Tag Archives: Halloween Horror Nights

ABIGAIL horror movie review

Posted on by
Reply

Fangtastic! Universal Pictures’ Abigail is a wildly entertaining, classically-inspired horror movie that you can really sink your teeth into. It delivers old school vampire movie elements with a contemporary sensibility. Ostensibly, it’s the metaphoric child of Dracula (1931) and The Horror of Dracula (1958). From beginning to end, the terror and laughter continually draw you into the story. Tonally, it strikes a great chord. The narrative never takes itself too seriously; however, it never devolves into parody either. It’s an effective blend of the atmosphere and music of an old school Universal monster picture and the increased gore of Hammer studios. Underscoring the blood-curdling outside/action story is an internal story with a redemptive message and even a little heart.

A group of would-be criminals kidnaps the 12-year-old daughter of a powerful underworld figure. Holding her for ransom in an isolated mansion, their plan starts to unravel when they discover their young captive is actually a bloodthirsty vampire.

From the moment the film opens, I was hooked! It opens with a solitary ballerina gracefully dancing on the stage in an empty auditorium; but what makes this scene particularly alluring is the original Dracula score (selections from Tchaikovsky’s Swan Lake) underscoring the entire opening sequence. It’s a deceptively simple scene that draws us into the beauty of the dance and music. Not only does the iconic music play at the beginning, but variations of it serve as a significant part of the movie’s score. This scene could be made greyscale, and edited to look like it was shot on 1930s 35mm film stock, and I’d almost buy that it was shot nearly 100 years ago.

While the movie may start out in the city, it doesn’t take long to venture into the countryside where a foreboding Tudor style estate serves as the main location for the events of the film. Again, Abigail is channeling Universal’s roots in classic horror by placing our relatively small cast in an isolated expansive estate that could’ve very well been used in a Carl Laemmle/James Whale motion picture. All that was missing was the eerie setting being draped in a dense fog rolling off the moors. As the characters wander through the imposing countryside mansion, the movie effectively established the rules by which the film will live by as it delivers its screamtastic narrative.

Without getting into plot specifics, I can tell you that it’s a simple plot with complex characters–so the best kind of cinematic story! Each and every character is sufficient developed, and quickly. The movie wastes no time at any point. It’s a lean, mean script that snaps, crackles, and pops. Not only is the world build, complete with rules, but the logic of the movie follows the rules and boundaries that it setup for itself during the first act. And while the movie does adhere to many classic vampire tropes, it also subverts some expectations. But not too many. There is one, in particular, to which I feel that it should’ve adhered but identified a way around it for dramatic purposes. But otherwise, I like that it pretty much stuck to the vampire playbook that has been used since Bram Stoker penned the seminal novel.

While there is a lot of blood, I wouldn’t say that it is a particularly violent picture. When the violence and gore hit–they hit–but it’s not gratuitous to the point of exhaustion from the visceral gore and projectile blood. I’d say it’s along the lines of Ready or Not levels of violence/gore. It’s never delivered in a manner that feels disturbing or disgusting; like with the tone, there is a consistent tongue-in-cheeky quality in the fighting or kill scenes. There are some fantastic skills and scenes that I hope make their way into the HHN (Halloween Horror Nights) house that this movie is destined to become this year or next.

the comedy is effectively delivered scene after scene. There is a great combination of humorous dialogue and visually-driven humor. Lots of hilarious image juxtapositions and an over-the-top quality to much of what is experienced. The movie is full of exaggerations, twists, and reversals. Whether the punchline is delivered in an argument or a sight gag, it’s done incredibly well by writers and directors that care. There is one scene that I particularly enjoyed, and it’s the vampire dancing with a headless corpse to the Dracula score. It’s just so ridiculous that you will undoubtedly laugh!

Despite the wildly entertaining qualities of this movie, it is not without some heart. One of the characters learns that constantly feeling like the victim of their circumstances is not constructive, and sometimes the best thing to do is move forward, freeing oneself from the prison of victimization. It was a nice touch that didn’t feel forced, but rather earned by the character.

