The Exorcist* (1973)

Going into this film, I knew it was renowned for being intense and scary. I had also seen numerous references and parodies of key scenes in other movies and on TV. What is amazing is that none of this knowledge came to the front of my brain while watching The Exorcist. That speaks to just how strong this film is.

Washington D.C. native Chris McNeil (Ellen Burstyn) notices increasingly strange behavior from her daughter Regan (Linda Blair). Fits of violence, swearing, and more lead Chris to seek medical help for the girl. When the doctors come up empty-handed, exorcism is suggested. The task is given to a duo of priests-one a weak-in-faith young man (Jason Miller) and the other much older and with personal experience with the supernatural (Max von Sydow). The quest to heal Regan pushes all parties involved to the breaking point.

This movie pushed me pretty far as well. It starts off slow and confusing (the elder priest is in the Middle East and finds relics of a demon he cast out of another person long ago) but the rest of the film is fantastic. Regan doesn’t pull a sudden 180 on us. Her possession is gradual, ratcheting up the creepiness a little bit at a time. Some modern viewers may balk at her possession stemming from experimenting with a Ouija board but I am fine with it. Getting no explanation for the possession would be scarier but also harder to digest.

Linda Blair deserves every word of praise she ever received for her performance. To be perfectly honest, it’s a wonder she wasn’t permanently scarred emotionally and psychologically from making this film because she does many things that I cannot imagine asking a child to do for a film. I know it is not her voice saying such vile things during the exorcism sequence but it all looks legit. The way she throws her body around and contorts her face is jaw-dropping.

This film impacts an audience because (as I’ve said numerous times before) human beings are hardwired to be troubled by seeing children in danger. The Exorcist resonates especially with me as a parent. I would do anything to protect my little girl, so I can understand the fear and anxiety exhibited by Burstyn’s mother character.

The underlying battle of science vs. faith is intriguing. The young priest called on to help Regan has been taught by the church that demonic possession is not real and just a combination of psychological and physiological issues. Experience tells the elder priest otherwise, making it interesting to watch Miller’s character confront something he was told not to believe in. It raises the question- are advancements in science and medicine blocking mankind from believing in the spiritual forces of evil?

You’ve seen the parodies, the references, and allusions. Even if you’ve never seen this film before, chances are that you know what ultimately happens. However, The Exorcist is a powerful piece of evidence to the saying ‘it’s not about the destination; it’s about the journey.’ No matter how prepared you think you are to watch this film, it will catch you off guard. The Exorcist is one of the most genuinely unsettling films I have ever watched. For me, that says a lot.

RATING: 4.25 out of 5

Minority Report (2002)

It’s difficult to make a summer blockbuster film capable of making audiences think. The summer months are typically reserved for big-budget franchises, goofy comedies, cheeky action films and sappy chick flicks. Minority Report is one of those rare summer releases that has the ability to give its core audience exactly what it wants while daring to add a dash of maturity and philosophical intrigue.

Set in 2054, the film focuses on the Department of Precrime, a highly specialized task force that has eliminated virtually all murders in Washington D.C. and its suburbs. Using three mutated humans with precognitive abilities, the Department of Precrime is able to see when and where murders will occur and stop them before they happen. In a matter of weeks, the US Department of Justice is planning to take the Precrime method and expand it to a national level.

Tom Cruise plays John Anderton, chief of Precrime. Despite the success of the program, he is a troubled man. Years before, his son was abducted right out from under his nose, never to be found. Since then, his obsession with Precrime killed his marriage and he is secretly addicted to psychoactive drugs. As if it isn’t bad enough that Anderton has skeptical DOJ officers poking around the department on a daily basis, the trio of precogs throw him for a loop when they predict that he will murder someone in a few days.

Anderton doesn’t know the man he is supposed to murder but, in the world of Precrime, that doesn’t matter one bit. Anderton attempts to hide the precogs’ vision long enough for him to escape Precrime headquarters. Once the prediction is discovered, the film becomes a wild cat-and-mouse game as Anderton uses his knowledge of Precrime tactics and technology to evade capture, all the while trying to figure out why he is going to murder someone he doesn’t even know.

