that I don't have a copy, isn't it? Ain't that always the way.
EDIT: I just noticed that this is my nine hundred and ninety ninth post. This is a very appropriate thread for that....just flip it over and you get 666!
That's some scary stuff.
Yikes!
My exorcist (more like poltergeist) related story:
While my brother was studying in Lisbon, he had a friend who started doing drugs, soon after he developed some sort of mental illness.
At night he would sit down on the floor and have entire conversations with the television while it was static. My brother told me that some guys went there to try and help him out and they said that he just turned to the tv and said: "they're talking about me, aren't they?"..."I know"..."okay"...
I don't know what happened to him
freaky :shock:
What makes no sense is that an evil spirit can get in you, but not an angel. Let's not forget that there is evil, but also good.
i wonder if the gibberish spoken by that guy is an actual language.
There is something interesting here...
Linda Blair obviously did a wonderful job. But William Friedkin was trying to figure out how to make her give a realistic performance but without causing any real pain to the child. So, they would shoot one scene and then they would give her a milkshake and then do another scene later. They continued to do this. The masturbation scene was something that she had no idea of what she was doing. Later on, of course, she learned what the idea for that scene was.
By the way, I believe that the film was edited on a street number of 666! That's some scary stuff!
Quote from: filmcriticThe masturbation scene was something that she had no idea of what she was doing. Later on, of course, she learned what the idea for that scene was.
I read something slightly different. William Friedkin asked Blair if she knew what masturbation was during rehearsal, before she knew about the scene, and she said something along the lines of "Of course, doesn't everyone do it?" I don't remember where I read this, however.
Ohhhh... Well, whatever the case, it's amazing somebody even thought up of things like that. Anyways, I heard that Billy Graham said that this had real evil in every frame of the movie. Wonder if that's true? Because Billy is very down to earth with stuff like that.
Quote from: GhostboyQuote from: filmcriticThe masturbation scene was something that she had no idea of what she was doing. Later on, of course, she learned what the idea for that scene was.
I read something slightly different. William Friedkin asked Blair if she knew what masturbation was during rehearsal, before she knew about the scene, and she said something along the lines of "Of course, doesn't everyone do it?" I don't remember where I read this, however.
Well, if I'm remembering correctly, Friedkin found Blair masturbating with a crucifix (plaster, I believe) in a church in Honduras in the late 50's, providing him with enough inspiration to have someone write a book he could base a film on.
Blair is little remembered from her adult film days, as she was cut out of a number of her features (most notably, New Wave Hookers) for violating contractual obligations (for appearing in The Exorcist, to boot).
Good times...
aw
Now isn't that a tasty nugget of truth..... :-D
I had no idea Blair had such a checkered past.....very interesting.
I don't believe that at all. That's just one of those rumors.
But I'll tell ya what I do believe. When the film was released, people in the theatres were so shocked and so scared by the film, there was throw up in the aisles and people were having strokes in the theatre. They had to call an ambulance more than once.
Quote from: filmcriticI don't believe that at all. That's just one of those rumors.
That's less of a rumor and more of something I made up an hour ago while I was bored at work...
aw
:roll:
Please don't roll your eyes
Is Ghostboy gonna show what happened at that party? Through video or pictures?
yeah i gotta agree with trem here. filmcritic stop pretending to be stupid. and Neon and PD23, stop winking all the time for no reason.
Getting back to that freaky video: you gotta get in contact w/ your actor friend. This needs to be seen...
aw
It's some scary stuff! Or maybe the guy was just drunk or high and that was it.
Yep!
Quote from: filmcriticBut I'll tell ya what I do believe. When the film was released, people in the theatres were so shocked and so scared by the film, there was throw up in the aisles and people were having strokes in the theatre. They had to call an ambulance more than once.
ive always wanted to go to a screening of this nature......
Quote from: ewardQuote from: filmcriticBut I'll tell ya what I do believe. When the film was released, people in the theatres were so shocked and so scared by the film, there was throw up in the aisles and people were having strokes in the theatre. They had to call an ambulance more than once.
ive always wanted to go to a screening of this nature......