You don’t want to miss seeing Abigail on the big screen, because the experience will not be the same at home. If you’re a fan of both Universal and Hammer horror, then you’ll want to make sure to watch Abigail in cinemas.

Ryan teaches Film Studies and Screenwriting at the University of Tampa and is a member of the Critics Association of Central Florida and Indie Film Critics of America. If you like this article, check out the others and FOLLOW this blog! Interested in Ryan making a guest appearance on your podcast or contributing to your website? Send him a DM on Twitter. If you’re ever in Tampa or Orlando, feel free to catch a movie with him.

Follow him on Twitter: RLTerry1 and LetterBoxd: RLTerry

FIVE NIGHTS AT FREDDY’S horror movie review

Posted on by
Reply

Fun-filled and creepy! Blumhouse’s Five Nights at Freddy’s is surprisingly good! From the unnerving atmosphere to the practical effects, it’s entertaining and even thoughtful with its exploration of childhood trauma. However, for everything I liked about the movie, I do feel that it should have leaned a little more heavily into Gremlins or Chopping Mall territory because it is a little too serious at times. All in all, the movie is smartly written, with just the right amount of suspension of disbelief. There are even influences of Nightmare on Elm Street and Freddy Krueger’s MO in this movie. If you’re looking for a entertaining time to spend at the cinema on this weekend before Halloween, then you can’t go wrong with Five Nights. After watching the movie, I will now be anticipating Universal Orlando & Hollywood to feature this house at next year’s Halloween Horror Nights.

A troubled security guard begins working at Freddy Fazbear’s Pizzeria. While spending his first night on the job, he realizes the late shift at Freddy’s won’t be so easy to make it through.

I had no idea what to expect since I knew very little about the game. In fact, when I first heard of the game many years ago, I thought it was about the Freddy–Freddy Krueger. Nope. The game is about surviving an abandoned not Chuck-E-Cheese. It’s been probably twenty or more years since I’ve been to a Chuck-E-Cheese–come to think of it–I think the last time I went was when it was known as Showbiz Pizza. When I think of environments and settings that would be naturally creepy whether abandoned or not, Chuck-E-Cheese is one of them. I would imagine that on any given Tuesday night, a Chuck-E-Cheese is unnerving, let alone if it was haunted.

Since I’ve never played the game, I will not be commenting on the translation from interactive media to cinema, but from what I have learned, there is a lot of lore in the game, so I hope that lore is what was brought into the movie version.

Five Nights at Freddy’s benefits from a small cast and few locations. Furthermore, what the movie lacks in the screenwriting department, it makes up for in Emma Tammi’s directing. That’s not to suggest that it is poorly written–quite the contrary–I like how well it was written, given that it’s adapted from a video game and written for (primarily) teens that played the game as kids. Reminds me of a more mature version of Are You Afraid of the Dark? or Goosebumps. As much fun as I had with the movie, I feel that it could’ve used a little more camp in the storytelling–the movie would have benefitted from channeling Gremlins or Chopping Mall to bump up the dark humor and playfulness. The plot is simple and our central character is complex–the recipe for solid cinematic storytelling!

Our central character of Mike (Josh Hutcherson) is relatable, and his behavior feels natural considering the trauma of his younger brother being kidnapped when they were kids. The devastation of the loss of his brother, and later mother and father, has gravely impacted his ability to manage his own life and younger sister (and this is where the movie should’ve made her his daughter because a 20+ year age difference is a little hard to buy). Facing the loss of custody of his little sister to his overbearing, condescending aunt (played by Fried Green Tomatoes‘ Mary Stuart-Masterson), he must survive nights as a security guard at Freddy’s to prove he can care for his little sister. Within the first few minutes of the movie, we have our central character, their external goal, and opposition to the goal. I love when I witness established screenwriting conventions followed–because they work!

