Ellen Burstyn | Kevin Barrett's Blog

Posts Tagged ‘Ellen Burstyn’

The Devil At The Top Of The Stairs

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged Burke Dennings, Chris MacNeil, Columbo, Detective William Kinderman, Ellen Burstyn, Father Damien Karras, Father Lankester Merrin, General Comments, Georgetown, Jack MacGowran, Jason Miller, Kitty Winn, Lee J. Cobb, Linda Blair, Max von Sydow, Movie Reviews, Reviews, Sharon Spencer, The Exorcist (1973) – movie review, Very Highly to Must See Movie Recommendation, Washington D.C., Wikipedia on September 4, 2025| 2 Comments »

“The Exorcist” (1973) – movie review
Today’s review is for the supernatural horror landmark / classic: “The Exorcist” (1973), starring Ellen Burstyn as Chris MacNeil (a single mother and actress), Linda Blair as Regan (the possessed daughter), Max von Sydow as Father Lankester Merrin (elder priest with prior exorcism experience), Jason Miller as Father Damien Karras (Jesuit psychiatrist with his own faith issues), Lee J. Cobb as Detective William Kinderman (detective investigating Dennings suspicious death), Kitty Winn as Sharon Spencer (Chris’s assistant), and Jack MacGowran as Burke Dennings (volatile film director and ill-fated house-guest).

Background: I first saw “The Exorcist” sometime in the early 1970s during its initial release / run. This is the first movie I recall genuinely scaring me while watching it (and for some time afterwards). This was my first time re-watching it, although bits of the movie have been replayed in comedy skits and horror send-ups over the last 50 years. Watching it again now, with adult eyes and a better grasp of theology, psychology, and film technique, I realize: this movie isn’t just about horror — it’s about belief, guilt, and the limits of human understanding. It is still genuinely scary – although, I won’t be losing any sleep over it.

Plot: We open in Iraq, where Father Merrin uncovers ominous relics during an archaeological dig — foreshadowing a confrontation with an ancient evil. Shift to Georgetown, Washington D.C., where actress Chris MacNeil is filming a movie while living with her 12-year-old daughter, Regan. Chris hears strange noises in the attic, sees her daughter’s shaking bed, and then increasingly erratic / violent behavior from Regan escalates into full-blown supernatural chaos. Medical tests reveal nothing. After Regan violently assaults doctors and levitates, Chris turns to the Church. Enter Father Karras, a priest in his own crisis of faith, grieving his mother and doubting his vocation. After Fr. Karras gathers evidence of possession, the Church sanctions an exorcism, calling in Merrin – one of the few living priests who have conducted an exorcism. What follows is a harrowing battle of wills, faith, and endurance against the demonic entity that knows everyone’s deepest fears. The ending is tragic, redemptive, and ambiguous enough to keep religious believers and horror fans debating for decades.

So, is this movie any good? How’s the acting? How about the filming / FX? Are there any problems? And, did I like the film? Short answers: Yes; very good; terrifying; a few; this is a CLASSIC movie – but it is not for the squeamish or weak at heart.

Any good? Yes. And not just “good for its day” — it’s a genre-defining masterwork in horror. The pacing is deliberate, the tension builds systematically – one step at a time, and the horror is as much psychological as much as it is visceral.

Acting: Burstyn is brilliant — her portrayal of maternal desperation is raw, grounded and “feels” real. Blair, at just 14, delivers a performance that’s still (after 50+ years) unsettling / terrifying. Even knowing the FX tricks behind them, the scary scenes can still make me sit up in my chair. Von Sydow brings gravitas and weariness to Merrin, while Miller’s Karras is the emotional core of the film: he is a man torn between the science of his training and faith, guilt and duty of his upbringing. Cobb adds a touch of “Columbo” as the detective who suspects something’s off but can’t quite name it.

Filming / FX: This is a horror film and the FX are powerful and shocking. The medical scene, during Regan’s diagnosis, was considered (by the audience) the most disturbing scene, but there are numerous scenes during the possession which are (IMHO) more emotional and frightening. There is a lengthy description of the lighting, staging and special effects on the Wikipedia page for the film.