This is gonna sound weird, but when I saw a screening of Things To Do In Denver When You're Dead at a film festival, it seriously repulsed people. This man stormed out dragging his family with him saying something to the effect of "this is a crime against humanity." There was at least a dozen walkouts and some real outrage afterwards. It was good times...
aw
actually a few people had the same reaction to body double when i screened it at my house.....hehehe
This is all so fucking great. Now that's cinema!!! :lol:
Ghostboy, have you found anything yet?
I'm going to get together with my friend this weekend. I'll see if we can track it down then. I wouldn't get your hopes up, though....I didn't mean to bait you guys with the story, honestly! But I'm hoping I can dig it up.
That's some scary stuff!
It's not necessary to say "ooh spooky" or "scary" everytime Ghostboy posts... he's not a real ghost.
From what I understand, for the physically violent scenes such ast the masturbation scene, Blaire wasn't even in the room.
Quote from: RegularKarateFrom what I understand, for the physically violent scenes such ast the masturbation scene, Blaire wasn't even in the room.
But they really fucked up her back, I heard, during filming of the scene where she and the bed violently thrash up and down. They had her strapped into this wooden brace thing (basically a medieval torture device) and big guys behind the false wall just whipped it up and down....hard. Can't remember in what Exorcist literature I read that.....
that's why you hear her screaming "billy!" when she's doing that. billy friedkin, the director.
i'd like to see what happens after they cut to the next scene. how the shot continues. ellen burstyn probably screaming "YOU FUCKING FUCK ASSHOLE SHITWHORE COCKMUNCHER!" that'd be a sight.
The stories, the rumors, and so on can just continue and continue. But let's not forget about how great the film is. We might need a whole extra thread for the rumors and stories.
No we don't. I think this one will do nicely.
I love The Exorcist. I think Burstyn was something special, and I think she's really wonderful in it. I think Friedkin gets a little overrated as a director, but it's undeniable that he had the magic when it came to this one. I thought the re-release was a little hokey, but it was still swell to see it all spiffed up and looking/sounding great. [/i]
Quote from: godardianI thought the re-release was a little hokey, but it was still swell to see it all spiffed up and looking/sounding great. [/i]
Yeah, they shoulda just added the deleted scenes, if only to satisfy fan curiosity about Blatty's intentions for the film. The dolled-up SFX additions were a sizeable distraction—inappropriate, haunted-house, digitally-cut-and-pasted-in faces on the wall are just not up to par with the truly elemental, visceral terror the FX shots elicited in the original.
Quote from: MeshQuote from: godardianI thought the re-release was a little hokey, but it was still swell to see it all spiffed up and looking/sounding great. [/i]
Yeah, they shoulda just added the deleted scenes, if only to satisfy fan curiosity about Blatty's intentions for the film. The dolled-up SFX additions were a sizeable distraction—inappropriate, haunted-house, digitally-cut-and-pasted-in faces on the wall are just not up to par with the truly elemental, visceral terror the FX shots elicited in the original.
Yes, that's exactl what I was talking about. Leaving that shit out would've been a real improvement. Still, it didn't really ruin it for me; the rest of it's too nicely done. Imperfections, but not overwhelming ones.
Any word yet?
Aw crap, I was hoping this would just sink to the bottom so I wouldn't have to disappoint you all. The answer is no. The individual with the tape is no longer friends with my friend the actor, thus retrieving it would be difficult. I'm sorry if I got all your hopes up...
I saw that 'version nobody ever thought of' version or whatever. It was pretty creepy, but just seemed overly clunky and gory. Now that I think about it, I don't think I've ever seen a really great scary movie. I have more fond memories of TV shows like Monsters and Tales from the Darkside more than anything...
Seriosuly, scariest thing I ever saw was the CBS mini-series called 'Intruders'. I bought it used somewhere online and I still can't watch it alone. You all will probably think I'm retarded if you've ever seen it. Oh well. More eye rolling. :roll:
who else thinks that markums is retarted now?
Oh well. That's alright. At least I'll be able to sleep alright without a bunch of disturbing visions flashing through my head.
Markums2k, I agree with you. As I've been saying, the original version of the film is much better. The restored one has a lot of not needed footage.
