This review is critically analysing William Friedkin's movie "The Exorcist". This submission is dealing with this movie to explain specific horror elements from it. This review is based on Roger Ebert's, Peter Stack's and Peter Travers's reviews.
Figure1
This movie is pretty much about a fight between good and evil powers - church versus devil and more. Movie critic Peter Travers puts it in this way: "directed by William Friedkin from an Oscar-winning script by William Peter Blatty, who wrote the novel, will stir the same debate: Is the film a provocation about the nature of good and evil, or horror claptrap? To me, it's always been both." (September 22, 2000, Rolling Stone Reviews). He says that this additional thing to a common fight in the movies is just some sort of nonsense that pushes it to the limit, to make it more interesting. Another movie critic Roger Ebert adds: "I am not sure exactly what reasons people will have for seeing this movie; surely enjoyment won't be one, because what we get here aren't the delicious chills of a Vincent Price thriller, but raw and painful experience" (December 26, 1973, Chicago Sun Times). Now it seems that horror claptrap is actually the thing that actually attracts horror movie fans, because it is so wrong that people even start to be amazed by that and maybe people just like to be amazed. In addition magazine writer Peter Stack gave this fact: "Director William Friedkin retooled his chilling 1974 hit, whose signature green projectile vomit from a bedeviled girl (Linda Blair) helped it earn $165 million at the box office, making it one of the biggest grossers of the 1970s." (Friday, September 22, San Francisco Chronicle). It just proves that for a great horror movies you don't need fancy effects or lots of money, but only some smart ideas. The plot wasn't about very intelligently settled events that would make your mind explode just because of trying to understand it, in fact it is very simple and easy to read. It really seemed that this movies is extremely bald and straight forward about everything what it shows.
All in all this movie is another classic that everybody knows about, but probably not everybody have seen the whole movie. It is definitely worth to watch it, because it is definitely entertaining with its simple horror style. You can not not to compare this movie with those like Polanski's or Wes Craven's works, because it is so full of this 70's rawness.
Figure2
All in all this movie is another classic that everybody knows about, but probably not everybody have seen the whole movie. It is definitely worth to watch it, because it is definitely entertaining with its simple horror style. You can not not to compare this movie with those like Polanski's or Wes Craven's works, because it is so full of this 70's rawness.
Bibliography:
1) Peter Travers, September 22, 2000, Rolling Stone reviews:
http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/reviews/the-exorcist-20000922
2)Roger Ebert, December 26, 1973, Chicago Sun Times:
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19731226/REVIEWS/301010310/1023
3)Peter Stack, Friday, September 22, San Francisco Chronicle:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2000/09/22/DD25486.DTL
Illustrations:
Figure1: Cheap, but very well working effects with the obsessed girl:
http://vegancinegrub.blogspot.com/2011/10/last-night-when-i-said-what-movie-and.html
Figure2: Exorcism
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/vaticancityandholysee/7416458/Chief-exorcist-says-Devil-is-in-Vatican.html
No comments:
Post a Comment