Let Eric guide you through your journey of watching “Exorcist” films!
“The Exorcist” is known as the scariest film of all-time. Whether or not you agree with that is up to you but most would still say that it is a very good movie with a bunch of sequels that don’t quite measure up. Are any of them worth seeing? I think so and will be glad to guide you through them. There’s a lot of them to get through so let’s get started.
1. “The Exorcist”
The scariest film of all-time… according to countless lists and just general consensus, but is it true? I think so. Now let me explain that I understand if you don’t find the film itself scary. It is more than 40 years old. Tastes change with newer viewers. HOWEVER that being said, how many films have had the impact this film had? How many scary movies since can you think of that have had such a strong reaction on as many people? Not a lot I’ll bet. Sure some movies come with stories about how someone wasn’t able to sleep alone for weeks or something but when was the last time you remember hearing news stories about a film that caused multiple people to go into therapy or run back to church just to be on the safe side? And they aren’t some well placed publicity stunts, this was a huge reaction experienced by many. The closest film I can think of to have that strong of an impact would be “Jaws.” So while you may not be scared by the movie, we are all different. I think it does deserve that title even if it will inevitably raise people’s expectations a little too high. Speaking only for myself I can say that it is still an effective film. There is just a real evil sense to this film and it left me feeling totally creeped out after my first time seeing it. It’s hard to describe but I just felt like something was watching me.
However when you strip away the title of “scariest film ever” does it still hold up? I think so, let’s not forget this is a Best Picture nominee and Best Adapted Screenplay winner. Like I’ve said before I think the mark of a good horror film is if you get rid of the horror aspect, the film still works. And even without all the devil and possession elements, it still works as a drama about a priest who has lost his faith but regains it in the end and in doing so makes the ultimate sacrifice for someone he doesn’t even know. Speaking of the ending, one thing I always found interesting about “The Exorcist” is how it came out in a time where Hollywood was obsessed with the Devil but unlike a lot of the other films this movie actually has a fairly uplifting ending. Here are some spoilers for a bunch of old movies but how do “The Omen” or “Rosemary’s Baby” end? Evil wins! The heroes are defeated and the Devil at the very least is one chess move closer to accomplishing his goal. However, here Regan is saved and on top of it has no memories of what happened. Speaking of Regan, she’s a very effective child character. It would be easy to turn her into a saintly figure to make it seem more sad and tragic. She feels very much like a real, good kid. All of the actors do a fantastic job at their roles. Thanks to this movie my mental image of Max von Sydow is much older than he is, so I always have to catch myself when I see him and am surprised that he’s still alive. But really there isn’t much to be said that hasn’t already been said a million times by this point. This film is a classic and no one can take that away from it. It honestly gets better the more times I see it so I highly recommend it so that you can see what all the fuss is about.
Advice: Must See for any movie buffs or horror fans.
Check out our interview with Linda Blair earlier this year!
2. “The Exorcist III”
I finally broke down and got this on DVD. I had been holding out for a special edition or Director’s cut. However it’s likely if they haven’t found the elements needed by this point they’re probably never going to find them. Supposedly all of the original footage was lost by the studio so we will probably never get William Peter Blatty’s real version of this film. Which is a shame because this is a really good film that feels like it could be better with just a few changes. This film is still really good and at times it comes damn close to achieving greatness like the first film. The story is about the cop character from “The Exorcist” (who was a minor part) who is investigating some recent murders in Georgetown, Washington DC. The most disturbing thing about them is that they bare a striking similarity to a serial killer from the past that they all know for a fact is dead, the Gemini Killer. Eventually the cop tracks it down to a patient in a hospital who looks an awful lot like Damien Karras (the main character priest from “The Exorcist”) but refers to himself as the Gemini Killer.
Click here to reveal spoilers
The film is expertly acted by the likes of the great George C. Scott, Brad Dourif, Jason Miller, etc. and 100% feels like a continuation of the story. The story and themes are still on point mostly thanks to it being directed by the author of the books, William Peter Blatty. However some issues do fall on him. While the dialogue is great and full of some hilarious exchanges (remember this guy also wrote the best Pink Panther film “A Shot in the Dark” ) it at times can feel a little too talky, a common issue with authors turned directors. Some scary moments work amazingly well, including a sequence with a nurse that many consider to be the greatest jump-scare in film. Re-watching it for the first time in a few years I was shocked by how well it worked on me. However the film walks this odd line of silly and scary. There are a dozen moments that I imagine if I was reading this in a book that it would be totally creepy but seeing it performed in real space with real actors… it’s kinda silly looking but I still recognize how creepy this idea is. The scene of the old woman crawling around on the ceiling being a prime example. All of this I think is from William Peter Blatty not being a director by trade. Maybe a more experienced director like William Friedkin could have made these moments work. However the biggest misstep comes at the climax where a priest we’ve only seen a few times before (looking scared as foreboding music plays) comes in and tries to perform an exorcism. Not only does it not fit the tone with its emphasis on special effects, but it just doesn’t fit in at all. It just comes out of nowhere with no build up. You can almost feel Blatty’s frustration at having to add this for the studio. However if you can look past those flaws it really is a very good film and a worthy follow-up. I just pray the footage can be found and made into a director’s cut one day.