By the way, the restored version has been in video stores forever now. It's been hard trying to find the original 25th anniversery on DVD. But I found it! I found it on my trip in New York and I'm really glad I did.
markums, do you mean Real Monsters? Man, I loved that show...
edit: you should watch Amenebar's Tesis.
haha that show was the shit
Exorcist: The Beginning: Controversy is brewing over an article this week in UK newspaper The Independent (http://enjoyment.independent.co.uk/film/features/story.jsp?story=431680). According to it, Director Paul Schrader apparently handed in his final cut of the film last week and Warners execs "simply didn't like it - it doesn't have any of the "turning heads and projectile vomit" they were anxious to see". With post production still to go, the direction the film will now take is unsure. Instead of being a gore fest, Schraeder's take is described as "a picture that combines colonial-era action and adventure with personal introspection and deeper psychological horror", a tone which star Gabriel Mann is in favour of - "it's the film that seriously makes the closest attempt to get back to elements that made the first one so great. [It has] a kind of creeping, growing eeriness that permeates inside you until you realise you're really scared and freaked out. Audiences should expect for things not to happen the way they're used to... to think about things that are both scary and mysterious".
Quote from: MacGuffin"Audiences should expect for things not to happen the way they're used to... to think about things that are both scary and mysterious".
"Audiences are advised to not be passive idiots and make an attempt at using their brain before they die miserable and unfulfilled fuuuuckihateyouall."
Quote from: MacGuffinInstead of being a gore fest, Schraeder's take is described as "a picture that combines colonial-era action and adventure with personal introspection and deeper psychological horror"
I hope what they finally do release is 95% Schrader's film. I can understand the studio's need to toss some shocking, graphic moments into (perhaps) the trailer, just get the film through the initial teaser/promotional hump. After they succeed in getting people into the seats, though, I'd like to see what Schrader can muster with this type of story. I mean, "personal introspection and deeper psychological horror" were all over Affliction, were they not? I mean, Coburn's character was scary in a very 1973, original Exorcist type way, don't you agree? The whole intrigue of that film was Nolte's struggle not to become possessed by his father's demons....(to stretch the Exorcist angle to its limits....)
And let's face it. The Exorcist was a one-time deal. You can't recreate that film, that kind of shock, or, frankly, that era. That was Watergate time; America's political innocence had been shattered for the second time in 10 years; real American paranoia was in its infancy. What The Exorcist did was to break new ground in defiling things we held sacred—it violated upscale East Coasters, it violated old churches, it violated a prepubescent girl—all that was brand new.
Now: Schrader's film has what I see as an unprecedented opportunity to really turn the knife, as it were, into America's 911 wound. When, in our history, have we been more aware of and afraid of the atrocities that perversions of beautiful religions can create? I think that's what this new Exorcist film might attempt to get at. Perhaps I'm extrapolating too much from this quote from Schrader:
Quote"This is a loss of faith story," he says. "They discover that this church has been buried, there's a possession and it's how Merrin comes to get his faith back"
A buried church? That's just such a big, lumbering metaphor for crumbling, ruined religions....
BTW: I haven't read any Caleb Carr and I know nothing about William Wisher (the screenwriter and story-writer)....Any help?
Paul Schrader Dumped from Exorcist: The Beginning
Source: Page Six
Famed writer/director Paul Schrader Has been unceremoniously dumped from "The Exorcist IV: The Beginning" because he didn't put in enough blood, guts and vomit, insiders say.
Schrader - who wrote "Raging Bull" and "Taxi Driver" and directed films including "Rolling Thunder" and "Auto Focus" - was hired last year to direct the horror movie by Morgan Creek Films, which has a distribution deal with Warner Bros.
One production source told PAGE SIX, "[Morgan Creek] was just so excited with having a marquee name, they didn't bother with the details."
The picture, starring Stellan Skarsgard, Gabriel Mann and Francesca Barone, was shot in Rome and Morocco.
"The whole movie is done," another source said. "When Paul went to turn it in, Morgan Creek refused to give him his post-production money because they hated it. Paul had given them what was in the script - a creepy psychological thriller, with no gore.
"Morgan Creek wanted gore. They think that will sell. There were huge fights between Paul, who is more artistic, and the company, and earlier this week Paul was fired. They are planning on hiring a new director to reshoot some scenes."
