Stunning visuals, effects and overall horror for 1973. The characters are very strongly portrayed and the feeling of hopelessness is ever-present throughout the movie. Even though some scenes are outright shocking and provocative, there is also a strong element of the uncanny present. This is a very haunting movie that still shocks, amazes and intrigues after all these years.
1,536 Reviews
The most "ripped-off" movie of all time
gregorycanfield18 July 2021
According to the film critics, the Exorcist is the only movie about demonic possession that should have ever been made. Every subsequent movie with a "possession" theme was labeled a "rip-off." I'm pretty sure that Beyond the Door was the first "rip-off." One film critic described this movie as vulgar. Perhaps. Was the Exorcist any less vulgar? The Exorcist had a good director, good actors and good production values. It is these attributes which set the Exorcist apart from all the follow-up films. However, if you are offended by someone regurgitating green slime, does it really matter whether it's coming from Linda Blair or anyone else? I have always thought that the Exorcist worked as well on a dramatic level as it does a horror movie. This is probably something you shouldn't be able to say about an effective horror movie. I once listened to William Friedkin's audio commentary while watching the movie. He and I agree on which scene is the best part of the movie. It is the exchange between Ellen Burstyn and the great Lee J Cobb. As a police lieutenant, Cobb has more compassion for Burstyn than priest she seeks help from. When Cobb is about to leave Burstyn's house, he says: "You're a nice lady." She replies: "You're a nice man." This is actually touching! Ironically, this touching scene is directly followed by one of the most wild and disturbing scenes in the movie. In fact, I've always wondered how the movie escaped an X rating with this scene intact. However, I still believe the tender scene which precedes this resonates more. All things considered, the Exorcist is definitely one of the greatest horror movies of all time, as well as one of the most influential. Not number one, though. My choice for Number One took place in Texas. Something to do with chain saws.
One Genre Renewal movie: The Exorcist - Horror with no Crime, instead Horror with Spirits
CihanVercan25 December 2009
Two terrible sequels and one irrelevant remake were never replaced with the original, the 1973 version of The Exorcist; and no other version will never be any more. Written for the screen and produced by William Peter Blatty, both The Exorcist movie and the novel are incident driven basis of the actual happenings from 1949.
Looking at the most remarkable movies of 1973, there are 3 other important ones that the history of cinema will remember: -- A slow and touching movie from Ingmar Bergman "Cries and Whispers" -- Bernardo Bertolucci's depressive movie, a study of love "Last Tango in Paris" -- A crime story with Redford and Newman "The Sting". Among all and all the other movies that are produced in this year, The Exorcist stands one step further than the rest for its uniqueness on genre renewal. It's not the first movie that features the Demon in its content, yet in the Exorcist the Demon is introduced in the human level. The idea of being possessed by a spirit is used for the first time ever on the silver-screen. Horror genre featuring spirits didn't need to refer to Crime any more like it used to be in Hitchcock ages. Thus crime became a separate genre, and mostly acted conjointly with thrillers from now on.
This uniqueness profits from its sound mixing, great lighting techniques and of course a perfect screenplay. Director William Friedkin was lucky to find his producer Blatty, being also the novel-writer and the idea creator. The plot and the story development goes very smoothly: From Father Merrin's encountering with the Demon Pazuzu in Iraq; to Ellen Burstyn looking for the cure for her daughter's disease, going for visits to every type of doctor... From the noises in the attic, to Regan's peeing on the rug... From decoding the Demon's speech of speaking English in reverse, to the arriving of Merrin... Both the editing and directing gave high qualities to this film.
The 25th Anniversary edition DVD is in my movie collections. It's a must to have for horror fans. Either you have this version of DVD or the year 2000 version; you should check out the special features that reveals the real-life 1949 incident, the missing and the deleted scenes including the Spider-walk scene, sound mixing and sound effects tests show how they created the demon's voice and the BBC documentary: The Fear of God, all in the special features.
Looking at the most remarkable movies of 1973, there are 3 other important ones that the history of cinema will remember: -- A slow and touching movie from Ingmar Bergman "Cries and Whispers" -- Bernardo Bertolucci's depressive movie, a study of love "Last Tango in Paris" -- A crime story with Redford and Newman "The Sting". Among all and all the other movies that are produced in this year, The Exorcist stands one step further than the rest for its uniqueness on genre renewal. It's not the first movie that features the Demon in its content, yet in the Exorcist the Demon is introduced in the human level. The idea of being possessed by a spirit is used for the first time ever on the silver-screen. Horror genre featuring spirits didn't need to refer to Crime any more like it used to be in Hitchcock ages. Thus crime became a separate genre, and mostly acted conjointly with thrillers from now on.
This uniqueness profits from its sound mixing, great lighting techniques and of course a perfect screenplay. Director William Friedkin was lucky to find his producer Blatty, being also the novel-writer and the idea creator. The plot and the story development goes very smoothly: From Father Merrin's encountering with the Demon Pazuzu in Iraq; to Ellen Burstyn looking for the cure for her daughter's disease, going for visits to every type of doctor... From the noises in the attic, to Regan's peeing on the rug... From decoding the Demon's speech of speaking English in reverse, to the arriving of Merrin... Both the editing and directing gave high qualities to this film.
The 25th Anniversary edition DVD is in my movie collections. It's a must to have for horror fans. Either you have this version of DVD or the year 2000 version; you should check out the special features that reveals the real-life 1949 incident, the missing and the deleted scenes including the Spider-walk scene, sound mixing and sound effects tests show how they created the demon's voice and the BBC documentary: The Fear of God, all in the special features.
The truth about the Exorcist.
jaywolfenstien21 September 2005
Warning: Spoilers
There's a lot of anxiety that goes into viewing The Exorcist, "the scariest movie ever made", for the very first time. And with that anxiety comes a lot of expectations and preconceived ideas about what The Exorcist *should* be. Especially for someone born after the film. Then on top of that waited years before finally seeing it.
I love the Exorcist, and after exposure to God knows how many horror films, the Exorcist remains my favorite within the genre. And even from a die-hard fan I have to admit, I hate hearing "scariest movie of all time" associated with this movie.
First of all, there's no reason to compare fright factor of films, so forget that anyone ever called The Exorcist "the scariest movie ever made." Take any movie I don't care what movie and stick a "greatest/scariest/best" whatever tag next to it, and you'll have audiences investing in what they *think* it should be instead of letting the film present itself for what it is. And all they see is that it is not what they expected (expectations, I might add, that are shaped by the current gimmicks and trends in Hollywood).
I love the Exorcist because it dared to defy my expectations. This is not a wall-to-wall, credits-to-credits montage of scary imagery inspired by a mere scenario that's supposed to pass as a plot. This isn't a movie about that long dark corridor and something waiting to jump out of the darkness and attack (which is always preceded by a false scare featuring a cat). It's not about that cheap gimmicky scenario of X amount of people isolated from the rest of the world, with a killer/monster/ghost/whatever on the loose.
The Exorcist is a very slow movie that actually features a full blown plot, its characters, and their associated arcs. The original ambition of The Exorcist was to scare the world with imagery and concepts never before seen in cinema. Shocking moments that the audience of 1973 could not believe they would ever see on the silver screen (from a major studio, no less.) After 30 years, the movie isn't so shocking because times have changed, and the success of the Exorcist has guaranteed countless imitation in all forms across all boards. However, the Exorcist is still one of the most ambition horror films ever made, because (are you ready for this?) the Exorcist dares to tell a story.
Everyone remembers the pea soup, the head spinning, the vulgarities spewed from the demon's mouth, the stairs, the infamous cut (now restored) spider walk. But I adore this movie for the things no one seems to bring up I love the setup in Iraq where Father Lancaster Merrin detects the signs of his final showdown, and how these abstract scenes on subsequent viewings give the movie a more epic feel. I love the transition from Chris MacNeil to Father Karras walking across campus that's reminiscent of Alfred Hitchcock. I became absorbed watching Father Karras caring for his aging mother and the close relationship they have, seeing him depressed and sharing a drink with a fellow priest as he discusses his own issues with faith.
And what impresses me most about a movie named the Exorcist is how it seems to reject the possibility of possession and exorcism as its ultimate and final solution. The characters in the movie don't want it to be true, and in fact don't really even know about the possibility of Exorcism, thus they explore and exhaust all other possibilities (both medical and psychological). I smiled with delight (after all the hospital scenes) in that priceless moment when Chris MacNeil asks Karras, "And how does one go about getting an exorcism?" which stops father Karras in his tracks as he, a man of the church, looks at her as though she's lost her mind.