Advice: Recommended.
3. “The Ninth Configuration”
Now this might be the one you’re going “huh?” at. Understandable, this isn’t a film everyone knows but they should. You may consider this cheating but I say if you want an Exorcist trilogy then it should be “The Exorcist,” “The Ninth Configuration,” and then “The Exorcist III.” I consider it an “Exorcist” film, why? Remember that scene in “The Exorcist” where Regan comes downstairs to a party and goes to an astronaut and tells him coldly, “you’re going to die up there,” and then pees herself? Well this movie follows the story of that astronaut character (played by a different actor). It’s a little confusing as to how the timeline works (most likely a side effect from the page to screen adaptations happening when they did). Anyways the way I like to read it is after having been in the presence of ultimate evil but not realizing it, and after hearing it tell him, “you’re going to die up there,” it just festered in Cutshaw until the day of the launch where he had his mental breakdown. Afterwards he’s taken to a castle and used by the army for an insane asylum. A new head doctor is transferred in named Col. Kane who begins working with Cutshaw and the two form an odd bond through their debating of God, the Devil, and morality in general.
Like “The Exorcist III” the film is written and directed by William Peter Blatty and like that film it is very funny at first and the second half is where the film gets dark. However, unlike the other “Exorcist” films this isn’t really a horror film or at least it’s not trying to scare you. It’s a hard film to classify but I guess I’d consider it a dark drama that happens to take place in the same universe of “The Exorcist” so this could be an easier film for some to watch who don’t like horror films. For me this film is all about the debates. It’s clear they are written by a very smart guy who is very interested in the subject. Blatty even gets the chance to show off some visual flair with one of the most striking images ever committed to film. An astronaut on the moon finding a full size crucifix across from the american flag as Kane discusses the nature of our existence. This all leads to a killer ending that is almost as dark as any of the “Exorcist” films but also does contain that hopeful optimism that I think often gets overlooked in Blatty’s work.
Advice: Recommended especially if you want the complete story of “The Exorcist.”
Click to the NEXT PAGE for the final 3 films!
4. “Dominion: Prequel To The Exorcist”
Prequels are not always necessary and I can’t say that we ever really needed to know about Father Merrin’s past but if you give it to a great artist like Paul Schrader to write and direct then you at least know you’re in interesting hands. This film was going to star Liam Neeson and be directed by the prolific John Frankenheimer but he died shortly before filming was about to take place, and Neeson left the project soon afterwards. Instead they got Schrader and Stellan Skarsgård to star as young Merrin. The film basically tells the story of the off hand remark in “The Exorcist” about Father Merrin exorcising a boy in Africa. It doesn’t line up 100% with what we heard earlier but it’s just one of those things you’ll have to make allowances for. It does manage to capture a bit of the old mood of the other films and overall is best described by William Peter Blatty himself as “a handsome, classy, elegant piece of work.”
Click here to reveal spoilers
This completely feels like something Blatty could have come up with. However there are drawbacks to the film. The acting is uneven, some are very good, others not so much to put it nicely. I can’t say the film is scary though. Its drama most of the time works. It contains some of the worst looking CGI ever, however since this film was not released it is understandable. That’s right, the studio decided they didn’t like this film so they fired Paul Schrader and hired Renny Harlin to make a newer more mainstream version.
Advice: See it if you’re curious.
5. “Exorcist: The Beginning”
So I was aware of the backstory to this film. I thought it would make sense to see “Dominion” first then move on to this. After being pleasantly surprised by it I didn’t know what to expect from this one and yet it still failed to meet those expectations! I know the studio was dumb enough to apparently go, “Hmm the guy who wrote “Taxi Driver” clearly doesn’t know what he’s doing, let’s get the guy who made “Cutthroat Island” to redo this movie because clearly he’d be the better choice.” However this isn’t completely unheard of. The original “Wizard of Oz” had to be redone with a new director (4 in total) while being made. So I assumed that this would basically be the other film just re-edited, maybe some new scenes, different characters and such, but no. It’s almost an entirely different movie just with the same major actors and telling the same basic story.
However I honestly can’t remember much of it. It is a very forgettable film. In some ways you can say that makes it a worse film than “Exorcist II: The Heretic” (oh and spoilers, the only film left is going to end up being in the last spot) but it’s just not memorable enough. The only memorable things were how they messed up scenes from “Dominion” for instance the whole backstory with the Nazis forcing Father Merrin to choose who dies is there… barely and more importantly stripped of everything that made it mean something. It’s just there randomly and has no bearing on anything else in this version. They try and to be clever in the climax by having the African boy not be the one Merrin exorcises, instead in this version it’s the main female character which makes as little sense as it sounds. But what’s really unbelievable is that the makeup for the woman when she is possessed is supposed to be the same from Linda Blair’s from the original but it looks so bad and cheap like her face is 3 inches thick. It’s amazing that after 31 years they not only couldn’t make the makeup look any better but in fact made it look worse.