The production source added: "They'll probably have the new director shoot a couple of [gory] scenes. Paul is a great filmmaker; there was just something different Morgan Creek had in mind.
"The script they gave Paul just didn't translate well onto the screen."
Schrader declined comment, citing legal agreements. A rep for Warner Bros. said, "Warner Bros. pictures distributes Morgan Creeks movies but we don't produce and therefore we have no comment."
Caleb Carr, the best-selling author of "The Alienist," wrote the "Exorcist IV" screenplay for Morgan Creek. He told us: "The problem with Paul's cut of the movie is it does not deliver the psychological fear we were looking for. It does have some good dramatic elements which can be rearranged with some good shooting into a very good movie."
I love Caleb Carr, but this project has 'failure' written all over it. I should know. Takes one to know one. :roll:
Yeah, that's pretty sad. But to anyone who's seen "The Kid Stays in the Picture," you know there are 3 sides to every story.
this thread is 6 pages long and i do not have the time to see if this was covered already but, friedkin has real big mother isssues and is known to be anti woman
so that added a extra layer to the film
that whole thing about the priest and the mom, was very inspired in the book or not '
much like the cancer scenes in magnolia, where you know pta was showing you what he went through
friendkin had weird mom issues and that took on a weird twist
and he hated woman so he made linda blair well just personify evil and do things that are just wrong
couple more things there was a scene when max von sydow had to look all freaked out and spazzy over the devil while he yelled at the devil so friedkin pulled sodow to the side and said
" do you trust me"
sydow said yes
and then boom friedkin slapped him across the face, sydow was so stunned and angry he didnt know what to say or do so friedkin said
" USE IT IN THE SCENE"
Another weird moment was ellen burston was tied to a cabinet for a scene and on the first take she complained that it hurt to have the cabinet thrown at her so to her face he said " no prob " then in ear shot behind her back he said pull the fucking thing harder
and then he broke her elbow or arm or something with that scene , when you see her scream its real
billy friendkin is a nutty fucker, but he really loves his films and will sacrifice his actors to do so
Quote from: themodernage02who else thinks that markums is retarted now?
ohh i do
Quote from: AlguienEstolamiPantalonesQuote from: themodernage02who else thinks that markums is retarted now?
ohh i do
:? So clever. Truly an asset to humanity.
Try to not let topic-specific arguments leak into other threads. Troll.
Horror Express got speaking with scribe Caleb Carr this week and right up front asked about last week's news of Director Paul Schraeder being fired from the prequel. The response was surprisingly strong - "I can confirm that Paul Schrader's connection with the film has been concluded, by mutual agreement. More details than that, I do not know. As for my reaction and the future of the film, I am heartened by the departure of a director who had apparently taken on the project not because he loved it, but for a paycheck and as a way to get (by his own public statement) "back" into the mainstream of commercial films (his previous solid lock on commercialism apparently having been that landmark of popular culture, CAT PEOPLE). Mr. Schrader has left us with a good amount of useable material which, when cut in with necessary reshoots, should make up a fine film; but in the future, I'd hope that he would have more respect for the work of others than to treat it as a tool with which to gain his private, unconnected, pragmatic goals".
More here. (http://www.horrorexpress.com/news.php)
I so wish that Paul Schrader hadn't been fired off of this. I don't know who they think they are. He's the guy who wrote "Taxi Driver", "Raging Bull" and "Last Temptation of Christ" and directed "Affliction" and "American Gigolo. And they fired him because he was too artistic for a movie like this probably.
Quote from: filmcriticI so wish that Paul Schrader hadn't been fired off of this. I don't know who they think they are. He's the guy who wrote "Taxi Driver", "Raging Bull" and "Last Temptation of Christ" and directed "Affliction" and "American Gigolo. And they fired him because he was too artistic for a movie like this probably.
shit! THAT paul schrader??! :shock:
Maybe Brett Ratner can step in?
Renny Harlin will be replacing Paul Schraeder for the reshoots. Harlin will be given several million for the shooting, and a release is now due out around Easter next year.
Quote from: MacGuffinRenny Harlin will be replacing Paul Schraeder for the reshoots. Harlin will be given several million for the shooting, and a release is now due out around Easter next year.