While the movie depicts very little on-screen violence and little to no gore, it successfully transfers that fear from the screen into the mind of the audience. That which is suggested in image association or shadow is more terrifying than witnessing it plainly on screen. By keeping most of the violence, death, and gore off-screen, and the adult language to a minimum, this movie works as a gateway horror for older kids and teens that are considering diving into the genre.

The setting is fantastic! I don’t know whether this was an abandoned Showbiz Pizza or Chuck-E-Cheese in real life or not–hope it was–but the setting is ominous and creepy! And because it’s representative of places in real life, it’s easy to imagine ourselves in the same environment. Perhaps it’s not as unnerving as being stalked in your own home like in Halloween or When a Stranger Calls, but there is definitely something naturally scary about being trapped with kids’ toys and animatronic characters at night in a setting haunted by ghosts of its glory days.

I also appreciate the practical effects, puppetry, and character performer costuming in the movie. While I imagine that it’s a combination of CGI and practical, I kept studying the animatronic characters to determine whether it was character performers in costume or of it was exceptionally good CGI–so much so I feel that I could reach out and touch the fur. Had the CGI been overt, then the scares would’ve been far less terrifying as CGI rarely packs the same punch as actors reacting to real props, costuming, and effects.

You’ll not be disappointed if you chose to watch Five Nights at Freddy’s this weekend. Go in with an open mind, and just enjoy a fun horror movie! Don’t overthink it, just be entertained by it!

Ryan teaches Film Studies and Screenwriting at the University of Tampa and is a member of the Critics Association of Central Florida and Indie Film Critics of America. If you like this article, check out the others and FOLLOW this blog! Interested in Ryan making a guest appearance on your podcast or contributing to your website? Send him a DM on Twitter. If you’re ever in Tampa or Orlando, feel free to catch a movie with him.

Follow him on Twitter: RLTerry1 and LetterBoxd: RLTerry

THE EXORCIST: BELIEVER horror movie review

Posted on by
Reply

The Exorcist: Caricature. Believer? How’s about unBelievably bonkers. The soulless derivative sequel to the original Friedkin masterpiece manages to be everything and nothing simultaneously. It’s a bastardization of the source material that demonstrates a gross lack of understanding on so many narrative and theological levels. Honestly, this movie could easily be Scary Movie 6.66 because of how unintentionally laughable it is. The characters are flat, the plot is all over the place, the tone is criminally uneven, and it’s disrespectful of the thoughtfulness of the original at every chance it gets. Representation matters. If David Gordon Green did not have plans to respectfully (albeit creatively) represent spiritual warfare and demonic possession, then he should’ve chosen another property to destroy.

When his daughter, Angela, and her friend Katherine, show signs of demonic possession, it unleashes a chain of events that forces single father Victor Fielding to confront the nadir of evil. Terrified and desperate, he seeks out Chris MacNeil, the only person alive who’s witnessed anything like it before.

I saw a comment on Twitter today calling for a petition to keep Green away form the horror genre, and I concur. Other than his surprisingly good Halloween H40, he has proven to be inept when helming a legacy horror project. William Friedkin’s The Exorcist remains the definitive possession film. While Friedkin was critical of the new religious right in the 1970s, he was still respectful of the rite of exorcism; he crafted a cinematic story about loss of innocence, crisis of faith, overcoming fear, the limitations of science, and the obstacles of religious bureaucracy. But at the end of the day, the film was grounded in Christianity wherein we find the rite of exorcism. Similar practices may be observed in other cultures and religions, but if you’re going to depict the rite of exorcism specifically, then the story needs to be respectful of and grounded in Christianity–not become a mockery of.

