The Exorcist 1973 Cast

Popular Posts

• The Exorcist was a cultural phenomenon upon its release in 1973. Based on William Peter Blatty\'s novel, William Friedkin\'s horror classic about a young girl possessed by a demonic force famously. Everyone from the cast and crew of this film claimed that they felt the darkness surrounding them and it was definitely difficult for them to deal with.

  . 26 December 1973 ( 1). 17 June 1977 ( 2). 17 August 1990 ( 3). 20 August 2004 ( 4). 26 May 2005 ( 5)CountryUnited StatesLanguageBudget$147 millionBox office$661 million(worldwide total, all five films)The Exorcist is an American consisting of five films based on the 1971 novel. The films have been distributed by and.The films have grossed over 661 million at the worldwide box office.

  Critics have given the films mixed reviews. In 2004, a prequel ( ) was released. This was the second version of the prequel film made at that time as the first version (directed by ) was deemed unsatisfactory by the studio upon completion, and the entire project was refilmed by director. However, Schrader\'s version received a limited release in 2005, after Harlin\'s, and was titled. On January 22, 2016, announced they were developing a continuation of The Exorcist. It premiered on September 23, 2016. Contents.Films Crew / detailFilmYearDirectorWilliam Peter BlattyProducerJohn BoormanRichard LedererCarter DeHavenJames G.

  The activation information mode model. RobinsonWriterWilliam GoodhartWilliam Peter BlattyAlexi Hawley(story)(story)William WisherCaleb CarrComposerTrevor RabinCinematography(Iraq sequence)EditorEvan LottmanNorman Gay(Iraq sequence)Todd RamsayPeter Lee ThompsonTodd E. MillerTim SilanoProduction CompanyHoya ProductionsDistributorWarner Bros.

  PicturesRelease dateDecember 26, 1973June 17, 1977August 17, 1990August 20, 2004May 20, 2005Runtime121 minutes117 minutes110 minutes114 minutes116 minutesThe Exorcist (1973). Main article:Based on the 1971 novel by, The Exorcist marries three scenarios into one plot.The film opens with Father Merrin on an archaeological dig in, near, in. He is alerted that a small carving is found in the dig, resembling a grimacing, bestial creature. After talking to one of his supervisors, he travels to a statue of; the small carving resembles the head of the statue. He sees ominous figures and two dogs fight viciously nearby, setting the tone for the rest of the film.Exorcist II: The Heretic (1977). Main article:Father Philip Lamont , who is struggling with his faith, is assigned by the to investigate the death of Father Lankester Merrin. Merrin was killed in the first film during the exorcism of.

  The Cardinal informs Lamont (who has had some experience at exorcism, and has been exposed to Merrin\'s teachings) that Merrin is being investigated posthumously for heresy. Despite approval for the MacNeil exorcism by a bishop, the Church is no longer convinced that MacNeil was truly possessed, and the controversial nature of Merrin\'s books on the subject are being reconsidered as politically and theologically suspect.The Exorcist III (1990).

  Main article:and directed by Blatty from his 1983 novel, the film stars and several cast members (, and ) from Blatty\'s previous film. The story takes place 17 years after the events of and centers on the philosophical police detective William F.

  Kinderman from the first film. He investigates a series of brutal murders in that resemble the of a serial killer executed about the time of the MacNeil exorcism.Originally titled Legion, the film was drastically changed after rewrites and re-shoots ordered by the studio. Studio executives demanded the addition of an exorcism sequence and retitled the film as The Exorcist III in order to more strongly tie the film to the rest of the franchise.

  

  All of the deleted footage is apparently lost. Exorcist: The Beginning (2004). Laura Prudom. Retrieved February 2, 2016. Fangoria #122 (May 1993).

  ^. The Ninth Configuration.com. July 10, 2016. Jonathan Barkan (July 6, 2016). Retrieved March 28, 2020.

  Archived from on 2012-07-07. Retrieved 2009-09-05.

  CS1 maint: archived copy as title. Archived from on 2009-04-27. Retrieved 2009-09-05. (Press release).

  Group Newsroom. August 13, 1998.

  McCabe, Bob (1999), The Exorcist: Out of the Shadows,. (16 January 2009). Rob Van Winkle (3 November 2008). Archived from on 2011-07-08. Retrieved 2009-09-05. Travers, Peter; Rieff, Stephanie (1974), The Story Behind \'The Exorcist\', Signet Books, p. 149,., pp. 152-154.

  January 1, 1973. Archived from on 5 January 2009. Retrieved 2007-11-03. \'Castle of Frankenstein Review of The Exorcist\'. 6 (22): 32–33. Cite journal requires journal=., pp. 150-152., pp. 154-158., pp. 158-162. Rotten Tomatoes.