Gross. My sympathies to Paul Schrader. To go from the peak of
Autofocus to this fiasco... :(
yeah, because auto focus was sooooo fucking good... :roll:
but, yeah, replacing the original director with renny harlin midway through the shoot on the exorcist prequel. this one looks like it'll be REALLY good...
is there an award given for most sarcastic post ever?
Quote from: bonanzatazyeah, because auto focus was sooooo fucking good... :roll:
Exactly. That movie was an embarrassment.
Quote from: bonanzatazauto focus was sooooo fucking good...
Yes. Yes, it was. I'd call it mostly brilliant, actually. One of my favorites of last year.
godardian countenance no sarcasm
Quote from: Find Your MagaliQuote from: bonanzatazyeah, because auto focus was sooooo fucking good... :roll:
Exactly. That movie was an embarrassment.
I honestly can't believe we're talking about the same movie. It at least stands with
Affliction in Schrader's body of work...
Latest on the new "Exorcist"
With Paul Schraeder off, and massive reshoots under the direction of Renny Harlin soon to get underway - people are beginning to wonder what will happen with this project. 'Warner Sister' has left the water tower to fill us in on the project's current status:
"Shooting starts December 8th at Cinecitta Studios in Rome. Vittorio Storaro is shooting, Mark Goldblatt is editing, and Skip Woods ("Swordfish") is doing substantial amounts of re-writing to deliver a dilm going deep into the mythology behind the first and original "Exorcist".
The locals are describing it as a character study with very scary under currents. It doesn't rely on gore per se, but it will introduce several never before seen set pieces. The scale of the shoot has grown significantly, and looks now like it'll be at least six weeks with just a very small amount of the original movie ending up being used. Big sets have been erected at Cine Citta in preparation, and casting for new roles is on going in several countries apparently".
how many horsemen of the apocalypse do we need?
i stopped counting at around 558..
The Facts on the "Exorcist" Prequel
Source: Dark Horizons
Despite attempts to quell them, the rumours persist and keep growing on decisions made for the currently filming reshoots of the "Exorcist" prequel. Now Captain Howdy, one of the foremost Exorcist dedicated sites out there and run by an interesting Aussie bloke I met last year, has done an extensive article in an effort to try and clear up the speculation by sorting out what's real and what's conjecture for now:
"First of all, the bare facts directly from Morgan Creek:
· Re-shoots have resumed after the Christmas break and will wrap in mid-February (close to when principal photography finished last year).
· All re-shoots are happening in Rome at Cinecitta studios, where the second half of principal photography occurred.
· Approximately 90% of the prequel is being re-shot.
Take the above dot-points as you will, but they are facts. Morgan Creek also CONFIRMED that James D'Arcy and Izabella Scorupco have indeed joined the project. HOWEVER, close sources mentioned some internet reports are incorrectly claiming that these actors have come on board to replace previous actors who filmed principal photography with original director Paul Schrader. This is not true.
James D'Arcy is playing Father Francis under Renny Harlin's direcion after Gabriel Mann already portrayed the role for Paul Schrader. The reason for this re-cast is simply that Gabriel Mann COULD NOT RETURN TO THE PROJECT due to other commitments, forcing Morgan Creek to re-cast and release Mann.
Internet reports are also falsely claiming that Izabella Scorupco has REPLACED Clara Bellar as Rachel. This is not true. The character of Rachel in Exorcist: The Beginning has been completely removed from the project and Izabella Scorupco's role is in no way a 'replacement' capacity, Clara Bellar's character has simply been 'written out'. Does this mean no more love interest for Father Merrin?
Pop singer Billy Crawford's performance has also (supposedly) been written out of the project. Stellan Skarsgard has stayed on as Father Merrin and will complete the re-shoots, as expected.
Contrary to imdb.com stating that Alexi Hawley alone has 'tooled' Caleb Carr's script, Caleb Carr will still be credited as the writer, along with William Wisher for the original screenplay. Apparently, MANY writers were involved in looking over the screenplay and making adjustments to best improve on it from Schrader's cut (hence 90% being re-shot), and Alexi was just one of them.