The fact that the movie resists the temptation to jump right into the acknowledgment that Regan is possessed continues to build up the epic Good versus Evil, God versus Satan, the exorcist versus the demon, feel. Like the characters, the movie doesn't want it to be true, it doesn't want to go there and embrace that possibility, but we the audience know what must inevitably happen. And it's almost magical how the movie finally acknowledges Regan's only hope. There's no glorious fanfare nor is there boastful ultimatums, instead the movie lamentingly and silently surrenders to it as we watch Lancaster Merrin walking up the sunny garden path, staring down at a newly delivered envelope. He doesn't have to read it. He already knows what it says, as do we.
The imagery then fades to an ominous foggy night as a taxi pulls up to the MacNeil place in Georgetown, then we're treated to the haunting imagery that inspired the cover art. What must be done, must be done. I love how the movie implies that Merrin has faced this very demon before through its imagery, and through the dialogue as Karras explains he's identified at least three manifestations to which Merrin answers, "No. There is only one." I can address more the acting, the beautiful cinematography, brilliant makeup but I'll stop to keep from sounding like a raving fan who over hypes every inch of everything. I'll close with these thoughts: I'm not the type of person who will watch the same movie over and over and over. Most movies I see, the specific imagery and specific ideas don't make a deep enough impression to stick with me for more than a few months. I remember the Exorcist, not because I thought it was the "scariest movie ever made", rather because of the wonderful craftsmanship, the fact that it dared to tell a story, and it defied my expectations.
When Friday the 13th, the Grudge, Skeleton Key, and Cursed are reduced to vague memories and general ideas, I will still clearly remember the Exorcist.
I love the Exorcist, and after exposure to God knows how many horror films, the Exorcist remains my favorite within the genre. And even from a die-hard fan I have to admit, I hate hearing "scariest movie of all time" associated with this movie.
First of all, there's no reason to compare fright factor of films, so forget that anyone ever called The Exorcist "the scariest movie ever made." Take any movie I don't care what movie and stick a "greatest/scariest/best" whatever tag next to it, and you'll have audiences investing in what they *think* it should be instead of letting the film present itself for what it is. And all they see is that it is not what they expected (expectations, I might add, that are shaped by the current gimmicks and trends in Hollywood).
I love the Exorcist because it dared to defy my expectations. This is not a wall-to-wall, credits-to-credits montage of scary imagery inspired by a mere scenario that's supposed to pass as a plot. This isn't a movie about that long dark corridor and something waiting to jump out of the darkness and attack (which is always preceded by a false scare featuring a cat). It's not about that cheap gimmicky scenario of X amount of people isolated from the rest of the world, with a killer/monster/ghost/whatever on the loose.
The Exorcist is a very slow movie that actually features a full blown plot, its characters, and their associated arcs. The original ambition of The Exorcist was to scare the world with imagery and concepts never before seen in cinema. Shocking moments that the audience of 1973 could not believe they would ever see on the silver screen (from a major studio, no less.) After 30 years, the movie isn't so shocking because times have changed, and the success of the Exorcist has guaranteed countless imitation in all forms across all boards. However, the Exorcist is still one of the most ambition horror films ever made, because (are you ready for this?) the Exorcist dares to tell a story.
Everyone remembers the pea soup, the head spinning, the vulgarities spewed from the demon's mouth, the stairs, the infamous cut (now restored) spider walk. But I adore this movie for the things no one seems to bring up I love the setup in Iraq where Father Lancaster Merrin detects the signs of his final showdown, and how these abstract scenes on subsequent viewings give the movie a more epic feel. I love the transition from Chris MacNeil to Father Karras walking across campus that's reminiscent of Alfred Hitchcock. I became absorbed watching Father Karras caring for his aging mother and the close relationship they have, seeing him depressed and sharing a drink with a fellow priest as he discusses his own issues with faith.
And what impresses me most about a movie named the Exorcist is how it seems to reject the possibility of possession and exorcism as its ultimate and final solution. The characters in the movie don't want it to be true, and in fact don't really even know about the possibility of Exorcism, thus they explore and exhaust all other possibilities (both medical and psychological). I smiled with delight (after all the hospital scenes) in that priceless moment when Chris MacNeil asks Karras, "And how does one go about getting an exorcism?" which stops father Karras in his tracks as he, a man of the church, looks at her as though she's lost her mind.
The fact that the movie resists the temptation to jump right into the acknowledgment that Regan is possessed continues to build up the epic Good versus Evil, God versus Satan, the exorcist versus the demon, feel. Like the characters, the movie doesn't want it to be true, it doesn't want to go there and embrace that possibility, but we the audience know what must inevitably happen. And it's almost magical how the movie finally acknowledges Regan's only hope. There's no glorious fanfare nor is there boastful ultimatums, instead the movie lamentingly and silently surrenders to it as we watch Lancaster Merrin walking up the sunny garden path, staring down at a newly delivered envelope. He doesn't have to read it. He already knows what it says, as do we.
The imagery then fades to an ominous foggy night as a taxi pulls up to the MacNeil place in Georgetown, then we're treated to the haunting imagery that inspired the cover art. What must be done, must be done. I love how the movie implies that Merrin has faced this very demon before through its imagery, and through the dialogue as Karras explains he's identified at least three manifestations to which Merrin answers, "No. There is only one." I can address more the acting, the beautiful cinematography, brilliant makeup but I'll stop to keep from sounding like a raving fan who over hypes every inch of everything. I'll close with these thoughts: I'm not the type of person who will watch the same movie over and over and over. Most movies I see, the specific imagery and specific ideas don't make a deep enough impression to stick with me for more than a few months. I remember the Exorcist, not because I thought it was the "scariest movie ever made", rather because of the wonderful craftsmanship, the fact that it dared to tell a story, and it defied my expectations.
When Friday the 13th, the Grudge, Skeleton Key, and Cursed are reduced to vague memories and general ideas, I will still clearly remember the Exorcist.
The Devil Made Her Do It
clydestuff20 July 2004
In late 1973 and early 1974, women and men were lined up for blocks. People were known to become ill watching it. Some fainted. Some ran out of the theater in tears. There were reports of people having to be institutionalized, and at least one miscarriage was attributed to viewing it. No, it wasn't a Rolling Stones Concert. It was a film called The Exorcist.
The first time I had heard of something called The Exorcist was on late night television when the author, William Peter Blatty, was a guest on The Tonight Show. The conversation centered around how horrible some of the things in the book were. I had also seen the novel listed on The New York Times Bestseller List, and it seemed as if it would remain there forever. After having been on the waiting list for what seemed like an eternity at the local library, I was finally able to obtain a copy. It was the first book I had read in one sitting since probably Nancy Drew and The Hidden Staircase quite a few years earlier. And yes, for it's time it was filled with gut wrenching details of what happens when for some unexplained reason; an innocent girl is possessed by Satan. While reading the book I was sure that if it ever made its way to film, most of the details would certainly be either `cleaned up' or omitted altogether. As you know the film was made and it spared the movie going public absolutely nothing in the way of details.
Certainly many of the people who lined up to see The Exorcist did so to watch some of the more gruesome scenes, the worst of which involved Regan's masturbation with a crucifix. Yet, the hysteria went well beyond the fact that such scenes were so vividly depicted. I think one needs to look no further than Mel Gibson's The Passion to find the answer as to why. I'm sure most of you have read the story of people leaving Mel's film in tears, some to the point of being hysterical. From most articles I have read, it seems that the majority of the audience that was moved were those people of strong religious beliefs. For many others, the depiction of the brutality in The Passion may have been uncomfortable to sit through, but weren't emotionally effected to any degree. Much of this same feeling can explain the hysteria surrounding The Exorcist. Those who had a definitive belief in Heaven and Hell, of Good and Evil, of Jesus as The Savior and Satan as the epitome of pure evil were affected by The Exorcist far more than those who were agnostic or just never had a strong belief in spiritual matters. There is no doubt though that much in the way The Passion did, The Exorcist caused many to reconsider how they felt about their faith. The Exorcist made the prospect of Satan being alive and well and a life of eternal damnation a very uncomfortable prospect. The fact that Blatty claims his book and screenplay were based on a true story seemed to give the film even more credibility.
For me, The Exorcist has always been more about the never ending conflict between pure evil and pure innocence than about being an average horror story. There are many more levels to this film than what initially meets the eye. There is no doubt that while the main story revolves around an innocent young girl, Regan McNeil (Linda Blair), being inhabited by Satan himself, Blatty enhances it greatly by adding different characters in various stages of conflict. Regan's mother, Chris McNeil (Ellen Burstyn) obviously cares deeply for her daughter. Yet she is not beyond reproach. In one scene when Reagan's father hasn't called on Regan's birthday, we see her desperately on the phone doing battle with an overseas operator. The problem is not how vicious the phone call is, but that she does it within ear shot of her daughter as if to drive the point home to Regan how worthless her father is. When, she finally does seek the aid of Father Damian Karras, we don't feel that she believes in exorcism anymore than he does, but is desperate enough to accept the fact that it is possible and will take any and all measures to save her daughter.