Ellen Burstyn is completely wasted in this film, and her character is in no way connected to the Chris MacNeil in the original. Last we say her, she underwent a journey of faith, going from someone mostly agnostic to someone that believed in the existence and power of God after the events of the original Exorcist. Now, she has no belief system and is rather laissez fair about faith, exorcism, and the like. She is a character without any conviction, therefore she has no drive and lacks spiritual grounding in any real sense of truth. If what you believe doesn’t matter, then there is no urgency to believe or batter personal demons in order to battle the real demon in the possessed girls. Furthermore, if it really doesn’t matter what one believes than it devalues all belief systems. Just because you don’t believe doesn’t mean it’s any less true. Besides the hodgepodge of MacNeil’s worldview, her character is greatly lacking in any dimension that would even help to hint at some modicum of compelling character.

When a movie tries to be everything to everyone, then it becomes about nothing and is for no one.

The cardboard character profile isn’t limited to Chris MacNeil, all the characters in this movie are lacking in anything that would make them compelling for the audience. I cared not whether any of the characters lived or died. Personally, I would have preferred the demon win and kill all the useless, lifeless characters. Although, that would only interest the nameless demon if the characters (or this film) had a soul. As it stands, the film and characters therein are soulless. Speaking of the demon being nameless, this is in direct conflict with the rite of exorcism. Whether one chooses to believe the demon possession (is incredibly rare but) real, the demon always has to be named, because having the demon’s name gives the exorcist power over the demon. The least Green could have done is give the demon a name. We are led to believe that it may be Pazuzu, because it recognizes MacNeil, but the name is never uttered by any character.

I found the movie unintentionally funny. With a few tweaks, it could have easily been Scary Movie 6.66. The plot and characters are just so unrealistic and ridiculous that the story and experience plays out at comedic proportions. Moments that were supposed to be scary were funny, moments that were supposed to be empowering were ludicrous, and the showdown was something straight out of Avengers: End Game. The Exorcist: Believer is Avengers meets The Rite meets a SyFy Channel original movie. The only meaningful connection this movie has to the original is the name, Ellen Burstyn, and a brief vomit-inducing cameo by Linda Blair. I’ve seen many other possession films that were way more interesting, entertaining, and thoughtful than this one.

Do yourself a favor, and if choose to watch this travesty, you should rewatch the original to cleanse your cinematic spirit of the demon that this movie will force upon you. While I suspected Halloween Horror Nights at Universal Orlando featured the The Exorcist: Believer house as a means to get people interested in the movie, clearly it was a move to compensate for how bad this movie really is. If it wasn’t for the house, I imagine far fewer people would want to see this abysmal use of a legacy intellectual property.

Ryan teaches Film Studies and Screenwriting at the University of Tampa and is a member of the Critics Association of Central Florida and Indie Film Critics of America. If you like this article, check out the others and FOLLOW this blog! Interested in Ryan making a guest appearance on your podcast or contributing to your website? Send him a DM on Twitter. If you’re ever in Tampa or Orlando, feel free to catch a movie with him.

Follow him on Twitter: RLTerry1 and LetterBoxd: RLTerry

“Black Christmas” (2019) Horror Movie Review

Posted on by
Reply

The gift of the season too horrible for even Scrooge, pre-visits from the Christmas spirits. It’s pretty much a horror movie that Krampus gives away because it is so horrifyingly bad. Last year, I watched for the first time and reviewed the Bob Clarks’ cult classic Black Christmas (1974), and found it to be an outstanding horror film. Then I watched the 2006 remake and thought that no remake could be as bad as that one. I. Was. Wrong. Enter: Black Christmas (2019). This movie is a prime example of bludgeoning the audience with a message/agenda 2×4 with a complete disregard of proper storytelling. Gone is the terrifying atmosphere of the original or schlockyness of the remake. All that we have here is a post-modern sexist message of hate full of one-dimensional characters. To say that there is a plot–even a bad one–is a vast overstatement. This movie is neither entertaining nor empowering. If you watch it, you will ask yourself what Jason Blum and Universal Pictures thinking. I suppose they are thinking of a potential house at Halloween Horror Nights 30 next year. And on that note, I agree that this movie will translate to a fun HHN30 house. But that’s pretty much it.

