What do you guys think of the new Exorcist movie?

[SupremeKaioshin]

I just watched it 3 hours ago around 12 midnight to 2am and I thought it was pretty good. That scene where....SPOILER ALERT

She was on top of that cross was pretty freaky along with the tunnel scenes.

[Gui]

What Exorcist movie are you talking about precisely?

[realdeal]

That movie was pretty scary. The demon had some raunchy lines that made the movie crowd burst out laughing. I enjoyed the movie, but the ending was a little too easy for the hero.

[Duke Togo]

Could not pay me to see it. I think you have to be just a little bit brain dead enjoy it. Though, judging by the kind of movies that hit big these days, I think that tends to be a large portion of the movie going public.

[Max Jenius]

Could not pay me to see it. I think you have to be just a little bit brain dead enjoy it. Though, judging by the kind of movies that hit big these days, I think that tends to be a large portion of the movie going public.

So you're saying that movies should be status symbols?

"What? You were entertained by a movie I did not like? You must have a disease.."

Honestly.

[Uxi]

Seriously. Guys who usually think they're the smartest thing around.... usually aren't.

But yeah, they should have stopped after the first one.

[bsu legato]

It'll be interesting to see what the other Exorcist: the Beginning is like, if and when it ever hits DVD.

[That NOS Guy]

It'll be interesting to see what the other Exorcist: the Beginning is like, if and when it ever hits DVD.

There was a reason people dropped this like a hot potato the first time around.

-NOS

I demand a reshoot.

[Zentrandude]

i need to go out and watch this movie. i just hope it doesn't have any possesed girls vomiting on everybody like the original.

[Ladic]

Saw this week,I'd It's probably better than the crappy sequels, but it's not a scary movie like the original, it mostly uses loud sounds to make you jump every now and then.

[Noriko Takaya]

First off, if you have not seen this movie, do not read this post. It contains a rather blatant spoiler.

I rather liked the new Exorcist movie in my own sort of disturbed way. I can say it was definitely a lot better than the sequels released after the first film, and it does tie in a bit with the first one. The guy who played Father Merrin, Stellan Skarsgård, gives a very good performance in my own opinion. However, here is where I am going to gripe. It is well stated in the book and the screenplay which were both written by William Peter Blatty that the first run in Father Merrin had with the demon Pazuzu was in the body of an 8 year-old African boy. The politically correct yahoos we have in Hollywood today could not handle that kind of fact I guess, which is why we have a demon possessing that hot babe Isabella Scorupco.

I'm very interested to see the original version directed by Paul Schrader. If Warner Brothers is smart, they will package this movie with Renny Harlin's version together as a 2 disc set. It would make for some rather interesting comparisons.

Edited August 30, 2004 by Noriko Takaya

[eugimon]

saw it, thought that this movie did a lot to try to be the orginal exorcist but didn't really make it...

there are a lot of things in the movie that are brought up and then dropped never to be heard from again. This movie also does the cliched loud noise for something mundane to get a scare bit, which I find rather cheap.

the acting I thought was all around pretty good.. the special effects where meh, and don't even get me started on the last scene of the movie...

overall, go rent the first one... this one is a rental.

[Ladic]

Both versions of the movie will be available in the DVD, they've already confirm this.

[Duke Togo]

Could not pay me to see it. I think you have to be just a little bit brain dead enjoy it. Though, judging by the kind of movies that hit big these days, I think that tends to be a large portion of the movie going public.

So you're saying that movies should be status symbols?

"What? You were entertained by a movie I did not like? You must have a disease.."

Honestly.

Better movies get buried by crap like this because the mind numbed public goes for it. The good scripts get buried by stupid poo like The Exorcist The Beginning, Aliens vs Predator, and Catwoman.

I'd wager over the past decade, I've seen a higher percentage of great movies than most.

[Ladic]

what you might think is a "great" movie, for someone else it can be crap and viceversa, it's all a matter of opinions.