Father Karras (Jason Miller) is a priest torn by conflict. He is ridden by overwhelming guilt for having abandoned his mother to enter the priesthood. He is torn spiritually by the confessions of those priests who seek his help as a psychiatrist, so much so that he now questions his own faith. When he states to the Bishop that `Regan's case meets all the criteria,' we know that even more than Chris, he doesn't really believe in the power of Satan to inhabit a living being in the manner that it has taken over Regan. Yet, he will do what is required of him as a priest concerned about the health of a child.
Jack McGowran gives a terrific performance as the alcoholic director filming Chris's latest film in Georgetown. Kitty Winn is Sharon Spencer, the secretary who works for Chris and always seems to be in the line of fire when Chris is angry. She is always there but for all the horror she witnesses, Winn appears too bland and emotionless and her performance is probably the weakest in the film.
Max Von Sydow as Father Lancester Merrin is a no nonsense aging priest. He has done battle with evil before and he shows us its effect in every scene he occupies. One could pass it off to being just good make-up but it is so much more than that as Sydow demonstrates all the nuances that brings to life a man who has faced Satan and lived to tell about it. He knows what he is up against, understands he must do it again and the consequences of what that battle may be.
If I have a small complaint with The Exorcist it is in regards to the character of Lt. Kinderman (Lee J. Cobb). I have never been able to buy into the character. It is not the fault of Cobb who is his usual stalwart self in the role. The whole character should at best have only been necessary for a few brief scenes yet; he has several that go on way too long and do not add anything to the story. Even in his scenes with Chris or Damian, Kinderman is so odd that he distracts us too much from their characters and it is Chris and Damian's reactions that are more important to us, not his investigation. For all you trivia buffs out there, Blatty once sued the producers of Columbo, stating they based Peter Falk's character on Kinderman. If memory serves me correctly Blatty lost that one.
As for Director William Friedken, although he won the best director award for The French Connection, for me The Exorcist will always remain his defining film. The Final half hour of The Exorcist are still as dynamic today as they were 31 years ago, French Connection car chase be damned.
It seems that to many of the younger movie audiences of today, The Exorcist has become more of a joke than anything else. That's not surprising considering how many times it has been lampooned, even by Linda Blair herself in Repossessed. Yet, if they were to view the film in a more serious vein, not as just another creature feature, they may just find that there really is more to this film than a little girl spewing pea soup and spinning her head around 360 degrees. It is the ultimate battle between Heaven and Hell and Good and Evil. It is the story of the complete and total degradation of innocence. It is a study in character, and whether a man torn by the forces surrounding him, can regain his faith and his belief in God and mankind to save the life of a little girl, caught up in forces beyond her control.
Call it a horror film, call it a religious film, call it what you want. For me, The Exorcist is and will always remain a classic in every sense of the word. And if I regard you as a classic of any kind I have no choice but to leave you with my grade, which for The Exorcist is an A.
The first time I had heard of something called The Exorcist was on late night television when the author, William Peter Blatty, was a guest on The Tonight Show. The conversation centered around how horrible some of the things in the book were. I had also seen the novel listed on The New York Times Bestseller List, and it seemed as if it would remain there forever. After having been on the waiting list for what seemed like an eternity at the local library, I was finally able to obtain a copy. It was the first book I had read in one sitting since probably Nancy Drew and The Hidden Staircase quite a few years earlier. And yes, for it's time it was filled with gut wrenching details of what happens when for some unexplained reason; an innocent girl is possessed by Satan. While reading the book I was sure that if it ever made its way to film, most of the details would certainly be either `cleaned up' or omitted altogether. As you know the film was made and it spared the movie going public absolutely nothing in the way of details.
Certainly many of the people who lined up to see The Exorcist did so to watch some of the more gruesome scenes, the worst of which involved Regan's masturbation with a crucifix. Yet, the hysteria went well beyond the fact that such scenes were so vividly depicted. I think one needs to look no further than Mel Gibson's The Passion to find the answer as to why. I'm sure most of you have read the story of people leaving Mel's film in tears, some to the point of being hysterical. From most articles I have read, it seems that the majority of the audience that was moved were those people of strong religious beliefs. For many others, the depiction of the brutality in The Passion may have been uncomfortable to sit through, but weren't emotionally effected to any degree. Much of this same feeling can explain the hysteria surrounding The Exorcist. Those who had a definitive belief in Heaven and Hell, of Good and Evil, of Jesus as The Savior and Satan as the epitome of pure evil were affected by The Exorcist far more than those who were agnostic or just never had a strong belief in spiritual matters. There is no doubt though that much in the way The Passion did, The Exorcist caused many to reconsider how they felt about their faith. The Exorcist made the prospect of Satan being alive and well and a life of eternal damnation a very uncomfortable prospect. The fact that Blatty claims his book and screenplay were based on a true story seemed to give the film even more credibility.
For me, The Exorcist has always been more about the never ending conflict between pure evil and pure innocence than about being an average horror story. There are many more levels to this film than what initially meets the eye. There is no doubt that while the main story revolves around an innocent young girl, Regan McNeil (Linda Blair), being inhabited by Satan himself, Blatty enhances it greatly by adding different characters in various stages of conflict. Regan's mother, Chris McNeil (Ellen Burstyn) obviously cares deeply for her daughter. Yet she is not beyond reproach. In one scene when Reagan's father hasn't called on Regan's birthday, we see her desperately on the phone doing battle with an overseas operator. The problem is not how vicious the phone call is, but that she does it within ear shot of her daughter as if to drive the point home to Regan how worthless her father is. When, she finally does seek the aid of Father Damian Karras, we don't feel that she believes in exorcism anymore than he does, but is desperate enough to accept the fact that it is possible and will take any and all measures to save her daughter.
Father Karras (Jason Miller) is a priest torn by conflict. He is ridden by overwhelming guilt for having abandoned his mother to enter the priesthood. He is torn spiritually by the confessions of those priests who seek his help as a psychiatrist, so much so that he now questions his own faith. When he states to the Bishop that `Regan's case meets all the criteria,' we know that even more than Chris, he doesn't really believe in the power of Satan to inhabit a living being in the manner that it has taken over Regan. Yet, he will do what is required of him as a priest concerned about the health of a child.
Jack McGowran gives a terrific performance as the alcoholic director filming Chris's latest film in Georgetown. Kitty Winn is Sharon Spencer, the secretary who works for Chris and always seems to be in the line of fire when Chris is angry. She is always there but for all the horror she witnesses, Winn appears too bland and emotionless and her performance is probably the weakest in the film.
Max Von Sydow as Father Lancester Merrin is a no nonsense aging priest. He has done battle with evil before and he shows us its effect in every scene he occupies. One could pass it off to being just good make-up but it is so much more than that as Sydow demonstrates all the nuances that brings to life a man who has faced Satan and lived to tell about it. He knows what he is up against, understands he must do it again and the consequences of what that battle may be.
If I have a small complaint with The Exorcist it is in regards to the character of Lt. Kinderman (Lee J. Cobb). I have never been able to buy into the character. It is not the fault of Cobb who is his usual stalwart self in the role. The whole character should at best have only been necessary for a few brief scenes yet; he has several that go on way too long and do not add anything to the story. Even in his scenes with Chris or Damian, Kinderman is so odd that he distracts us too much from their characters and it is Chris and Damian's reactions that are more important to us, not his investigation. For all you trivia buffs out there, Blatty once sued the producers of Columbo, stating they based Peter Falk's character on Kinderman. If memory serves me correctly Blatty lost that one.
As for Director William Friedken, although he won the best director award for The French Connection, for me The Exorcist will always remain his defining film. The Final half hour of The Exorcist are still as dynamic today as they were 31 years ago, French Connection car chase be damned.
It seems that to many of the younger movie audiences of today, The Exorcist has become more of a joke than anything else. That's not surprising considering how many times it has been lampooned, even by Linda Blair herself in Repossessed. Yet, if they were to view the film in a more serious vein, not as just another creature feature, they may just find that there really is more to this film than a little girl spewing pea soup and spinning her head around 360 degrees. It is the ultimate battle between Heaven and Hell and Good and Evil. It is the story of the complete and total degradation of innocence. It is a study in character, and whether a man torn by the forces surrounding him, can regain his faith and his belief in God and mankind to save the life of a little girl, caught up in forces beyond her control.
Call it a horror film, call it a religious film, call it what you want. For me, The Exorcist is and will always remain a classic in every sense of the word. And if I regard you as a classic of any kind I have no choice but to leave you with my grade, which for The Exorcist is an A.
Unmatched brilliance
pheonix1928 March 2000
There is a reason for the hysteria and mystique surrounding THE EXORCIST. And it's called genius.