I tried to get comment from Morgan Creek on all of this information, but - due to contractual obligations - (you guessed it) they could not comment. They DID confirm that James D'Arcy and Izabella Scorupco are attached and that shooting is happening in Rome, to be completed in mid-February and release to happen 'later in 2004', but could not comment any further".
yeah, but i want to know one thing...
why renny harlin of all directors on this god for saken planet? i feel sick.
90%! OUCH!
Renny Harlin. Thats funny. They chuck out a good writer/director (though I didnt think too much of 'Auto Focus', I enjoyed it but it was pretty average) for an 'action director' gun for hire. Its pretty embarrassing. Schraeder was obviously making the film that audiences didnt want (probably a great one), so they bring in the action dude to 'splatter' it up. To tell you the truth I wasnt really getting excited about the slow, dialogue smothered drama with a touch of horror that I predict Schraeder wouldve made but I sure as shit wasnt anticipating a Renny Harlin flick either....
His involvement has pretty much guaranteed that the new 'Exorcist' will be just another horror flick to add to the pile and not the great picture we were all wishing for deep inside......
i hope this bombs.
Harlin's Exorcist Won't Include Schrader's Footage
Source: Variety
Variety reports that Renny Harlin's reshoot of Exorcist: The Beginning wrapped filming February 22 after 13 weeks on Rome's Cinecitta Studios backlot, where word is that not a single frame of the footage shot by Paul Schrader will be included in the bedeviled prequel's new cut.
Harlin's 13-week effort equals the amount of time spent by Schrader on his original shoot. Schrader dropped out of the Morgan Creek production last year due to creative differences. Still, his name is reportedly meant to stay on the film.
Originally budgeted at $25 million, the antecedent to the 1973 horror classic is now jokingly being referred to in Rome as "the sequel to the prequel."
Three original key cast members - Clara Bellar, Gabriel Mann and pop star Billy Crawford - are not likely to appear in the final version, since they didn't return for reshooting. A new writer, Alexi Hawley, was brought in to rewrite the William Wisher and Caleb Carr script, and a new editor is working only with Harlin's material for the recut.
Exorcist: The Beginning, which is scheduled for release via Warner Bros. this year, recounts the tale of Father Merrin's journey as a young missionary priest to post-WWII Africa, which led to his first encounter with demonic forces. The young Merrin is played by Stellan Skarsgard who, after working with Schrader, returned to Cinecitta to reshoot with Harlin.
While Schrader's footage is thought to have been considered too tame, the new footage is said to generously feature revolving eyeballs, spinning heads and loads of projectile vomit.
Quote from: MacGuffinHarlin's Exorcist Won't Include Schrader's Footage
haha, WOW. now thats gonna be a neat 'special feature' on the DVD. haha, "Featuring deleted scenes and WHOLE OTHER MOVIE!"
Quote from: themodernage02Quote from: MacGuffinHarlin's Exorcist Won't Include Schrader's Footage
haha, WOW. now thats gonna be a neat 'special feature' on the DVD. haha, "Featuring deleted scenes and WHOLE OTHER MOVIE!"
I was thinking the same thing. Maybe Warner should run an AOL "Choose the sequel" poll.
Quote from: MacGuffinSource: Variety
...While Schrader's footage is thought to have been considered too tame, the new footage is said to generously feature revolving eyeballs, spinning heads and loads of projectile vomit.
Revolving eyeballs?
I don't even know what that means....
Quote from: Find Your MagaliRevolving eyeballs?
I don't even know what that means....
It means that this movie is going to be a crude rehash of the original.
:roll:
More info on the DVD:
Paul Schrader’s version of “The Exorcist" prequel on DVD?
Source: Variety
Although Warner Brothers has set August 20 to release “Exorcist: The Beginning,” many fans have been questioning on what particular version of the film they will be seeing – director Paul Schrader’s version or Renny Harlin’s version.
Initially the prequel was to be directed by John Frankenheimer (Ronin) but, due to his death, was replaced by Paul Schrader (Auto Focus) where the acclaimed writer-director turned in a rough cut of the film, which later was rejected by Morgan Creek. Citing the reason that the film was not scary enough, Morgan Creek hired director Renny Harlin (Deep Blue Sea) to direct a few weeks of reshoots, which later blew up into reshooting the whole film.
Now Variety is reporting that Morgan Creek maybe be contemplating on releasing Paul Schrader’s version on DVD.
