kostasxrysogelos
Joined Jul 2006
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews25
kostasxrysogelos's rating
Well, it's not scary anymore, that's for sure! But that makes it even better, at least for one reason: People will finally begin to understand how incredible the film is, without having to be scared.
How should I start? On what should I comment first? On the perfect structure (three separate stories that don't meet until the last 20 minutes)? On the superb acting of all the actors (Max Von Sydow, you're one great actor, I must say)? On the mesmerizing photography? I'm rather irritated when friends tell me they don't like it, because they don't find it scary. Well, the point isn't to get scared! I'm afraid people haven't realized yet how rich on ideas the 'Exorcist' is. First of all, it's about a society where God doesn't belong. Materialism forms its consciousness. Even the priests have lost their faith! But what happens when Satan in fact possesses a young girl? Will her mother, who till then hadn't any religious beliefs, finally start believing on Good and Evil as supernatural forces?
To be brief, it's a film that focuses on personal stories; the art of Friedkin lies on the fact that it achieves to depict a whole decade's way of thinking (the 70s) through the independent dramas of 2 individuals: A priest who loses his faith after losing his mother; a mother shocked, when her little girl seems to be ill and the doctors can't figure out what exactly her sickness is. And how does Friedkin do that: By combining the two dramas at the very end of the film. And that's when father Merrin shows up: He is the Exorcist, the priest who has faced Satan before and won't lose his faith at any means. He is the bond between the desperate priest and the wrecked mother.
Is the 'Exorcist' the best movie of the 70s? What does it matter, since it's one of the best American films of the past 50 years!? Oh, and one final thing: Don't watch the sequel!
How should I start? On what should I comment first? On the perfect structure (three separate stories that don't meet until the last 20 minutes)? On the superb acting of all the actors (Max Von Sydow, you're one great actor, I must say)? On the mesmerizing photography? I'm rather irritated when friends tell me they don't like it, because they don't find it scary. Well, the point isn't to get scared! I'm afraid people haven't realized yet how rich on ideas the 'Exorcist' is. First of all, it's about a society where God doesn't belong. Materialism forms its consciousness. Even the priests have lost their faith! But what happens when Satan in fact possesses a young girl? Will her mother, who till then hadn't any religious beliefs, finally start believing on Good and Evil as supernatural forces?
To be brief, it's a film that focuses on personal stories; the art of Friedkin lies on the fact that it achieves to depict a whole decade's way of thinking (the 70s) through the independent dramas of 2 individuals: A priest who loses his faith after losing his mother; a mother shocked, when her little girl seems to be ill and the doctors can't figure out what exactly her sickness is. And how does Friedkin do that: By combining the two dramas at the very end of the film. And that's when father Merrin shows up: He is the Exorcist, the priest who has faced Satan before and won't lose his faith at any means. He is the bond between the desperate priest and the wrecked mother.
Is the 'Exorcist' the best movie of the 70s? What does it matter, since it's one of the best American films of the past 50 years!? Oh, and one final thing: Don't watch the sequel!
'Papaflessas' gets better and better as time goes by. I first saw it at a very young age and had the notion that it was a low-budget and rather silly b-movie concerning the Greek revolution against the Turks (1821). I watched it again recently and I must confess I'm ready to change my mind radically about the quality of this film.
First of all, the cast consists of many great and well-known actors. Almost all of them contributing were of very high quality: D. Papamihail for instance, who incarnates the leading role of Papaflessas, does a terrific job and, arguably, adds another great performance to his long career. Others who deserve to be mentioned here-by, are the following: A. Alexandrakis, S. Xenidis, H. Logothetis, D. Ioakimmidis, Th. Moridis and S. Stratigos. Generally, all the main actors acted splendidly.
Secondly, credit should be given to the very vivid dialogs. I was pleasantly surprised by the fact that the Greek language was very well treated in the movie, depicting at the same time the character of the hero in a very realistic and veracious way...
...Which leads me to the third point I'd like to mention: The way Papaflessas' character was presented and treated is very dialectical; the man we see is a very patriotic, yet selfish and stubborn figure. I'd go as far as to assume that 'Papaflessas' is for Greek cinematography, what 'Patton' is for the American one. Briefly, Papaflessas is a round character, who has many virtues, as well as weaknesses (often, it is these same virtues, that lead him to mistakes).
Finally, kudos to the producers for the making of a very stylistic movie and one of a very good taste as well. I'm sure that a high amount of money must have been spent for the production. The comparison to other films about the Greek revolution falls flat.
The final conclusion: A film deserving to be watched by a larger crowd.
First of all, the cast consists of many great and well-known actors. Almost all of them contributing were of very high quality: D. Papamihail for instance, who incarnates the leading role of Papaflessas, does a terrific job and, arguably, adds another great performance to his long career. Others who deserve to be mentioned here-by, are the following: A. Alexandrakis, S. Xenidis, H. Logothetis, D. Ioakimmidis, Th. Moridis and S. Stratigos. Generally, all the main actors acted splendidly.
Secondly, credit should be given to the very vivid dialogs. I was pleasantly surprised by the fact that the Greek language was very well treated in the movie, depicting at the same time the character of the hero in a very realistic and veracious way...
...Which leads me to the third point I'd like to mention: The way Papaflessas' character was presented and treated is very dialectical; the man we see is a very patriotic, yet selfish and stubborn figure. I'd go as far as to assume that 'Papaflessas' is for Greek cinematography, what 'Patton' is for the American one. Briefly, Papaflessas is a round character, who has many virtues, as well as weaknesses (often, it is these same virtues, that lead him to mistakes).
Finally, kudos to the producers for the making of a very stylistic movie and one of a very good taste as well. I'm sure that a high amount of money must have been spent for the production. The comparison to other films about the Greek revolution falls flat.
The final conclusion: A film deserving to be watched by a larger crowd.
Well, two of my best friends thought it to be a masterpiece! Also, a teacher in the university recommended it. Well... well... a masterpiece it was not! That's for sure. Interesting? Definitely. Well made? Absolutely. A masterpiece? Certainly not.
I think the symbols in the movie were the most interesting thing about it. Water and drowning represent the dialectic between passion, life and death. I also liked the fact that it turned out the whole movie was a novel; so almost everything about it was fiction!
So, 'where's the problem', you'd ask. Simply put: It was too 'american-hollywood' stuff. Something that's meant to win an Oscar -in the end, it didn't, but I'm sure the intention of the producers was the golden statue. In my opinion, the way the director presented the old writer in the end, was the worst possible. She simply tells us everything! No ambivalence, no art, no symbols! What a waste, my God!
Anyway, to summarize: It could have been a lot better. The way it is, it's just good. Nothing more, nothing less.
I think the symbols in the movie were the most interesting thing about it. Water and drowning represent the dialectic between passion, life and death. I also liked the fact that it turned out the whole movie was a novel; so almost everything about it was fiction!
So, 'where's the problem', you'd ask. Simply put: It was too 'american-hollywood' stuff. Something that's meant to win an Oscar -in the end, it didn't, but I'm sure the intention of the producers was the golden statue. In my opinion, the way the director presented the old writer in the end, was the worst possible. She simply tells us everything! No ambivalence, no art, no symbols! What a waste, my God!
Anyway, to summarize: It could have been a lot better. The way it is, it's just good. Nothing more, nothing less.