I'm a huge Cinophil. I spent nearly a decade, exploring the clearest films that inspired George Lucas and other creatives of "Starwells War" for the Cinema Cinema Behind "Cinema Behind" at Starwars.com. I feel like I can talk to the best of them. However, sometimes I think I have the most bizarre holes in watching the film - like when I realized that I had never seen the "exorcist".

Honestly, I couldn't give you any good reason why I didn't see it - except that there are so many movies there that it is literally impossible to watch them all, even if, like me, you are trying to watch at least one new movie a day. (Ask the wife or children, however, and they will tell you that I have seen everything.) After seeing - and the desired - "French relationship" Decades ago, William Friedkin has long been on my list of directors to take him seriously. However, his 1973 classic just missed.

Until now.

To this point, I only knew the film about his moments on the roll (Linda Blair's head was turning around, Max von Sidow was shouting for the power of Christ, etc.). Hence, I didn't expect it to open in the archaeological digging of the Middle East, with Sidow Merin's father looking for something. His faith maybe? Evidence of God? It is a tantalizing metaphor. After this, it disappears almost the whole movie, which was another surprise. I thought he was the kind of actor you tried to put it in every frame of your movie if you had it. (Then again, recently I rethinked the "Conan barbarian", and Sidow does, but one, brilliant look.)

Instead, the film really belongs to Jason Miller Caras' father and Chris of Ellen Burstin. Father Karas is a priest who also trained as a psychologist, but he slowly loses his faith as his mother dies. Chris, meanwhile, is an actor whose daughter Reagan (Blair) has harmed herself in frightening ways that the medical community cannot explain.

Spoilers For the "exorcist" forward.

The "exorcist" is a real slow burning, and the horror actually lies in the helplessness of these characters, not the demon owned by Reagan. Bursten screams on doctors who can't understand what's wrong with her daughter, but make sure she she thoughts Whether it is wrong, it is definitely not, is the oldest heart and frightening aspect of the film. How rational face has disappeared to the extent that they would be ready to leave reason and opt for exorcism? And how would their basic belief system be shaken when it works? It's really disturbing.

Add to that priest who thinks exorcisms are absurd, trained in psychiatry and admits he does not believe in greater power. Then, at once, he showed something practically undeniable. Can he still deny him? Is his faith renewed? Even he is not sure. These stories with twins, haunting such as, form the foundation that builds a burden on the effects of the effects. I think it wouldn't work without all that request for faith.

Remember, the end is a whirlwind, no doubt. I'm sure the conclusion is what made people continue to return more, turning the "exorcist" into a real phenomenon. (Still is the 38th film with the highest ranking of R. R. ever.) But for all her intensity and spectacle, what hit me the most for the end was its moral ambiguity and delicacy.

After Merin was killed by the presence of Reagan, Karas flies from the handle and begins to suffocate Reagan's body, demanding the spirit instead of taking it. His eyes go green as he owned, and he jumps through the window to his death. Another priest is there, trying to give him the last rituals. In Catholicism, death with suicide is a death and way to hell. But there are layers of complications, given the faith of Caras (?) And self -sacrifice for Reagan. Then there is the question of the evil spirit in it. Did Karas willingly put his life? Or did the spirit try to kill him as he killed other Reagan guardians?

Through the circumstances of Karas' death, the end really asks you, without a word that is being spoken, to wonder if this would be enough to get a reception in the sky in which he and Merin imposed themselves.

I ended up watching the "exorcist" twice so I can write this. I really had to chew it and I discovered it was scary - and, frankly, much better than I expected. Retained its lasting power for more than 50 years for a reason. It has deep layers of story and raises complicated questions about faith and existential humanity. And it's really a nasty film for demonic possession to raise, with some really great performances. Indeed, despite being a young teenager at the time, Blair is absolutely amazing and really sells the whole movie. In fact, I was shocked by some things that he did in the name of making the film.

If you visit this for the first time, do not expect a big, long Skyfest where two priests spend the whole movie trying to chase a demon, which is a silly expectation because I think they come back to it. Instead, you should expect something more mature than the type of horror films that lead and the effects we get these days. It will even make you think about your mortality (and maybe those of your children), as well as how quickly your reasonability can slip if a loved one has begun to act in ways to defy a rational, scientific explanation. You may start thinking about unortodox treatments.

How to call an exorcist.