There is ZERO subtext, no nuance, no likable characters, and when it takes a supernatural turn, you will sit back with your eyes rolling around. And let’s address the PG-13 rating. Had this been rated R, then the kills would have at least been a little better, as they are, they lack anything memorable. A horror film, like this one, rated PG-13 simply works against it from the onset, not to mention the travesty the (if you can call it this) story is. This movie does the title Black Christmas harm. If for no other reason, perhaps the good thing to come out of this one is that horror fans will seek out the original! This movie’s heavy-handed cash grab and irreverent treatment of the #MeToo movement is offensive in and of itself. How can anyone take the movement seriously when movies like this perpetuate an obnoxious caricature of it??? Speaking of perpetuating negative development, this movie also preaches a sermon of post-modern sexism in which women can say anything about and do anything to a man simply because he is a man. However, if a movie like this were made that gender swapped the characters, then it would be protested to the highest degree.

I’m not here to negatively critique this movie because I dislike the agenda-driven message, but I am here to provide a review of a poorly written and directed movie. Being a cis gay male, I often identify with female characters, but I couldn’t connect to any one of these women. As far as acting, it’s par for the course for a bad horror movie. To call this movie a slasher, is disrespectful to the genre. It is not a slasher. Had this movie stuck to the original plot, but brought it into the 21st century, then I think it could have actually been pretty good. Such a great opportunity to play around with an iconic property. In terms of the representation of women, horror has always been on the forefront, a pioneer in writing strong female characters that are brave, smart, vulnerable, and cunning all at the same time. So I am not sure why this movie felt the need to preach strong female characters. Hello! The term “final girl” is derived from horror films. Where this film could have been clever is to subvert our expectations and have a “final boy” and female villain instead, if it truly wanted to flip this property on its head. The female empowerment message could have easily come from that setup. A female slasher killing off frat guys that mistreat their girlfriends or hookups. That already sounds better.

Ryan teaches screenwriting at the University of Tampa. If you like this article, check out the others and FOLLOW this blog! Interested in Ryan making a guest appearance on your podcast or contributing to your website? Send him a DM on Twitter or email him at RLTerry1@gmail.com! You can catch Ryan most weeks at Studio Movie Grill Tampa, so if you’re in the area, feel free to catch a movie with him!

Follow him!

Twitter: RLTerry1

Instagram: RL_Terry

Sinister Summer: “The Exorcist” Retrospective Review

Posted on by
3

Pea soup anyone? Not only one of the most profitable horror films of all time, William Friedkin’s The Exorcist remains timeless. Celebrating its 45th anniversary last year, this truly is the definitive possession horror film. Thematically, it takes the concept of the external “monster” and moves it into the mind and body (of a little girl). In many ways, Linda Blair’s Regan takes the psycho-social horror of Psycho and combines it with a classic monster and adds in a Rosemary’s Baby spin. This trifecta of excellence works together in order to provide the plot and characters of The Exorcist with substance. Much like Psycho was the first modern horror film and proto-slasher, The Exorcist is widely regarded as the first modern possession film. There are elements of possession in Rosemary’s Baby, but I don’t technically consider it a possession film. This film also takes the idea of the “home invasion” to the next level by having the innocent Regan’s body invaded. There are many past horror films that were once viewed as terrifying, but over the course of time, do not evoke the same degree of fear in contemporary times; however, this is a film that remains nightmare-inducing for many who are brave enough to watch it. Furthermore, adjusted for inflation, it remains among the top 10 highest grossing films of all time.

For more than 40 years, this was highest grossing horror film of all time (until 2017’s IT), this is the one that started the possession film sub genre of horror. A visiting actress (Ellen Burstyn) in Washington, D.C., notices dramatic and dangerous changes in the behavior and physical make-up of her 12-year-old daughter 9Linda Blair). Meanwhile, a young priest (Jason Miller) at nearby Georgetown University begins to doubt his faith while dealing with his mother’s terminal sickness. When the little girl begins to spiral violently out of control, lashing out at her mother and everyone in the Georgetown manner, and even levitating, her worried mother seeks medical help, only to hit a dead end. The young priest, however, thinks the girl may be possessed by a demon. The priest makes a request to perform an exorcism, and the church sends in an expert (Max von Sydow) to help with the difficult job.