"I'm very proud of my film, and I think it deserves to be seen," Schrader told Daily Variety. "If I get the DVD, I can say 'God bless you Renny; may your film do well.
Both parties have agreed to DVD terms in a way of settling contractual issues, but it is unknown if Schrader’s version will be released with Harlin’s version in a dual DVD set.
"This is going to sound unbelievable," Morgan Creek’s James Robinson told Variety, "but we made a movie -- twice. If you see the two movies, you wouldn't believe it's the same d.p (director of photography)."
Robinson also reveals that Schrader’s version was roughly made for $32 million to $35 million, while Harlin's version was shot with the same cinematographer, cost between $52 million to $54 million.
Cripes, let's ALL make a version of this movie, and release a whole freaking DVD box set!
It can be like back in the late 80s, when everyone got to make their own version of Madonna's "True Blue" video, and then MTV showed billions and billions of them, back to back. And I sat dazed in front of the TV, watching them and realizing that, as it turns out, there really AREN'T that many people with original ideas out there.
Quote from: Find Your MagaliCripes, let's ALL make a version of this movie, and release a whole freaking DVD box set!
WHOA, LET'S DO IT!!!!!!!!
XIXAXCIST BOX SET!!!!!
that would be 1175 versions.
Quote from: mogwaithat would be 1175 versions.
Well, at the very least we would narrow it down to the ones who actually post... :?
I call dibs on Shia LaBoeuf to star as the young Father Merrin in my version.
I'm interested in Mr. BK's version of the The Exorcist.
GDIDM, where are you?
Exorcist Anthology Due
Five film set due just in time for Halloween.
On October 10, 2006, Warner Home Video will release The Exorcist: The Complete Anthology on DVD. The film set will arrive just in time for Halloween, and will include The Exorcist: The Version You've Never Seen, Exorcist II: The Heretic, The Exorcist III, Exorcist: The Beginning and Dominion: Prequel to The Exorcist. It will feature tons of bonus materials and extra features. It will be available for the MSRP of $42.92.
Check out the front and back box artwork for the The Exorcist: The Complete Anthology DVD below:
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdvdmedia.ign.com%2Fdvd%2Fimage%2Farticle%2F732%2F732843%2Fthe-exorcist-the-complete-anthology-20060914044629366-000.jpg&hash=abeb202b12a7023e21148c8d3e4a0cba43d7dd54)(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdvdmedia.ign.com%2Fdvd%2Fimage%2Farticle%2F732%2F732843%2Fthe-exorcist-the-complete-anthology-20060914044641569-000.jpg&hash=978849e0a43df79fb08375e465d452f667bca255)
I love the original, 2 was shit, 3 was ok and I haven't seen the two versions of the prequel's yet, so those are on my list to rent.
They both suck but the only good thing about the Harlin version is that it makes you realize that Schrader's version has at least some merit. If Harlin's version had never been made, we'd all be saying just how awful Schrader's was but, God bless it, now we know it could have been much worse.
Quote from: MacGuffin on September 15, 2006, 01:10:37 PM
Exorcist Anthology Due
Five film set due just in time for Halloween.
On October 10, 2006, Warner Home Video will release The Exorcist: The Complete Anthology on DVD. The film set will arrive just in time for Halloween, and will include The Exorcist: The Version You've Never Seen, Exorcist II: The Heretic, The Exorcist III, Exorcist: The Beginning and Dominion: Prequel to The Exorcist. It will feature tons of bonus materials and extra features. It will be available for the MSRP of $42.92.
Check out the front and back box artwork for the The Exorcist: The Complete Anthology DVD below:
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdvdmedia.ign.com%2Fdvd%2Fimage%2Farticle%2F732%2F732843%2Fthe-exorcist-the-complete-anthology-20060914044629366-000.jpg&hash=abeb202b12a7023e21148c8d3e4a0cba43d7dd54)(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdvdmedia.ign.com%2Fdvd%2Fimage%2Farticle%2F732%2F732843%2Fthe-exorcist-the-complete-anthology-20060914044641569-000.jpg&hash=978849e0a43df79fb08375e465d452f667bca255)
That's cool, but I'll never, ever pay money again for The Version You've Never Seen.