  Retrieved 2007-11-03. Steven H. Scheuer, Movies on TV (Bantam Books, 1977), p.224. Leslie Halliwell, Halliwell\'s Film Guide: Fifth Edition (HarperCollins, 1995), p.370. Leonard Maltin, Leonard Maltin\'s 2009 Movie Guide (Plume, 2008) p.427.

  Danny Peary, Guide for the Film Fanatic (Simon & Schuster, 1986) p.143. Scorsese, Martin. \'Martin Scorsese´s Guilty Pleasures\', September/October 1978. ^, p. 165., p. 164. (August 18, 1990).

  The New York Times. Archived from on June 30, 2012. Archived from on September 24, 2015. Kevin Thomas (August 20, 1990). Retrieved May 25, 2010. From the original on 2010-01-17.

  Box Office Mojo. Box Office Mojo. Box Office Mojo. Box Office Mojo. Box Office Mojo. The New York Times.

  Retrieved 2008-12-29. Retrieved September 17, 2012.External links.

  The year 1973 began and ended with cries of pain. It began with ’s “,” and it closed with ’s “The Exorcist.” Both films are about the weather of the human soul, and no two films could be more different. Yet each in its own way forces us to look inside, to experience horror, to confront the reality of human suffering. The Bergman film is a humanist classic. The Friedkin film is an exploitation of the most fearsome resources of the cinema. That does not make it evil, but it does not make it noble, either. The difference, maybe, is between great art and great craftsmanship.

  Bergman’s exploration of the lines of love and conflict within the family of a woman dying of cancer was a film that asked important questions about faith and death, and was not afraid to admit there might not be any answers. Friedkin’s film is about a twelve-year-old girl who either is suffering from a severe neurological disorder or perhaps has been possessed by an evil spirit. Friedkin has the answers; the problem is that we doubt he believes them.We don’t necessarily believe them ourselves, but that hardly matters during the film’s two hours. If movies are, among other things, opportunities for escapism, then “The Exorcist” is one of the most powerful ever made. Our objections, our questions, occur in an intellectual context after the movie has ended. During the movie there are no reservations, but only experiences. We feel shock, horror, nausea, fear, and some small measure of dogged hope.Rarely do movies affect us so deeply. Watch star plus serials free.

  The first time I saw “Cries and Whispers,” I found myself shrinking down in my seat, somehow trying to escape from the implications of Bergman’s story. “The Exorcist” also has that effect-but we’re not escaping from Friedkin’s implications, we’re shrinking back from the direct emotional experience he’s attacking us with. This movie doesn’t rest on the screen; it’s a frontal assault.The story is well-known; it’s adapted, more or less faithfully, by from his own bestseller. Many of the technical and theological details in his book are accurate. Most accurate of all is the reluctance of his Jesuit hero, Father Karras, to encourage the ritual of exorcism: “To do that,” he says, “I’d have to send the girl back to the sixteenth century.” Modern medicine has replaced devils with paranoia and schizophrenia, he explains.

  Medicine may have, but the movie hasn’t. The last chapter of the novel never totally explained in detail the final events in the tortured girl’s bedroom, but the movie’s special effects in the closing scenes leave little doubt that an actual evil spirit was in that room, and that it transferred bodies. Is this fair? I guess so; in fiction the artist has poetic license. It may be that the times we live in have prepared us for this movie.

  And Friedkin has admittedly given us a good one. I’ve always preferred a generic approach to film criticism; I ask myself how good a movie is of its type. “The Exorcist” is one of the best movies of its type ever made; it not only transcends the genre of terror, horror, and the supernatural, but it transcends such serious, ambitious efforts in the same direction as ’s “.” Carl Dreyer’s “” is a greater film-but, of course, not nearly so willing to exploit the ways film can manipulate feeling.“The Exorcist” does that with a vengeance. The film is a triumph of special effects.

  Never for a moment-not when the little girl is possessed by the most disgusting of spirits, not when the bed is banging and the furniture flying and the vomit is welling out-are we less than convinced. The film contains brutal shocks, almost indescribable obscenities.

  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 thriller, but raw and painful experience. Are people so numb they need movies of this intensity in order to feel anything at all? It’s hard to say.Even in the extremes of Friedkin’s vision there is still a feeling that this is, after all, cinematic escapism and not a confrontation with real life.

  There is a fine line to be drawn there, and “The Exorcist” finds it and stays a millimeter on this side.