While many films prior to The Exorcist depicted the occult, few (if any) have endured like this icon of horror has. Perhaps what frightens us most about this film is the fact of how close to home it hits. The MacNeil family could be our own or our neighbors. By default, the very setting and atmosphere of the film is relatable and realistic. There is a high degree of vulnerability on display. Not only can our homes be invaded, but our bodies can too. Whereas some may only see the effects of the demonic possession and focus on them (the vomiting, masochistic behaviors, or focussed vulgar profanity), these are all incidental. The point of The Exorcist is to provide social commentary on dehumanization and how evil forces and behaviors can affect us in such a way that we feel like animals unworthy of God’s love. But no matter how dark times get, redemption is possible. Whereas demonic possessions are not a daily part of our lives, by extension, this can be explored as a metaphor for the dehumanization witnessed today such as sexual assault, physical/emotional abuse, and other ways in which people are devalued.

There are few films that I would say this about–The Exorcist is a perfect film. Other examples are Alien, Psycho, Sunset Boulevard, and The Shining. Compared to the schlock-fest horror movies that we often get today (until more recently with films such as Hereditary, Midsommar, and Us), this is a beautiful, bold work of cinema that pushed the envelop then, and even pushes the boundaries by today’s standards. There is a sense of prestige about this film; and not just a classy for the sake of pretense–there is a sense of purpose in this motion picture. Do all horror films need to mean something deep or provocative? Certainly not. Some have the purpose to simply entertain, frighten us, or even make us laugh. But The Exorcist is a special horror film in that there is immense depth to the story that takes us to incredibly dark places–to the point of no return if you will. Then in a brilliant fashion, turns it into a story of sacrifice and redemption. Not only was this one of the most frightening movies of all time when it was release din 1973–commonplace as possession movies may seem now–this was groundbreaking back then, it was also nominated for multiple Academy Awards including Best Picture! This was the first time that a horror film had ever been nominated for this most prestigious award. Furthermore, there are few other films that come with such an infamous status inspiring legends, curses, and more. Much like with Poltergeist, this film has also spawned macabre rumors. Everything about this film: direction, screenwriting, cinematography, cast, set design, score, and the editing work flawlessly to combine to become one of the greatest films ever made.

In screenwriting, there are two types of plots: action-driven and character-driven. That isn’t to suggest that an action movies don’t have great characters (Die Hard certainly has great characters) nor does a character movie lack gripping action (Nightcrawler has great action sequences), but the principle focus is on one or the other. Look to see wherefrom the conflict is derived. In a character-driven film, the conflict is derived primarily from characters, whereas in an action-driven movie, the conflict is primarily derived from the action. The characters of The Exorcist are utterly fascinating and relatable. We might remember Regan the most from the movie, but the other lead and supporting characters are also incredibly interesting. Part of the reason why this film resonates with us so, and is the material of nightmares, is because of how realistic it is, despite the supernatural element; this realism is brought to life by the incomparable performances. There is so much more to this movie besides the spinning head, spiderwalk (in the director’s cut), and the famous pea soup scene. Those scenes, and others, contribute to the overall experience of the film, but it’s the character-driven conflict and relationships that keep us coming back. Not only do we come back to the film over and over for the character, but we were able to experience memorable scenes and action sequences for ourselves at Halloween Horror Nights 26 at Universal Orlando.

Before we talk about the most famous character from the film Regan, let’s analyze the other two leads and chief supporting character: Regan’s mom Chris MacNeil (Ellen Burstyn), the young priest Damian Karras (Jason Miller), and the exorcist Father Merrin (Max von Sydow). Both Burstyn and Miller were nominated for Academy Awards for their respective performances.