Advice: Skip it unless very curious.
6. “Exorcist II: The Heretic”
And here we go, in my opinion one of the worst sequels ever made and one of my most hated of films. Let’s get through its few redeeming qualities. I mean if a studio was to give me the assignment of writing a sequel to “The Exorcist” the only idea I’d have would be to either basically remake the first film about another small child possessed by the devil and other priests trying to save him/her or make a prequel about Father Merrin’s exorcism in Africa. So I’ll give the film this much credit, the premise is pretty creative but that’s all I can say about it. The actors mostly do well and Ennio Morricone’s score, while unbelievably strange, is unforgettable once you hear it and oddly compelling. The first major issue is the director of the film John Boorman, director of the very tense and terrifying film “Deliverance” who would seem like a good choice. In fact he was offered the chance to direct the original “Exorcist.” However, he chose not to because he found the premise to be as he called it “vile.” So obviously someone who had so much respect for the first movie is going to produce a worthy follow up, right? Where to start with this film?
Right from the beginning it makes little sense. From what I gathered the church wants Father Lamont (played by Richard Burton) to investigate the death of Father Merrin while completely never mentioning Father Karras at all cause it’s not like he did anything special. And from there things just seem to happen until it mercifully ends. I can’t really sum up the film but I can explain why it makes no sense. First of all it’s nice to see Regan back and again played by Linda Blair who does a good job slipping back into the role but I still don’t get what’s going on. So she’s been being treated by Nurse Ratched (not the actual character but it’s the same actress) with a machine to travel into people’s dreams (obligatory reference to “Inception” and we’re walking… we’re walking) and right off the bat here’s something I don’t follow. Is it implying that the demon is still inside of Regan after all of these years or that the demon is somehow coming back and if so is it supposed to be connected to what Nurse Ratched is doing? If so how? And if it is the first option then good job making the entire first film pointless. Also with Regan being in Nurse Ratched’s care and the only reference to Chris MacNeil being that she’s off somewhere working on a film makes her seem like a horrible mother. I’m sorry but if I went through the events of “The Exorcist” for the rest of my daughter’s life any time she even mentioned not feeling well I’d have a priest ready. I’m sure they don’t want her to worry and they had to cover up Ellen Burstyn’s absence (aside from good judgement) but there had to be a better way than this.
Let’s see more stuff that makes no sense…well apparently they decided they had to have Max von Sydow back somehow so we get some truly bizarre flashback scenes of the exorcism of the African boy. It’s here we not only get James Earl Jones in a locust costume… don’t ask but more important it’s where we learn it wasn’t actually the Devil who possessed Regan in the first film, it was a demon called Pazuzu. Okay I realize in the novel it says this and it’s part of the catholic idea that all evil entities of other cultures are the Devil going by another name or are just servants etc. but the main problem is that Pazuzu to English speakers is just a ridiculously silly sounding name. I know even the first film heavily hinted at it but they were smart enough to know “hey not only does this sound stupid but it would be more effective to leave it up for the viewers to decide.” Now there is an interesting concept in here. Why was Regan possessed as opposed to any other human in the world. This film’s idea is that all people who are possessed are going to become future saints who will help heal the world in some meaningful way. That’s rather clever but doesn’t feel right in universe of “The Exorcist.” There’s an actual gem of a scene where Regan without even trying gets an autistic child to talk. It’s heartwarming and perfectly shows what Regan is supposed to be doing with her life but again doesn’t fit at all with everything else.
So now let’s talk about the climax. Peter Burton and Linda Blair return to the famous house in Georgetown. Why it has to be there, what significance does the house have? NO CLUE! I think they just wanted something to connect to the original but I always wondered what the in-universe reason was. Now sometimes when I’m confused by a movie I’ll look it up online and read people’s explanations. Sometimes I’ll read through the summary on the wikipedia page. I distinctly remember it used to say, “For some reason Lamont and Regan return to the old house in Georgetown.” I checked back today while writing this and it seems they cleaned up the wording to make a more professional sounding, “Lamont and Regan return to the old house in Georgetown.” Now that may not seem like much but why am I focusing on it? Consider this, we have entire websites dedicated to figuring out confusing films. No matter the film there will be some group of people who actually enjoy it. This is the internet where everything and anything is heavily analyzed to death. Wikipedia is one of the most popular sites worldwide and it has about 13 MILLION people visiting the site daily and NOT ANY OF THEM COULD FIGURE WHY THIS FILM ENDS THE WAY IT DOES! That is something to behold! So then it’s a bunch of locusts attack the house, Regan somehow splits into two people or Pazuzu somehow has physical form and changes into her like in Mortal Kombat… I guess. It truly is one of the dumbest movies ever and probably the biggest dip in quality from a film to its sequel. It’s BAD. It is shocking that anyone could even get halfway through making it and not go, “guys, guys what are we doing with our lives?!” I hope to never see this movie again. I’m all for art and film preservation but if this film disappeared, I’d be totally fine with that.