  ...'>The Exorcist 1973 Cast(29.04.2020)

• The Exorcist was a cultural phenomenon upon its release in 1973. Based on William Peter Blatty\'s novel, William Friedkin\'s horror classic about a young girl possessed by a demonic force famously. Everyone from the cast and crew of this film claimed that they felt the darkness surrounding them and it was definitely difficult for them to deal with.

  . 26 December 1973 ( 1). 17 June 1977 ( 2). 17 August 1990 ( 3). 20 August 2004 ( 4). 26 May 2005 ( 5)CountryUnited StatesLanguageBudget$147 millionBox office$661 million(worldwide total, all five films)The Exorcist is an American consisting of five films based on the 1971 novel. The films have been distributed by and.The films have grossed over 661 million at the worldwide box office.

  Critics have given the films mixed reviews. In 2004, a prequel ( ) was released. This was the second version of the prequel film made at that time as the first version (directed by ) was deemed unsatisfactory by the studio upon completion, and the entire project was refilmed by director. However, Schrader\'s version received a limited release in 2005, after Harlin\'s, and was titled. On January 22, 2016, announced they were developing a continuation of The Exorcist. It premiered on September 23, 2016. Contents.Films Crew / detailFilmYearDirectorWilliam Peter BlattyProducerJohn BoormanRichard LedererCarter DeHavenJames G.

  The activation information mode model. RobinsonWriterWilliam GoodhartWilliam Peter BlattyAlexi Hawley(story)(story)William WisherCaleb CarrComposerTrevor RabinCinematography(Iraq sequence)EditorEvan LottmanNorman Gay(Iraq sequence)Todd RamsayPeter Lee ThompsonTodd E. MillerTim SilanoProduction CompanyHoya ProductionsDistributorWarner Bros.

  PicturesRelease dateDecember 26, 1973June 17, 1977August 17, 1990August 20, 2004May 20, 2005Runtime121 minutes117 minutes110 minutes114 minutes116 minutesThe Exorcist (1973). Main article:Based on the 1971 novel by, The Exorcist marries three scenarios into one plot.The film opens with Father Merrin on an archaeological dig in, near, in. He is alerted that a small carving is found in the dig, resembling a grimacing, bestial creature. After talking to one of his supervisors, he travels to a statue of; the small carving resembles the head of the statue. He sees ominous figures and two dogs fight viciously nearby, setting the tone for the rest of the film.Exorcist II: The Heretic (1977). Main article:Father Philip Lamont , who is struggling with his faith, is assigned by the to investigate the death of Father Lankester Merrin. Merrin was killed in the first film during the exorcism of.

  The Cardinal informs Lamont (who has had some experience at exorcism, and has been exposed to Merrin\'s teachings) that Merrin is being investigated posthumously for heresy. Despite approval for the MacNeil exorcism by a bishop, the Church is no longer convinced that MacNeil was truly possessed, and the controversial nature of Merrin\'s books on the subject are being reconsidered as politically and theologically suspect.The Exorcist III (1990).

  Main article:and directed by Blatty from his 1983 novel, the film stars and several cast members (, and ) from Blatty\'s previous film. The story takes place 17 years after the events of and centers on the philosophical police detective William F.

  Kinderman from the first film. He investigates a series of brutal murders in that resemble the of a serial killer executed about the time of the MacNeil exorcism.Originally titled Legion, the film was drastically changed after rewrites and re-shoots ordered by the studio. Studio executives demanded the addition of an exorcism sequence and retitled the film as The Exorcist III in order to more strongly tie the film to the rest of the franchise.

  

  All of the deleted footage is apparently lost. Exorcist: The Beginning (2004). Laura Prudom. Retrieved February 2, 2016. Fangoria #122 (May 1993).

  ^. The Ninth Configuration.com. July 10, 2016. Jonathan Barkan (July 6, 2016). Retrieved March 28, 2020.

  Archived from on 2012-07-07. Retrieved 2009-09-05.

  CS1 maint: archived copy as title. Archived from on 2009-04-27. Retrieved 2009-09-05. (Press release).

  Group Newsroom. August 13, 1998.

  McCabe, Bob (1999), The Exorcist: Out of the Shadows,. (16 January 2009). Rob Van Winkle (3 November 2008). Archived from on 2011-07-08. Retrieved 2009-09-05. Travers, Peter; Rieff, Stephanie (1974), The Story Behind \'The Exorcist\', Signet Books, p. 149,., pp. 152-154.

  January 1, 1973. Archived from on 5 January 2009. Retrieved 2007-11-03. \'Castle of Frankenstein Review of The Exorcist\'. 6 (22): 32–33. Cite journal requires journal=., pp. 150-152., pp. 154-158., pp. 158-162. Rotten Tomatoes.