Never have I seen a film matched in shock, terror, writing, or performances. This isn't a horror movie. The film itself is both a moving and terrifying drama that takes a realistic look at what would actually happen if a young girl were possessed in modern America. William Peter Blatty's script is amazing, bringing depth to the characters, and presenting the mystery of faith that they all deal with. Is Regan possessed? Is she insane? And most importantly, Is there a God? In the course of two hours, we see a sweet and innocent young girl become a cross masturbating, head spinning, murderous, creature. We see a successful actress overcome skepticism to save her daughter, and we see a brilliant psychiatrist struggle with his devotion to God as a priest.
Friedkin's direction is marvelous, with wonderful uses of light, dark, and color throughout the film. Jason Miller (as Damien Karras) is beautifully subtle in his first film acting role. Max Von Sydow and Lee J. Cobb provide engaging supporting performances as the experienced priest who senses his impending doom, and a detective who senses something sinister is at work. Ellen Burstyn gives a brutally honest performance as a grief stricken woman trying to save her daughter. And most of all, a 12-year-old Linda Blair gives one of the most terrifying, convincing, and beautiful performances ever shown on film. Her range of emotion and connection to Regan are astonishing. She deserved that Oscar!
THE EXORCIST presents to us the mystery of faith in it's most raw form--the battle of good and evil. It is an incomparable masterpiece of film, done without the aid of computers and special effects. It relies on story and performances to give us a marvelous and terrifying piece of work. In the end, it makes us ask ourselves what we believe, and keeps us wondering and shuddering at exactally what might be out there.
Never have I seen a film matched in shock, terror, writing, or performances. This isn't a horror movie. The film itself is both a moving and terrifying drama that takes a realistic look at what would actually happen if a young girl were possessed in modern America. William Peter Blatty's script is amazing, bringing depth to the characters, and presenting the mystery of faith that they all deal with. Is Regan possessed? Is she insane? And most importantly, Is there a God? In the course of two hours, we see a sweet and innocent young girl become a cross masturbating, head spinning, murderous, creature. We see a successful actress overcome skepticism to save her daughter, and we see a brilliant psychiatrist struggle with his devotion to God as a priest.
Friedkin's direction is marvelous, with wonderful uses of light, dark, and color throughout the film. Jason Miller (as Damien Karras) is beautifully subtle in his first film acting role. Max Von Sydow and Lee J. Cobb provide engaging supporting performances as the experienced priest who senses his impending doom, and a detective who senses something sinister is at work. Ellen Burstyn gives a brutally honest performance as a grief stricken woman trying to save her daughter. And most of all, a 12-year-old Linda Blair gives one of the most terrifying, convincing, and beautiful performances ever shown on film. Her range of emotion and connection to Regan are astonishing. She deserved that Oscar!
THE EXORCIST presents to us the mystery of faith in it's most raw form--the battle of good and evil. It is an incomparable masterpiece of film, done without the aid of computers and special effects. It relies on story and performances to give us a marvelous and terrifying piece of work. In the end, it makes us ask ourselves what we believe, and keeps us wondering and shuddering at exactally what might be out there.
An intense and very terrifying movie that will make you sleep with the bible a few nights in a row
Smells_Like_Cheese3 August 2001
The Exorcist is one of the best movies to come out of the 70's and deserves better than slowly descending down the top 250. It's one of those essential films you have to see in order to understand what a movie truly is and this is more than a horror film. Unfortunately there are so many people who are saying they got bored, I think because they expected a terrifying movie, people! This isn't a slasher movie, this isn't some scary Michael Myers that you can shoot, this is a story about normal people in a normal house and upstairs there is a little girl who happens to be possessed by "The devil himself". Faith is so strong and when it's shaken, anything in your imagination can run wild.
First off the actors: Ellen Burstyn plays Chris McNeil, an actress working in Washington, D.C. on a film. She is the mother of Regan, the little girl who is possessed. I felt such sorrow for Chris, when she begs Father Karras to help her with Regan, I almost cried for her. Her daughter is not sick, this is nothing she can give Regan a pill and she'll be better. Her speech to Father Karras later on in the film: "You show me Regan's double, same face, same voice, everything. And I'd know it wasn't Regan. I'd know in my gut. Now, I want you to tell me that you know for a fact that there's nothing wrong with my daughter, except in her mind. You tell me for a fact that an exorcism wouldn't do any good! You tell me that!" sent shivers down my spine, this woman knows what Regan needs and will do whatever she can.
We have Linda Blair who plays Regan and she was so great for a 12 year old actress. This little apple faced girl became one of the most frightening images of the 70's and still to this day. She's not scary because she's swearing, this little innocent girl has been taken over by forces that she shouldn't even know about. Jason Miller as Father Karras, for a man who had never acted professionally before, he was quite amazing as a priest who just lost his mother and his faith has been shaken up. Max Von Sydow as Father Merrin was so strong and he was like in his 20's playing a man in his 90's. He was robbed of an Oscar, he was so believable and just amazing during the exorcism scene.
The effects? People! This was the 70's and they made a bed float! They turned this little angel's face into a hideous creature! If you watch the documentary "Fear of God: The Making of the Exorcist", Ellen Burstyn gets slapped by Regan in the film and she had kind of a rope tied around her waist. When the stunt man pulled her back, Billy the director told the guy to let her have it and he YANKED her back hard causing real pain in Ellen's back and that was an actual scream in the movie. They froze the room to the point as were moisture got into the set and there was a layer of snow in the morning they were shooting. There was no CGI, this was the real deal and I believe could truly help the actors. Linda Blair was being thrashed up and down during one of the possessed scenes where the bracing came loose and caused slamming of metal to her back repeatedly and her screams were also very real and bone chilling.
William Freidkin is the director of The Exorcist, and there was no better choice. This guy took this picture seriously, so far as to shoot a gun offstage or scream obscenities to get an actor's shocked reaction on film. He slapped almost punched Reverend William O'Malley who played Father Dyer to get him to shake during his reciting the Last Rites to Father Karras. He almost would have killed to make this picture and anyone doing it.
Weither or not the set of The Exorcist was truly cursed with a total of 9 deaths linked to the film, a fire on the set with no apparent reason, and the total feeling of evil around the room, we'll never know. But The Exorcist is a true motion picture never to missed or deserve no more than the true compliments it should get! This is the film that should be shown to any aspiring film makers. It's a masterpiece of a film that's more than a mere horror flick.
10/10
First off the actors: Ellen Burstyn plays Chris McNeil, an actress working in Washington, D.C. on a film. She is the mother of Regan, the little girl who is possessed. I felt such sorrow for Chris, when she begs Father Karras to help her with Regan, I almost cried for her. Her daughter is not sick, this is nothing she can give Regan a pill and she'll be better. Her speech to Father Karras later on in the film: "You show me Regan's double, same face, same voice, everything. And I'd know it wasn't Regan. I'd know in my gut. Now, I want you to tell me that you know for a fact that there's nothing wrong with my daughter, except in her mind. You tell me for a fact that an exorcism wouldn't do any good! You tell me that!" sent shivers down my spine, this woman knows what Regan needs and will do whatever she can.
We have Linda Blair who plays Regan and she was so great for a 12 year old actress. This little apple faced girl became one of the most frightening images of the 70's and still to this day. She's not scary because she's swearing, this little innocent girl has been taken over by forces that she shouldn't even know about. Jason Miller as Father Karras, for a man who had never acted professionally before, he was quite amazing as a priest who just lost his mother and his faith has been shaken up. Max Von Sydow as Father Merrin was so strong and he was like in his 20's playing a man in his 90's. He was robbed of an Oscar, he was so believable and just amazing during the exorcism scene.
The effects? People! This was the 70's and they made a bed float! They turned this little angel's face into a hideous creature! If you watch the documentary "Fear of God: The Making of the Exorcist", Ellen Burstyn gets slapped by Regan in the film and she had kind of a rope tied around her waist. When the stunt man pulled her back, Billy the director told the guy to let her have it and he YANKED her back hard causing real pain in Ellen's back and that was an actual scream in the movie. They froze the room to the point as were moisture got into the set and there was a layer of snow in the morning they were shooting. There was no CGI, this was the real deal and I believe could truly help the actors. Linda Blair was being thrashed up and down during one of the possessed scenes where the bracing came loose and caused slamming of metal to her back repeatedly and her screams were also very real and bone chilling.
William Freidkin is the director of The Exorcist, and there was no better choice. This guy took this picture seriously, so far as to shoot a gun offstage or scream obscenities to get an actor's shocked reaction on film. He slapped almost punched Reverend William O'Malley who played Father Dyer to get him to shake during his reciting the Last Rites to Father Karras. He almost would have killed to make this picture and anyone doing it.
Weither or not the set of The Exorcist was truly cursed with a total of 9 deaths linked to the film, a fire on the set with no apparent reason, and the total feeling of evil around the room, we'll never know. But The Exorcist is a true motion picture never to missed or deserve no more than the true compliments it should get! This is the film that should be shown to any aspiring film makers. It's a masterpiece of a film that's more than a mere horror flick.
