The Exorcist On Channel 5 Now

You're a lot braver than I'll ever be. If I ever had to watch the Exorcist, I would have to be 100% sure that it's the version where none of the "faces" are shown. I can cope with the spider walk, but absolutely NOT the "faces".
 
I'm really glad i watched that again! It's so much better than what i remembered, and the little nuances that weren't in the C4 version added to it for the better. Why they decided to take the faces out is beyond me, really creepy. I didn't find it particularly scary, but the atmosphere, story and the acting were top notch.

I'm assuming that the version Five just showed was the Theatrical version?
 
I'm one of those who can't bear 'the face'. but when you all say 'the faces', are they those subliminal face shots that flashed against the wall to announce the demons presence in that icy room? I understood those subliminal ones were not in the theatrical release, but Friedkin put them back in in the re released version. I never did see that one. I haven't seen this film in years. I do not like 'that face' lol. (and didn't even click on that Washington DC link above for fear someone was playing a joke on us )
 
This is all nonsense, sorry...

The "subliminal" demon flash is seen when Dimmy's mum walks down into the subway in the dream sequence. It was never cut in the original release, or the subsequent Warner Home Video release in the early 80's (before the UK govt got hold of it and banned it)

Some places insistes on trimming those frames out but it was never a wholesale decision. Anyway, it's not subliminal, because you can see them... its a clear four frames... subliminal is one or two frames.

The "version you've never seen", which is one seen usually now, is the one with an EXTRA "subliminal image, longer scenes, the spiderwalk and the new ending.
 
I've never seen this longer version before , did they add CG effects in some shots ?
I'm thinking of the scene where she grabs the hypnotherapist by the nuts , it looked like they'd overlaid some CG on Regan's face .

I've never understood why Kinderman is in the picture , you could cut his entire role and it wouldn't make any difference .
 
Great movie, I still think it's the scariest film ever made. It's a shame that those who don't find it a frightening experience dismiss it as just another standard horror movie. It's a fantasic character piece, featuring an exceptional investigation of faith and religion, and good and evil. The acting is so strong, and Friedlin's realistic direction gives even the most fantastical a level of authenticity rarely, if ever, matched by any other horror film. The recently listed it twice in my top 10 scariest horror movie moments.
 
Didn't watch it this time.

I remember it being thoroughly entertaining when I was 12. When I watched it recently I just thought it was dull.
 
I don't thnk it really works too well on tv , there's something so immersive about watching it in the cinema , on tv you're constantly being yanked back into the mundane world of tv adverts every 20 minutes ,
 
Yes the CG was new...

I don't think any of the "demon cg" was neccessary, as the whole point of the horror was seeing a little 10 year old girl get more and more evil and twisted.
 
Back
Top