  Retrieved 2007-11-03. Steven H. Scheuer, Movies on TV (Bantam Books, 1977), p.224. Leslie Halliwell, Halliwell\'s Film Guide: Fifth Edition (HarperCollins, 1995), p.370. Leonard Maltin, Leonard Maltin\'s 2009 Movie Guide (Plume, 2008) p.427.

  Danny Peary, Guide for the Film Fanatic (Simon & Schuster, 1986) p.143. Scorsese, Martin. \'Martin Scorsese´s Guilty Pleasures\', September/October 1978. ^, p. 165., p. 164. (August 18, 1990).

  The New York Times. Archived from on June 30, 2012. Archived from on September 24, 2015. Kevin Thomas (August 20, 1990). Retrieved May 25, 2010. From the original on 2010-01-17.

  Box Office Mojo. Box Office Mojo. Box Office Mojo. Box Office Mojo. Box Office Mojo. The New York Times.

  Retrieved 2008-12-29. Retrieved September 17, 2012.External links.

  The year 1973 began and ended with cries of pain. It began with ’s “,” and it closed with ’s “The Exorcist.” Both films are about the weather of the human soul, and no two films could be more different. Yet each in its own way forces us to look inside, to experience horror, to confront the reality of human suffering. The Bergman film is a humanist classic. The Friedkin film is an exploitation of the most fearsome resources of the cinema. That does not make it evil, but it does not make it noble, either. The difference, maybe, is between great art and great craftsmanship.

  Bergman’s exploration of the lines of love and conflict within the family of a woman dying of cancer was a film that asked important questions about faith and death, and was not afraid to admit there might not be any answers. Friedkin’s film is about a twelve-year-old girl who either is suffering from a severe neurological disorder or perhaps has been possessed by an evil spirit. Friedkin has the answers; the problem is that we doubt he believes them.We don’t necessarily believe them ourselves, but that hardly matters during the film’s two hours. If movies are, among other things, opportunities for escapism, then “The Exorcist” is one of the most powerful ever made. Our objections, our questions, occur in an intellectual context after the movie has ended. During the movie there are no reservations, but only experiences. We feel shock, horror, nausea, fear, and some small measure of dogged hope.Rarely do movies affect us so deeply. Watch star plus serials free.

  The first time I saw “Cries and Whispers,” I found myself shrinking down in my seat, somehow trying to escape from the implications of Bergman’s story. “The Exorcist” also has that effect-but we’re not escaping from Friedkin’s implications, we’re shrinking back from the direct emotional experience he’s attacking us with. This movie doesn’t rest on the screen; it’s a frontal assault.The story is well-known; it’s adapted, more or less faithfully, by from his own bestseller. Many of the technical and theological details in his book are accurate. Most accurate of all is the reluctance of his Jesuit hero, Father Karras, to encourage the ritual of exorcism: “To do that,” he says, “I’d have to send the girl back to the sixteenth century.” Modern medicine has replaced devils with paranoia and schizophrenia, he explains.

  Medicine may have, but the movie hasn’t. The last chapter of the novel never totally explained in detail the final events in the tortured girl’s bedroom, but the movie’s special effects in the closing scenes leave little doubt that an actual evil spirit was in that room, and that it transferred bodies. Is this fair? I guess so; in fiction the artist has poetic license. It may be that the times we live in have prepared us for this movie.

  And Friedkin has admittedly given us a good one. I’ve always preferred a generic approach to film criticism; I ask myself how good a movie is of its type. “The Exorcist” is one of the best movies of its type ever made; it not only transcends the genre of terror, horror, and the supernatural, but it transcends such serious, ambitious efforts in the same direction as ’s “.” Carl Dreyer’s “” is a greater film-but, of course, not nearly so willing to exploit the ways film can manipulate feeling.“The Exorcist” does that with a vengeance. The film is a triumph of special effects.

  Never for a moment-not when the little girl is possessed by the most disgusting of spirits, not when the bed is banging and the furniture flying and the vomit is welling out-are we less than convinced. The film contains brutal shocks, almost indescribable obscenities.

  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 thriller, but raw and painful experience. Are people so numb they need movies of this intensity in order to feel anything at all? It’s hard to say.Even in the extremes of Friedkin’s vision there is still a feeling that this is, after all, cinematic escapism and not a confrontation with real life.

  There is a fine line to be drawn there, and “The Exorcist” finds it and stays a millimeter on this side.

  ...'>The Exorcist 1973 Cast(29.04.2020)