[eugimon]

Could not pay me to see it. I think you have to be just a little bit brain dead enjoy it. Though, judging by the kind of movies that hit big these days, I think that tends to be a large portion of the movie going public.

So you're saying that movies should be status symbols?

"What? You were entertained by a movie I did not like? You must have a disease.."

Honestly.

Better movies get buried by crap like this because the mind numbed public goes for it. The good scripts get buried by stupid poo like The Exorcist The Beginning, Aliens vs Predator, and Catwoman.

I'd wager over the past decade, I've seen a higher percentage of great movies than most.

eh, movies don't have to be high art, they can be just entertainment... and really, I think movies can be great without being all deep or high art or whatever... personally, I've found many critically acclaimed movies to be pointless and quite frankly, a bit masturbatory on the part of the director/writers...

personally, I find the ration of craptacular to great to be the same in hollywood or in the indie market.. you still have to weed through the crap to find the enjoyable stuff.

at least with the hollywood mindless summer action movie, they don't pretend to be doing anything than providing two hours of enjoyment... I find a lot of the independent directors to be just so full of whatever political or philosophical gibberish they want to cram down our throats as to be distracting...

so please, lay off those of us who enjoy the mindless filler, and what makes you think we don't also watch the "good" stuff?

[SupremeKaioshin]

[Gui]

+1

[SupremeKaioshin]

[Duke Togo]

eh, movies don't have to be high art, they can be just entertainment... and really, I think movies can be great without being all deep or high art or whatever...

To me, film IS art. I'm a film buff, its something I enjoy immensely. And yes, many movies are great without being deep or high art, but it is true the Hollywood system has become greatly flawed.

[eugimon]

eh, movies don't have to be high art, they can be just entertainment... and really, I think movies can be great without being all deep or high art or whatever...

To me, film IS art. I'm a film buff, its something I enjoy immensely. And yes, many movies are great without being deep or high art, but it is true the Hollywood system has become greatly flawed.

well, I guess for me, art can be mundane, it doesn't always have to be something deep or meaningful.

for example, much of waht we consider great art today, the various portraits, landscapes even religious works would be considered commercial art by today's standards. this was work done on commission with specifc and measurable goals by contracted artisans for wealthy patrons or religious bodies. it is their craftsmanship that is genius...

more modern examples, pop art, mundane statues of people by duane hanson, comic and graphic art.. roy lichtenstein, disney, schultz... much of graphic art leading the way for fine art-andy warhol...

art can be just about the crafstmanship, the vicersal response, the emotional response, the intellectual response.

the idea that art should serve some higher purpose than aesthetic appeal or as a record is something that is very recent and I'm not sure it is entirely warranted.

for instance, the works of edward munch... technically not the best, but no one will argue that his works are not vicerally powerful. and yet, does little else but explore emotions and color.

so film then... why should film be so much different? why shouldn't a movie of high craftsmanship.. say the bourne identity, that does nothing but tell a fun story but does it competently and smartly be considered art as well then?

why must film art be limited to the esoteric or intellectually elite?

And once again, to say the hollywood system is flawed is easy to say, but there are more production companies today that cater to the independant film market than ever before as well as the growing numbers of art film festivals... objectively, I think it is too easy to say that the hollywood system is flawed... the hollywood system is about money and they will produce, well, at least purchase and show whatever will make money.

I think the real flaw lies in independent film makers who produce movies of no interest other than to a small group of people and than feel slighted when the majority takes no interest as is well their right to do so. If you have a vision and no one cares, it is not necessarily the fault of the viewer, your vision just may be uniteresting.

And once again... in any given year, I sincerely believe the ratio of crap movies to good movies remains the same for the pop world as it does the indie world... granted there is much more of it in the pop market but that is simply because more such movies are made.

But there is nothing wrong with that as well, there is a place for commercial art and who is to say what commercial art will become high art with the passage of time?