Any bones to pick? Realism — 1, 2, and 3… Let’s start with the medical scene which bothered so many in the viewing audiences: cerebral angiography as horror? Effective, yes, realistic, yes, but also medically excessive. Next, the Church’s approval of an exorcism seems a bit fast-tracked, given how rare and bureaucratically complex such rites are. And finally, the physical toll on the priests — especially Merrin — feels under-explained. He arrives already frail, and the demon seems to know it. But we never learn why he was chosen (again) – except prior experience, or what happened in his previous exorcism – which supposedly nearly killed him.

Did I enjoy the film? Yes, though “enjoy” is definitely the wrong word. “The Exorcist” is disturbing, thought-provoking, and deeply atmospheric. Every scene – from bright desert sun to fog-shrouded Georgetown streets – all contribute to a sense of isolation and dread. You are alone and facing the unknown. This film is not just a horror film; it’s a exposition on suffering, faith, and the terror of the unknowable. And yes, it’s still scary.

Final recommendation: Very highly recommended to Must see — especially if you’re a fan of psychological horror genre, theological drama, or watching a cast of serious actors wrestle with forces beyond comprehension. Caution: There are multiple intensely visual scenes in this movie! It is not appropriate for children, young teens or for those with extreme religious beliefs.

.
Click here (4 September) to see the posts of prior years. I started this blog in late 2009. Daily posting began in late January 2011. Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Feeling Age

Posted in Movie Review, Movies, Philosophy, Reviews, tagged Blake Lively, Ellen Burstyn, Ellis Jones, Flemming Bowman, Harrison Ford, Kathy Baker, Kathy Jones, Michiel Huisman, Philosophy, Strong Movie Recommendation, The Age Of Adaline -- movie review, William Jones on September 23, 2019| Leave a Comment »

“The Age Of Adaline” (2015) — movie review
This movie is a SciFi-Fantasy / Drama / Romance movie starring: Blake Lively as Adaline Bowman; Michiel Huisman as Ellis Jones; Harrison Ford as William Jones (Ellis’ father and 1960’s lover of Adaline); Kathy Baker as Kathy Jones (Ellis’ mother); and, Ellen Burstyn as Flemming Bowman (Adaline’s daughter).

Adaline is born on New Year’s Day in 1908. She grows up, marries, becomes widowed and is then in a car crash / lightening strike which she survives (altered) with the gift of immortality. She is stuck at 29 years old for another 80 (odd) years. In order to avoid discovery, she moves every few years, changes her name and avoids close relationships. Meanwhile, her daughter – Flemming – grows up and eventually ages into an old woman.

Shoot to the present (2015) and Adaline (now called Jenny) attends a New Year’s Party and meets Ellis Jones. Over the next few days they fall madly in love and blah, blah, blah – lots of Hallmark moments.

Ellis invites Jenny to meet his parents and “it’s a small world, after all”, Ellis’ father (William Jones) is a former flame of Jenny’s (Adaline’s) from 50 years ago. More blah, blah, blah. Adaline’s “true” identity is discovered by William. Jenny / Adaline flees the house, is in a car accident, blah, blah, blah… Jenny / Adaline is saved and reverted to a “normal” (i.e. aging) person, … and happily ever after.

So, is this movie any good? Does it work as a SciFi-Fantasy? Does it work as a Drama / Romance? To paraphrase “Gladiator“: was I not entertained? Yes. Well, okay. Yes. And, yes. SciFi-Fantasy doesn’t really have to make sense. It just has to offer a reason to get from “A” to “B”. It does. And, then it gets you from “B” back to “A” at the end of the movie. It doesn’t matter how realistic it (the science) is. Only that they tried to give an explanation.

Drama / Romance? Yes. It’s a simple Hallmark – meet, fall in love, test of love, love wins out, happily ever after movie, and, I’m good with that. I didn’t really know what to expect going in, but as these movies go, it wasn’t bad. In fact, yes, I was entertained. Yes, both Lively and Huisman are very attractive and good in their roles, but I particularly liked Ford, Baker and Burnstyn in their roles. They sold, if not carried, the movie for me.

Final recommendation: Strong recommendation. Two young, beautiful people fall madly in love and live happily ever after. What’s not to like? A final note: there is a satellite shot that pans from outer space into California, then the Bay Area, then San Francisco which I’ve dreamed of for decades. It was nice to FINALLY see it in a movie! I’d have given the movie a good review for that shot alone.

.
Click here (23 September) to see the posts of prior years. I started this blog in late 2009. Daily posting began in late January 2011. Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.