10/10
One of the greatest ever!!
NpMoviez10 August 2019
Some movies are landmarks. This is one of them.
Good : There are a lot of goods that I can talk about this particular film. First off, every gothic horror, for example, The Conjuring, are inspired by this film in one way or the other. But, none of them are as good as this one. I love Conjuring 1 & 2, but that might have never existed if it weren't for this movie. So, what makes it so good? We are given a mysterious introduction to an old priest who would play a prominent role later. It gives layers to the character of young priest, which is quite interesting. The set up is done quite well. The story is being told quite well. And it has the most important aspect that most horror films today lack - the dread and actually terrifying scenes. Right from the opening credits, it feels uneasy. It tries to give us a really terrifying vibe. And it just intensifies further and further. Even the scenes having no tension don't feel like so. And, it cuts to some terrifying scenes so suddenly but smoothly that we will be exclaiming "holy (you know what)!". That's some true horror film. It was 1973. You had absolutely no technology or CGI. They still made an entire bed shake which looked so scary and realistic! The 180 degree turn is still an awesome effect. They did it way better, and all of it looked more realistic than CGI! It had some ideas involving Ouija board and exorcism, which are now termed as "clichés". Having watched so many horror films before watching this, it should've felt corny. But it felt real good. There is probably no horror movie, in particular a supernatural or gothic horror movie, that has not been inspired by this movie in some way or the other. And the ones which got as many things right as possible as in this one, were respectively better. This movie is a masterpiece!!
Bad : It has sequels. Damn those pathetic sequels!! But again, good God almighty, only few people know about those stupid movies.
Conclusion : It is a must watch for every horror fan. Some parts may feel clichéd to some, but that's where those "clichés" started. Go with a fresh mind and examine how it all started. I am optimistic that you will love it.
Rating.
Score : absolute 10/10
Grade : A+
Good : There are a lot of goods that I can talk about this particular film. First off, every gothic horror, for example, The Conjuring, are inspired by this film in one way or the other. But, none of them are as good as this one. I love Conjuring 1 & 2, but that might have never existed if it weren't for this movie. So, what makes it so good? We are given a mysterious introduction to an old priest who would play a prominent role later. It gives layers to the character of young priest, which is quite interesting. The set up is done quite well. The story is being told quite well. And it has the most important aspect that most horror films today lack - the dread and actually terrifying scenes. Right from the opening credits, it feels uneasy. It tries to give us a really terrifying vibe. And it just intensifies further and further. Even the scenes having no tension don't feel like so. And, it cuts to some terrifying scenes so suddenly but smoothly that we will be exclaiming "holy (you know what)!". That's some true horror film. It was 1973. You had absolutely no technology or CGI. They still made an entire bed shake which looked so scary and realistic! The 180 degree turn is still an awesome effect. They did it way better, and all of it looked more realistic than CGI! It had some ideas involving Ouija board and exorcism, which are now termed as "clichés". Having watched so many horror films before watching this, it should've felt corny. But it felt real good. There is probably no horror movie, in particular a supernatural or gothic horror movie, that has not been inspired by this movie in some way or the other. And the ones which got as many things right as possible as in this one, were respectively better. This movie is a masterpiece!!
Bad : It has sequels. Damn those pathetic sequels!! But again, good God almighty, only few people know about those stupid movies.
Conclusion : It is a must watch for every horror fan. Some parts may feel clichéd to some, but that's where those "clichés" started. Go with a fresh mind and examine how it all started. I am optimistic that you will love it.
Rating.
Score : absolute 10/10
Grade : A+
I almost feel ashamed for not liking this film
baumer25 August 1999
There is a very frustrating scene from Jaws 2 where Brody walks into the selectsmen's meeting carrying the photograph that the two divers took as they were being eaten. Brody sees the outline of the mouth and the eye. And he should know what a shark looks like. But when he passes it around, Harry saysSeaweed?" Verna Fields says, "it's under water isn't it? That's why it's so dark?" They can't see something that is so obviously and that is bothersome. That is how I feel about my reaction to the Exorcist. Everyone has told me how frightening it is and how it is a psychological trip. And I know the reaction that audiences had towards it in the 70's. But as much as I try, I just can't see it. It is not a scary movie and it is not even an enjoyable one, and I would even go so far as to say that it is not even a good movie.
First off, there are so many parts of this film that have nothing to do with what the film is about. The first hour is nothing. It really has no relevance to the rest of the film. And for the life of me I really can't understand what the beginning is about. Why do we need the background of the Exorcist in Iraq? What does that have to do with the film and how does it further the plot? I don't get it.
Secondly, this is a very poorly editted film. There were times that I cringed at some of the editting. It was such a blatant cut that you felt like you could see the editors crazy gluing the film together. And I am not saying that to be cruel, I really mean that.
Thirdly, and this is the big one, what is so scary about this film? Really, all Regan did was get her face scarred a bit, vomit a lot, yell out obsenities and blugeon herself with a cross. Now that is interesting in the fact that this must have sent a shock wave through the religious community because you are not supposed to say or do anything bad towards the church. But in terms of scares or chills? No way, they just weren't there. I can admire a film like Halloween and Blair Witch for being innovative enough to scare us but no this film. Frankly, I was bored. I really was. There were times that I wanted to turn this off and watch the baseball game, and we all know how boring baseball is on the tube. But this film moved at a snails pace. And if they would have cut it down by about thirty minutes, it may have been better.
The other element that I can't get past is the fact that this was the devil himself. Okay, let's just say it is. Why does it allow himself to be tied down? Why does it jump at water that isn't holy? Why does it possess a girl when it can come onto this Earth in human form if it wanted to. When Lucifer was kicked out of Heaven, he was abolished because of greed and a lust for power. So for an angel to be that despised must have been considered dangerous and powerful. If that is so, then why all the scenes of Satan being dominated by humans? Are you saying that the best he could come up with is making a girl puke, levitate, and throw a few things around the room? That sounds more like he was just having a bad day because he couldn't get his own way. That doesn't sound like the personification of evil. You want to see real evil, watch DeNiro in Angel Heart.
The Exorcist is a film that has it's place in history and I can admire it for that. And to be honest I almost feel like someone that doesn't like The Blair Witch Project. I can't understand why people can't like that film, that is true fear for me. So when I say that this film is really not that good, I can understand why people may think I'm ignorant, but when you compare this to A Nightmare On Elm Street or Halloween, can you honestly say that this has more to offer? And if you can say that, well, I just don't see it.
First off, there are so many parts of this film that have nothing to do with what the film is about. The first hour is nothing. It really has no relevance to the rest of the film. And for the life of me I really can't understand what the beginning is about. Why do we need the background of the Exorcist in Iraq? What does that have to do with the film and how does it further the plot? I don't get it.
Secondly, this is a very poorly editted film. There were times that I cringed at some of the editting. It was such a blatant cut that you felt like you could see the editors crazy gluing the film together. And I am not saying that to be cruel, I really mean that.
Thirdly, and this is the big one, what is so scary about this film? Really, all Regan did was get her face scarred a bit, vomit a lot, yell out obsenities and blugeon herself with a cross. Now that is interesting in the fact that this must have sent a shock wave through the religious community because you are not supposed to say or do anything bad towards the church. But in terms of scares or chills? No way, they just weren't there. I can admire a film like Halloween and Blair Witch for being innovative enough to scare us but no this film. Frankly, I was bored. I really was. There were times that I wanted to turn this off and watch the baseball game, and we all know how boring baseball is on the tube. But this film moved at a snails pace. And if they would have cut it down by about thirty minutes, it may have been better.
The other element that I can't get past is the fact that this was the devil himself. Okay, let's just say it is. Why does it allow himself to be tied down? Why does it jump at water that isn't holy? Why does it possess a girl when it can come onto this Earth in human form if it wanted to. When Lucifer was kicked out of Heaven, he was abolished because of greed and a lust for power. So for an angel to be that despised must have been considered dangerous and powerful. If that is so, then why all the scenes of Satan being dominated by humans? Are you saying that the best he could come up with is making a girl puke, levitate, and throw a few things around the room? That sounds more like he was just having a bad day because he couldn't get his own way. That doesn't sound like the personification of evil. You want to see real evil, watch DeNiro in Angel Heart.
The Exorcist is a film that has it's place in history and I can admire it for that. And to be honest I almost feel like someone that doesn't like The Blair Witch Project. I can't understand why people can't like that film, that is true fear for me. So when I say that this film is really not that good, I can understand why people may think I'm ignorant, but when you compare this to A Nightmare On Elm Street or Halloween, can you honestly say that this has more to offer? And if you can say that, well, I just don't see it.
