I agree. “The Excorcist” is one of the scariest movies I’ve ever seen. I have NO plans to see it again now, especially with more footage added. I don’t even like watching the commercials for it.
Also, “Poltergeist.” That one scared the crap out of me. I have always disliked clowns, and that scene at the end made me SCARED TO DEATH of clowns. When my daughter was about 2, someone gave her a big clown doll, much like the one in the movie. I had to hide the damn thing in the closet. It somehow got “lost” when we moved.
I would just like to clarify that although The Exorcist does not frighten me, I think it is a very well-made film. I enjoy it and I pick up on something new each time I see it but I am just not frightened by it.
This may all change when I have a child–a parent seeing a child in pain and being tortured while having to stand by helplessly. However, as of now, I just think of it as a classic horror movie and a good one at that–but not scary.
It seems to me that most good horror movies are rather, well, I guess I would say, delicately balanced. In the right mood, they can be incredibly frightening, but in the wrong mood, they seem just ridiculous. I guess I was in the wrong mood when I first saw The Exorcist. I thought much of it was laughable. I was in the right mood for The Blair Witch Project though, and I found it very disturbing. Some people go the other way around though, and I don’t think there’s any deep explanation for that.
There’s almost certainly a certain nostalgia factor at work here. For a lot of people my age (late 30s), “The Exorcist” was the first really scary movie they’d ever seen.
Years later, even if the effects seem silly or dated, there’s a certain fun in going back to see it, if only to say, “Ooh, remember how scared I was when I saw this in '73?”
As for me, I read the book when I was in 8th grade (1974 or 75) and didn’t see the movie until years later. My take was that the book was interesting, but not very scary. While the movie makes it quite clear that a REAL demon has possessed Regan, it’s possible to read the book and conclude that she was merely a VERY disturbed little girl. At first, remember, the demon is manifested as “Captain Howdy,” an imaginary playmate. Moreover, her mother has just divorced her father, Howard. “Howdy”… “Howard”… could this be a case of an unstable little girl, traumatized by the loss of her dad?).
Stanley Kubrick, an atheist, once told Stephen King (a Christian) that he thought ALL supernatural stories, even the horriffic ones, are essentially optimistic… because they suggest that the supernatural is real, and that ghosts are real, which implies that God is real, and so is life after death. Well, “The Exorcist” fits into Kubrick’s analysis.
As was noted earlier, Father Karras is going through a major crisis of faith. He’s no longer sure he believes in God. In a strange, twisted way, a demonic possession is a BLESSING for Karras! It confirms that the devil exists, so God must exist, too! Could it be that Karras WANTS desperately for Regan to be possessed by a demon, as a way of bolstering his wavering faith?
That’s all in the book. The movie, I’m afraid, was neither scary to me nor even interesting.
A LOT of movies terrified me when I was little (the flying monkeys in “The Wizard of Oz” and numerous scenes in King Kong scared the bejeezus out of me), but VERY few have given me any real chills since I was 12 or 13. “Jaws” remains one of the few movies that’s really scared me. LOTS of movies have repulsed me, but hardly any, save “Jaws,” have really frightened me.
The Exorcist was actually based on a true occurance. I don’t remember the specifics, but I think it was documented in the Washington Post in the late 40s or 50s. Urban legend? Perhaps. But it was taken seriously at the time, and it was what prompted the writing of the book.
Urban legends that are not true are those that say there were an extraordinary number of deaths that occurred during or shortly after the filming. The documentary on the making of The Exorcist that is included in the “anniversary edition” says that the film took a long time to make; and that over time, people cease to function.
The first time I saw The Exorcist it seemed a waste of time. But the conditions weren’t right. I was stuck in a tight seat in the balcony.
Later on cable when I could focus on the thing it got downright evil. One complaint: ratcheting up certain sound effects to get a reaction.
The film that made me soil the underwear was Silence of the Lambs.
I think when you saw The Exorcist you might have been watching it with friends, which would greatly reduce it’s scare factor. I say that because it sounds like you’re a kid based on your writing style and use of certain words (like “dorky”). I will give that it may not be as scary to you due to generational impact ( you’re younger and have become desensitized due to the influx of a real world who’s horrors are communicated in an uncensored immediate media 24 hour, internet based world that delivers the worst of the real world instantaneously). But I get the sense that you say it doesn’t scare you, but on a certain level it does. Maybe you need to watch it by yourself ( and in the dark). But seriously I’m not buying it from anyone who says it didn’t give them at least a little chill. You doth protest too incongruously. Also when you characterize it as “dorky” it gives me the impression that you weren’t really getting it. As if you didn’t pay attention. I think if, as I said, you gave it your full attention, especially if you watched it alone, you’d get the full affect, and although it may not be the scariest movie you’ve ever seen it would certainly affect you more than a little bit. Last thing: I think somewhere deep inside it scared you, which is how it scares 99% of the world, by tapping into the idea of a malevolent evil controlling your soul, but you are in denial about it, hence your characterization of it as “dorky”. You can call it a lot of things in your claim that it didn’t scare you, but to describe it as “dorky” is about as far from the truth as you can get.
Just so you know, this thread is 14 years old.
Of course – it’s a Catholic thing.
I’m surprised to see I did not comment on this thread 14 years ago when it was current. I guess now’s my chance.
When I first saw this movie, it scared the bejesus out me, (or the bedemon, whatever). Two big factors:
- I was a kid.
- I thought that stuff could actually happen.
I’m pretty sure I had relatives, maybe even my Mom, who warned me not to play with Ouija boards or else that might happen to me. It was as reasonable a warning, in my mind at the time, as to wash my hands after a taking a shit.
I also missed this thread first time around due to not being here for another three years.
The book prepared me to shit my pants if the movie was any good at all. But in spite of some tremendous effects and some decent acting it just didn’t get at the depth of horror and believability of the book. I had trouble sleeping after I read the book, but the movie just didn’t work for me.
I saw it again within the past few months and the quality of the film holds up, but it’s still not scary to me.
A book that frightened me even more was Helter Skelter because that shit was for real!
I don’t understand how Regan or the demon were “bratty.”
I’m going to close this one down since it was made in 2000.
Feel free to make another topic about it if anyone wishes to continue discussion, though (in Cafe Society).