The filmmakers could have simply stopped with the manhunt storyline and still ended with a similar conclusion. Thankfully, they did not. Instead of a generic, sci-fi chase flick, the writers and director Steven Spielberg expand upon the philosophical musings and paranoia of Phillip K. Dick’s original short story.

Instead of characters simply questioning the merits of Precrime, we get to see the process breakdown before our eyes. The audience isn’t treated like a bunch of children. We don’t get ‘Sunday School’ answers here. Rather, characters discuss the pros and cons of using precognition to prevent crime like thinking adults. This allows the audience to consider the heady concepts of free will versus determinism after the on-screen conversations stop and the action picks up.

One of the unique aspects of the film is how restrained Spielberg is with his depiction of the near-future. Instead of teleporters and outlandish clothing, most of 2054 looks like it does now. Sure, there are futuristic-looking cars that flow along magnetic roads and the police use non-lethal, charged-air blasters instead of guns with bullets but Minority Report gives us a future built on the present instead of one that has completely overtaken it.

Anderton finds ways to work around the technology of the future, which goes to show that all the gadgetry in the world is no match for human determination. The most dangerous challenge comes in the form of iris scanners set up across the entire city. These scanners help police track down the movements of suspects as well as advertisers pitch products specifically to individuals. The scanners are impossible to avoid, leading Anderton to take drastic steps to avoid detection (this also leads up to an intense scene where he is cornered by iris scanning robot spiders). This technology is especially creepy now that it is actually going to be used for these very purposes in real life.

Less than ten years later, some of the effects already look dated but that is almost to be expected with the rapid improvement of CGI and motion capture. The overuse of digital grading to sap some of the saturation and vibrancy from the color palette seems silly to me but it does help match the bleakness of Anderton’s dilemma, which Cruise puts all of his effort into. In fact, most of the cast do a terrific job of making their characters, and this future world, seem believable.

I won’t deny that this film runs a little long. As much as I enjoy the philosophical arguments, the intricate murder mystery and the fantastically choreographed action sequences, the nearly two and a half hour run time wears on you come the third reel. Some will feel just as exhausted as Anderton does by the time the film begins wrapping things up. This will turn some viewers off, especially if they aren’t as interested in sci-fi thrillers as the intended audience but those who have the patience, nerves and determination to see Minority Report through to the end will be rewarded.

The big question asked by this film is ‘Can the future be changed?’ You’ll have to watch this one to find out.

RATING: 3.75 out of 5

Never Say Never Again (1983)

Question: What’s a sure-fire way to suck the fun and mystique out of a James Bond film?

Answer: Have the first third of the film focused on Bond going to a health clinic to eliminate free radicals in his body and other such silly new-agey medical psychobabble.

Never Say Never Again is an unofficial entry into the James Bond series. It is not considered to be canon and is actually a remake of 1965’s Thunderball. Sean Connery returns to the role he started, but instead of playing a supposed ageless super spy, Connery gives us a middle-aged Bond who’s not quite at the top of his game anymore, but still chugging right along.

While Connery does play Bond well, the entire film is lacking something. All the quirky jokes referencing his age are needless and get annoying pretty quickly. The writing isn’t very good, and the film fails to improve upon the original incarnation of Thunderball. But it remains to be said that even a weak Bond movie is still fairly entertaining. It was nice to see anybody but Roger Moore as Bond for a change.

This unofficial 007 flick is officially passable.

RATING: 2.75 out of 5

Snow Falling on Cedars (1999)

Sort of a West Coast version of To Kill a Mocking Bird, Snow Falling on Cedars focuses on the Washington State trial of a man of Japanese descent during the early 1950s, when Americans (particularly on the West Coast) were fearful and mistrusting of anything Japanese since World War II. The stage is set pretty clearly and the odds are stacked against him.

Ethan Hawke is the town newspaper editor who struggles with his own bias while covering the case. As a boy he was in love with a girl who became the accused man’s wife but he lost an arm fighting the Japanese in the war. Now he finds himself convinced that the accused is innocent and must work against the town’s racism in order for justice to be upheld.

A bit slow from time to time, this film doesn’t quite have the back-story and side plots that made To Kill a Mocking Bird work, but the rigorous pursuit of justice is worth noting. It also doesn’t help much that the film's cast is made up almost entirely of actors known for their supporting roles. Otherwise, it’s a pretty good underachiever.

RATING: 3.25 out of 5