Deserves to be on IMDb Top 250!!!
rocknroll848419 July 2020
I'm not sure why this film isn't on IMBb's Top 250 anymore but it deserves to be in at least the top 50 on the list. Maybe it's because millennials rate such beautiful classics lower since they're not getting the jump scares and torture porn of the modern era of horror... Not sure. Either way, this movie is THE horror film, the Godfather of it's genre! Absolute perfection! And it needs to be recognized as such!
It just doesn't scare me anymore...
AlsExGal17 October 2020
... and it was pretty scary when I saw it in 1974. Maybe the horror has shifted somewhat for me. In 1974 I was 16 and I was sheltered from the horror of real life. So horror films were the only thing that probably could scare me.
Today it plays like a very good drama, and what scares me the most is being put in Ellen Burstyn's place as the mother and not having a clue as to what is going on with her daughter and the patronizing doctors with their useless and apparently painful tests. Also the parallel drama of Father Karras having a crisis of faith and of conscience over the death of his mother is well done and well played as part of the larger story.
There is a great supporting cast with old veteran Lee J. Cobb as the cop. But there are some holes in the plot. I mean, what does Cobb think is going on anyways? Does he think a girl that sick can push a man out of a window? He's like a noir character in search of a villain. And, at least in the film, there is never a connection made between a girl in Georgetown, Washington D.C. suddenly becoming possessed and digging up an artifact in a foreign land. I haven't read the book, maybe there the connection is made. And what is going on with leaving a window open at night in Washington,D.C. As somebody who lives near there, I can tell you if you do this, something much scarier than a demon is coming in through that window! This is the big city, not Mayberry!
Some production notes: Linda Blair was in fact 15 when this movie was made, not 12. The radiology technician in the hospital scene was a legitimate active serial killer at the time of filming. Max Von Sydow was only 44 at the time of filming, not a very old man. It's odd how he has always and convincingly played men much older than himself. The "spider walk" scene was added back into the film years later. I have no idea why they elected to take that out of the original release. It's a sledgehammer to the face. On second thought, maybe that is the reason they took it out.
Today it plays like a very good drama, and what scares me the most is being put in Ellen Burstyn's place as the mother and not having a clue as to what is going on with her daughter and the patronizing doctors with their useless and apparently painful tests. Also the parallel drama of Father Karras having a crisis of faith and of conscience over the death of his mother is well done and well played as part of the larger story.
There is a great supporting cast with old veteran Lee J. Cobb as the cop. But there are some holes in the plot. I mean, what does Cobb think is going on anyways? Does he think a girl that sick can push a man out of a window? He's like a noir character in search of a villain. And, at least in the film, there is never a connection made between a girl in Georgetown, Washington D.C. suddenly becoming possessed and digging up an artifact in a foreign land. I haven't read the book, maybe there the connection is made. And what is going on with leaving a window open at night in Washington,D.C. As somebody who lives near there, I can tell you if you do this, something much scarier than a demon is coming in through that window! This is the big city, not Mayberry!
Some production notes: Linda Blair was in fact 15 when this movie was made, not 12. The radiology technician in the hospital scene was a legitimate active serial killer at the time of filming. Max Von Sydow was only 44 at the time of filming, not a very old man. It's odd how he has always and convincingly played men much older than himself. The "spider walk" scene was added back into the film years later. I have no idea why they elected to take that out of the original release. It's a sledgehammer to the face. On second thought, maybe that is the reason they took it out.
THE EXORCIST---A PERFECT FILM
Collins6 December 1998
Many people complain that this movie's too slow but those are the kind of folks who only like 80-minute splatter films with characters so dumb and one-sided, you pray for the bad guy to kill them. This monster of a drama is both beautiful and bold. It has CHARACTERS and not simply LAMEBRAINS lined up for slaughter. It has class and purpose. It takes the audience into the darkest recesses of humankind and then brings them back through a message of hope and self-sacrifice. The movie is NOT anti-religion, it's anti-evil. Anyone who likes smart, clever, meaningful horror-drama should see this film at least twice. It is surprisingly touching and amazingly powerful.
That said, the cast deserves a hand for their wonderful performances. Ellen Burstyn perfectly conveys the tension of a mother of the cusp of tragedy; Max von Sydow is hauntingly perfect as the story's ray of light; Jason Miller embodies the sadness of a defeated man; and Linda Blair is far above average even at her young age.
Once again, see this movie. You won't forget it.
That said, the cast deserves a hand for their wonderful performances. Ellen Burstyn perfectly conveys the tension of a mother of the cusp of tragedy; Max von Sydow is hauntingly perfect as the story's ray of light; Jason Miller embodies the sadness of a defeated man; and Linda Blair is far above average even at her young age.
Once again, see this movie. You won't forget it.
Engraved into your minds...forever
de_niro_986 December 1999
For those who watched this film on the big screen when it was re-released and thought it was 'comical, funny, not disturbing nor scary' are just do not understand the complexity that surrounds this movie. Back in '73, no one was expecting a film of this kind, and I know it has been said many times but it WAS way ahead of its time. A time where cinema was in its infancy, religion was practiced on a larger scale than today and showing such violent, graphic and disturbing scenes was not thought of as being possible, one can understand why it has been banned for so many years.
I recently watched this movie (at night, before bedtime) and it really left me thinking of how such horrifying scenes could be shown and portrayed in such a way. There were many scenes that would not get out of my head (for those who have seen the movie would know what scenes they are). I could not sleep that night and that hasn't happened since I saw Nightmare On Elm Street Part 1 when I was 6!
What makes things worse is that there are well known cases where people have been possessed by the devil or a supernatural being, which leads them in doing evil deeds.
When you mix a horror movie with religion on such a large magnitude, things can heat up and become very unpleasant.
I recently watched this movie (at night, before bedtime) and it really left me thinking of how such horrifying scenes could be shown and portrayed in such a way. There were many scenes that would not get out of my head (for those who have seen the movie would know what scenes they are). I could not sleep that night and that hasn't happened since I saw Nightmare On Elm Street Part 1 when I was 6!
What makes things worse is that there are well known cases where people have been possessed by the devil or a supernatural being, which leads them in doing evil deeds.
When you mix a horror movie with religion on such a large magnitude, things can heat up and become very unpleasant.
The Most Overrated Film Of All Time: The Exorcist
the_cyberpunk7 July 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Honestly, this was never a good film, it sucked in the 1970's when it was made, and it still sucks today when it is worshipped. How it ever passed for a good film is beyond me, but somehow millions of people still flock to screenings of this stinker while the Catholic Church continues to be outraged for some reason. The honest truth of this film is simple: it is not a great film, and it shouldn't be a controversial film. Its portrayal of the Church is if anything rational and progressive; "What do you mean your little girl is possessed, what are you, stupid? This is the 20th century." Face it people, the emperor is naked. There's barely anything passing itself off as a plot, just a series of sad, scary and sometimes silly scenarios that are largely unrelated to each other and a rather ridiculous premise when you actually examine it. Not to mention the lamest portrayal of a character in film history; that of the Devil. It is established that young and unfortunate little Regan is possessed not just by a demon, but (oooh insert scary music) the Devil himself . . . because she played with Ouija board . . . Right . . . Honestly, this is the best the Devil can do? His major forays into the world of mortals consist of puking green slime and making lewd remarks? When did the devil become little more than a drunken frat boy at a kegger? I mean sure when it's a little girl doing it, it's kind of odd, but throw a backwards hat on her and a baggy Lakers Jersey and she'd fit right in at the next Kappa Beta Gama pledge night. Why didn't he do something creative and take over the president and start a nuclear war, or take over a Georgia Prosecutor and then get her to leave law after a string of misconducts only to start her own lousy talk show? If I was Father Merrin I'd be relieved that this is the worst thing the Devil could come up with, pull up a chair next to the bed, throw on a Cheech and Chong movie and have some laughs, and then wonder if the reason Lucifer was actually cast out of heaven was for being obnoxious and lighting his own farts while everyone was trying to watch UFC.
Meanwhile all of the other supporting characters have an emotional range that spans the vast gulf of human expression ranging from "concerned" to "disturbed", oh there's a few party scenes but those get spoiled too and everyone goes back to "concerned". There's a sort of half-assed side plot involving a priest losing his faith because his mother dies, a half assed side plot involving a movie actress, and another of a sort of wandering exorcist priest wandering through poor countries looking to cast out demons (apparently demons don't hang around in country clubs or boardrooms, but only in those Sally Struthers countries). The widest range of emotions come from Regan/Satan who goes from looking uncomfortable while being probed by doctors to grinning like an idiot while she grosses everyone out with her cooky demonic antics.
If you're going to watch this film for the first time, watch it objectively. Ask yourself what exactly is scary about the premise for this movie. Ask yourself why the devil couldn't come up with anything better than freaking some people out and making a big mess of a little girl's room. Then after you've done this, go and pick up a copy of the only good Friedken movie: The French Connection.