Chris MacNeil is first and foremost a mother, but her acting career is also important to her. But when her daughter needs her, she is willing to put her career to the side to go to great lengths to help her. Beyond her role as a mother, she represents a person whom does not have faith in God. She is also faced with the life crisis of growing frustrated with her divorce and career as a mainstream actress. Father Karras is a highly educated man of faith, but his faith is strained because of his mom’s illness and death, causing a crisis. He is struggling with what many of us struggle with: if God is love, then why do bad things happen to good people? Furthermore, he represents the qualities of self-sacrifice and redemption, as well as personifies the empathy of psychiatry and a pragmatic priesthood. By extension, Father Karras can also be read as someone whom exemplifies that “science” and “faith” are not independent of nor negate one another. Lastly, Father Merrin is not only the very silhouetted image that is engrained in your mind when you think of this movie, but he is the inverse of Father Karras in that–whereas Karras is a pragmatic priest, Father Merrin is a zealous priest. Because Merrin was unable to defeat the demon Pazuzu (the one that possesses Regan), he is faced with his own redemption story. He is also going through the life crisis of failing health.

All three adults are each faced with their own respective crises that are explored through the possession of this little girl whom is also facing her own biological life crisis of puberty. Without knowing much about any of these characters during the first act of the film, we know that each one is vulnerable and doubts their own abilities and the direction they are going in life.

Central to The Exorcist is Regan (played by Linda Blair). Regan is both our central character and our character of opposition. Technically the character of opposition is Pazuzu, but the demon is manifested in Regan. Much like with her adult counterparts, Regan is also facing a crisis. She is experiencing what every young person goes through (to a greater physiological extent, girls)–puberty. As we know, at that stage in life, the human body undergoes what can be equated to psychological and physiological trauma. This trauma is manifested in the behaviors that we witness on screen from Regan’s explicit language and masochistic sexual assault. Regan can also be read as a home that has been invaded by an external monster, but this monster has not only defiled a home but has gone further, and more intimate to defile an innocent girl. Essentially, we’ve taken the idea of the external monster and placed it in the mind and body to exponentially increase the level of trauma and terror. Through another lens, we can witness the conflict that exists between parents and adolescents in which parents may view their kid(s) as a monster that has taken over the previously agreeable, obedient child, and how both parties must work through the conflict in order to emerge healthier and closer.

From page to screen, the cinematic excellent continues. The Exorcist is full of nightmare-inducing special effects that stick with you for the rest of your life. Not only does the very image of the transformation terrify the eyes of the audience, the minds of the audience are also confronted with the frightening realization of what the demon is doing to Regan’s body. From swearing at the central characters every chance it gets to displaying severe traumatizing masochistic behavior, the brutality is intense as you have sympathy for this young girl that you established a connection with from the beginning of the movie. One of the elements that I find particularly interesting, given the extent to which special effects are used, is just how real the movie feels. The supernatural elements of the story could have very easily pushed the film into the unbelievable category (like many others), but William Friedkin’s cinematic masterpiece stays grounded in reality. Looking to the characters themselves, the performances are so genuine that you feel that you are going through the very same crises that are on display. For those whom believe possession is real, it hits scarily close to home; and for those whom are skeptical, it is an equally terrifying possibility.

The showdown and realization of the film are just as deep as the first and second acts by playing around with the externalization of that which was internalized and the physical and mental journeys of the characters. Not only is duality and possession shown through the context of demon possession, but the film also comments that internalized physical and psychological trauma can be a powerful force that ostensibly takes control on ones body. And that is another reason why it still terrifies audiences to this day.

You can catch Ryan most weeks at Studio Movie Grill Tampa, so if you’re in the area, let him know and you can join him at the cinema.

Ryan teaches screenwriting at the University of Tampa. If you like this article, check out the others and FOLLOW this blog! Interested in Ryan making a guest appearance on your podcast or contributing to your website? Send him a DM on Twitter!

Follow him!

Twitter: RLTerry1

Instagram: RL_Terry