Meanwhile all of the other supporting characters have an emotional range that spans the vast gulf of human expression ranging from "concerned" to "disturbed", oh there's a few party scenes but those get spoiled too and everyone goes back to "concerned". There's a sort of half-assed side plot involving a priest losing his faith because his mother dies, a half assed side plot involving a movie actress, and another of a sort of wandering exorcist priest wandering through poor countries looking to cast out demons (apparently demons don't hang around in country clubs or boardrooms, but only in those Sally Struthers countries). The widest range of emotions come from Regan/Satan who goes from looking uncomfortable while being probed by doctors to grinning like an idiot while she grosses everyone out with her cooky demonic antics.
If you're going to watch this film for the first time, watch it objectively. Ask yourself what exactly is scary about the premise for this movie. Ask yourself why the devil couldn't come up with anything better than freaking some people out and making a big mess of a little girl's room. Then after you've done this, go and pick up a copy of the only good Friedken movie: The French Connection.
Still A Masterpiece After 45 Years
agro_sydney6 August 2018
I recently revisited this film on Blu-ray after some 45 years. It still rates as one of my favourite horror films, one of my top ten films and a masterpiece of film making. Beautiful photography, great locations, sets, special effects and acting.
It still stands up as a great film today
One of the few movies to genuinely unsettle me
TheLittleSongbird13 October 2011
The horror genre is a genre that has been growing on me overtime, and I genuinely believe The Exorcist is a landmark of it. Not just how much it's talked about or parodied, but also its ability to unnerve and unsettle me even years later. The Exorcist is a fantastic film, both as a film of its genre and of film full-stop. The effects are superb and have held up very well, and the sound is marvellous and adds to the many startling moments. The cinematography and scenery are also incredibly well done. The macabre, obscene demonstrations of manifest evil on display still startle even now, while William Friedkin's direction is one of his best and most intelligent of his career, not just making the scares genuine but also combining these with allegorical religious subtleties. The performances also lift, Linda Blair is really quite startling, and you couldn't have had more perfect support from Max Von Sydow and Ellen Burstyn. Overall, genuinely unsettling and effective. 10/10 Bethany Cox
They don't make em like they used to...
somesunnyday17 May 2005
"The scariest movie of all time". Some movie goers agree and some disagree. I belong to the former group, though I would like to rephrase it to "One of the scariest movies of all time". For those of you who have been living in a cave for the past twenty two years, the story is of a pre-pubescent girl, Regan (Linda Blair), possessed by a demon whom purports to be the Devil himself ("Now kindly undo these straps!").
In this day and age of schlock fest horror films being relentlessly released (or spewed out for want of a better term) by the big wig studios on a quest to cash in on the latest teenage trend, this premise for a horror story may not seem so scary to most. However, it's the road we take to arrive at this supposition that makes this film stand out from the rest.
The seeds of dread and fear are planted early with screen legend Max Von Sydow's Father Merrin receiving disturbing and familiar Omens of what is to come during an archaeological dig in Northern Iraq.
We're then taken to the setting where the real horror will begin in the Georgetown home of Chris MacNeil (Ellen Burstyn), a successful divorcée film actress living with her daughter Regan. We're initially presented with a Regan who loves horses, has a close and loving relationship with her mother, is uncomfortable with the strained relationship between her parents and has the innocent demeanour and narrow vocabulary of every normal young girl.
The carefully crafted and ever so gradual change in Regan's personality, the strange drawings and figurines she creates, the emergence of Captain Howdy (Regan's imaginary friend) and strange outbursts ("You're gonna die up there") and so called physical convulsions force Chris to turn to doctors and eventually psychiatrists to try and get to the bottom of Regan's ever worsening behaviour. Her vocabulary becomes quite extensive with spine chilling, sudden maturity and her outbursts more terrifyingly violent. After exhausting all the "somatic" possibilities for Regan's troubles Chris desperately seeks help from world weary Jesuit Psychiatrist Priest Father Karras (Jason Miller) requesting an exorcism.
By the time Karras meets Regan, any semblance of the innocent young girl has completely vanished. Karras is grappling with his faith and subsequently doubts she is truly 'possessed'. Finally convinced that an exorcism is the way to go, he seeks permission from the Catholic Church, who grant him with the condition that he perform it with the help of the experienced Father Merrin.
Merrin arrives like a knight in shining armour for the ultimate showdown! A great screenplay by William Peter Blatty (based on his book), intelligent directing from William Friedken and outstanding performances from all the cast, particularly Ellen Burstyn as the traumatised mother make for a classic piece of horror that will stand the test of time. 10/10
In this day and age of schlock fest horror films being relentlessly released (or spewed out for want of a better term) by the big wig studios on a quest to cash in on the latest teenage trend, this premise for a horror story may not seem so scary to most. However, it's the road we take to arrive at this supposition that makes this film stand out from the rest.
The seeds of dread and fear are planted early with screen legend Max Von Sydow's Father Merrin receiving disturbing and familiar Omens of what is to come during an archaeological dig in Northern Iraq.
We're then taken to the setting where the real horror will begin in the Georgetown home of Chris MacNeil (Ellen Burstyn), a successful divorcée film actress living with her daughter Regan. We're initially presented with a Regan who loves horses, has a close and loving relationship with her mother, is uncomfortable with the strained relationship between her parents and has the innocent demeanour and narrow vocabulary of every normal young girl.
The carefully crafted and ever so gradual change in Regan's personality, the strange drawings and figurines she creates, the emergence of Captain Howdy (Regan's imaginary friend) and strange outbursts ("You're gonna die up there") and so called physical convulsions force Chris to turn to doctors and eventually psychiatrists to try and get to the bottom of Regan's ever worsening behaviour. Her vocabulary becomes quite extensive with spine chilling, sudden maturity and her outbursts more terrifyingly violent. After exhausting all the "somatic" possibilities for Regan's troubles Chris desperately seeks help from world weary Jesuit Psychiatrist Priest Father Karras (Jason Miller) requesting an exorcism.
By the time Karras meets Regan, any semblance of the innocent young girl has completely vanished. Karras is grappling with his faith and subsequently doubts she is truly 'possessed'. Finally convinced that an exorcism is the way to go, he seeks permission from the Catholic Church, who grant him with the condition that he perform it with the help of the experienced Father Merrin.
Merrin arrives like a knight in shining armour for the ultimate showdown! A great screenplay by William Peter Blatty (based on his book), intelligent directing from William Friedken and outstanding performances from all the cast, particularly Ellen Burstyn as the traumatised mother make for a classic piece of horror that will stand the test of time. 10/10
The Exorcist....more than a mere horror film
hammer-12 October 2001
The Exorcist is the best horror film ever made and there is one reason for this,the subject matter is treated with dignity and respect,too many "horror films" are made today that just don't try,it's as if they give up half way through and fall into self parody and amusement.the Exorcist is an exception and one of the very few good horror films around.the film works on a number of levels and is one of the few films I know of to do this i.e subliminal imagery,multiple storylines. a lot has been written about this film drawing mainly on sensationalism surrounding the films release that it would be hard for someone who has not seen the film to not have any preconceptions,but if you have not seen the film do try to keep an open mind because it will scare the hell out of you.this is also one of the rare cases where a film could arguably be better than the book it was adapted from.in my opinion the film could not have been made any better,the cast throughout are superb, the locations and production are second to none,all the characters are totally believable and there are points in the film where you think all this could really happen and it is for that reason the film is frightening and continues to frighten people to this day....a true shocker and one that has not lost any of its impact over the years.
"You're telling me I should take my daughter to a witch doctor, is that it?"
classicsoncall29 October 2006
Warning: Spoilers
When I reflect back on the movies of the 1970's, I'm struck by how many of them helped reinvigorate their respective genres. There was "Star Wars" for fantasy, "Alien" for sci-fi, and "Jaws" for the shark crowd, though I don't think that's really a genre. For horror fans, "The Exorcist" was the one that had everyone talking in 1973, and not only talking, but lining up around the block to get a chance to see it. In fact, the first time I tried, the person directly in front of me in line was the last one allowed in for that showing.
When I finally did get to see it, the experience left a marked impression. It was fascinating, horrific, sensational and scary all at the same time. Having read the book, I wondered how much liberty would be taken with the story, but it was pretty much all there. At the time, hands down, it was the most frightening film I'd ever seen.
The movie played last night as part of AMC's Halloween Fest, and though largely sanitized for TV, the impact of the film is still alive and well. It's a movie that plants a nagging seed of doubt in one's mind - what would happen if Satan himself could take over the body and soul of an innocent young girl? The gradual unfolding of the parallel stories in "The Exorcist" are built on credible real life situations, so that by the time Linda Blair's demon face appears on screen, you're ready to grab the holy water and say a prayer.
Now if you're a younger viewer born of a more recent era, I'll grant that the film might not have the same effect. Though Blair's possession makeup was visually stunning at the time, special effects since then have far surpassed that effort. But it had to start somewhere, and as a precursor to virtually everything that followed, this was the one to top. And when Regan's head spins, yikes!, but I thought mine would too. For 1973, that was an incredible piece of work, with visuals that stay with you long after the film is over.
When I finally did get to see it, the experience left a marked impression. It was fascinating, horrific, sensational and scary all at the same time. Having read the book, I wondered how much liberty would be taken with the story, but it was pretty much all there. At the time, hands down, it was the most frightening film I'd ever seen.
The movie played last night as part of AMC's Halloween Fest, and though largely sanitized for TV, the impact of the film is still alive and well. It's a movie that plants a nagging seed of doubt in one's mind - what would happen if Satan himself could take over the body and soul of an innocent young girl? The gradual unfolding of the parallel stories in "The Exorcist" are built on credible real life situations, so that by the time Linda Blair's demon face appears on screen, you're ready to grab the holy water and say a prayer.
Now if you're a younger viewer born of a more recent era, I'll grant that the film might not have the same effect. Though Blair's possession makeup was visually stunning at the time, special effects since then have far surpassed that effort. But it had to start somewhere, and as a precursor to virtually everything that followed, this was the one to top. And when Regan's head spins, yikes!, but I thought mine would too. For 1973, that was an incredible piece of work, with visuals that stay with you long after the film is over.
Not Bad; Just Overhyped
sddavis636 March 2004
It's hard to believe the furor that was apparently caused when this movie was first released. I was just 10 years old at the time and never saw it in the theatres, and, in fact, only just recently saw it for the first time. It struck me as a pretty standard horror movie about a young girl possessed by the devil. I didn't find it shocking or horrific, and have seen movies that were far more frightening than this.
The highlight of the movie, I would say, was the absolutely brilliant performance by young Linda Blair as the possessed Regan. She has apparently said over the years that this movie was the end of any real acting career for her, because she became so deeply associated with this character in the public imagination. That's the price, I guess, when your first movie performance is so brilliant and so controversial. With no body of work before to balance it, Linda Blair became Regan MacNeil. Jason Miller was effective as Father Damien, but was overshadowed by Blair. It was also, I thought, a good study of a priest who had become a psychologist more than a theologian (far too common in all Christian denominations, even today.) Max Von Sydow's performance as Father Merrin (called in by the Church to confront the demon) was quite good.
I got lost a bit in the beginning of this movie, which dealt with some of Merrin's background, and there was also no real explanation of how this girl got possessed (which, however, is probably making a point: evil can strike anywhere for no obvious reason.)
In the end, I just found this to be a decent horror movie, but I didn't think there was anything spectacular about it. 6/10
The highlight of the movie, I would say, was the absolutely brilliant performance by young Linda Blair as the possessed Regan. She has apparently said over the years that this movie was the end of any real acting career for her, because she became so deeply associated with this character in the public imagination. That's the price, I guess, when your first movie performance is so brilliant and so controversial. With no body of work before to balance it, Linda Blair became Regan MacNeil. Jason Miller was effective as Father Damien, but was overshadowed by Blair. It was also, I thought, a good study of a priest who had become a psychologist more than a theologian (far too common in all Christian denominations, even today.) Max Von Sydow's performance as Father Merrin (called in by the Church to confront the demon) was quite good.
I got lost a bit in the beginning of this movie, which dealt with some of Merrin's background, and there was also no real explanation of how this girl got possessed (which, however, is probably making a point: evil can strike anywhere for no obvious reason.)
In the end, I just found this to be a decent horror movie, but I didn't think there was anything spectacular about it. 6/10
Review of The Exorcist.
pete-54624 August 2005
For as long as I can recall, I've always possessed (no pun intended) an innate feeling that there exists outside the realm of our established dogma things that defy conventional logic. When I was in the sixth grade, I read the book, "The Exorcist," which scared me senseless. The idea that the Devil could infiltrate the delicate core of one's being called a soul absolutely terrified me at such a young age. After seeing the movie, I was speechless. Have been ever since. William Friedkin's transformation of the book to the movie was superb, in my opinion. (Not all adaptations are.) Dick Smith's special effects, in contrast to today's make-up advancements in the film industry, are still able to stand the test of time. The acting was splendid, from Lee J. Cobb & Jason Miller, to Ellen Burstyn and Max von Sydow's limited appearance in the piece. Friedkin's slice-of-life direction enhances the essence of the fear-factor in an oddly subtle fashion, as though the viewer were actually alongside the characters in the film. Lending to the creepiness of the film is the fact that there exists a minimal musical score (Mike Oldfield's "Tubular Bells" does accompany two nuns strolling gingerly down a Georgetown street in autumn, their robes billowing slightly in the wind). The palpability of what happens to a young Linda Blair has astounded me for over three decades. Having been so taken with the notion that inhuman entities DO stalk the earth and have never existed in human form, I've written a couple of novels on the subject matter, myself. I liken the new version that had been released a few years ago to the last nail in the proverbial coffin of effectiveness, making this one of the best horror-genre films of all time. Simply put: I've never seen any film that remotely comes close to what this movie has done to me (in terms of frightening me senseless). Linda Blair's cute Regan MacNeil is utterly transformed into a beast which is flat-out disturbing to behold. The movie has moved me ever since I had seen it at age fourteen, and I suspect will always. Put simply, at age forty-three I still have a difficult time watching it on my own. Great job, Mr. Friedkin and crew!
Pretty good, but pretty flawed
Qanqor14 June 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Well, after all these year, I finally got around to seeing this picture, to see what all the fuss was about.
What I found was, it was a pretty good horror movie, but nothing all that outstanding. There was a lot of good stuff, but some pretty bad flaws too. There seemed to be an *awful* lot of extraneous stuff in the movie that should've been just left out, to make a tighter story. For instance, what was up with that whole opening scene in Iraq? What did that have to do with *anything*? Yeah, it provided a little exposition on the exorcist character, but not really that much, and by the time the dogs are barking and the weird guy is staring at him, the whole thing starts to make no sense and asks more questions than it answers. Or the prolonged story about the shrink-priest's mother, that seemed to be done in vastly more detail than was warranted for its importance to the story. Or, really, the *entire* character of the cop, which ends up going nowhere. And I'm still scratching my head trying to figure out the relevance of the drunk guy making Nazi accusations.
There's also a fundamental problem here of motive. What on *earth* was the demon trying to accomplish by possessing the girl? With the power that the demon clearly possessed, you'd think it could've found better ways to cause havoc or do evil or whatever the heck its goal was, than just by tormenting a little girl and her family. That thing could've caused trouble on a vastly larger scale than that! And I still can't really find any method to its madness. First clanking around in the attic, what did that accomplish? Then taking a LONG time to possess the little girl, why the painfully slow approach, when he was able to take over the priest instantaneously? (yeah, the priest invited him in, but still. The girl was pretty much helpless to resist) In short, the demon's character is very badly contrived; it conveniently does whatever will lead to a gradual build-up of suspense and shock in the film for the convenience of the director, rather than having any logical or consistent motive for what it was doing.
Still, while rather slow in developing, it did hold my interest, and I did care about the outcome, and it was pretty creepy, if not exactly terrifying. Again, a pretty good horror flick, but no great masterpiece.
What I found was, it was a pretty good horror movie, but nothing all that outstanding. There was a lot of good stuff, but some pretty bad flaws too. There seemed to be an *awful* lot of extraneous stuff in the movie that should've been just left out, to make a tighter story. For instance, what was up with that whole opening scene in Iraq? What did that have to do with *anything*? Yeah, it provided a little exposition on the exorcist character, but not really that much, and by the time the dogs are barking and the weird guy is staring at him, the whole thing starts to make no sense and asks more questions than it answers. Or the prolonged story about the shrink-priest's mother, that seemed to be done in vastly more detail than was warranted for its importance to the story. Or, really, the *entire* character of the cop, which ends up going nowhere. And I'm still scratching my head trying to figure out the relevance of the drunk guy making Nazi accusations.
There's also a fundamental problem here of motive. What on *earth* was the demon trying to accomplish by possessing the girl? With the power that the demon clearly possessed, you'd think it could've found better ways to cause havoc or do evil or whatever the heck its goal was, than just by tormenting a little girl and her family. That thing could've caused trouble on a vastly larger scale than that! And I still can't really find any method to its madness. First clanking around in the attic, what did that accomplish? Then taking a LONG time to possess the little girl, why the painfully slow approach, when he was able to take over the priest instantaneously? (yeah, the priest invited him in, but still. The girl was pretty much helpless to resist) In short, the demon's character is very badly contrived; it conveniently does whatever will lead to a gradual build-up of suspense and shock in the film for the convenience of the director, rather than having any logical or consistent motive for what it was doing.
Still, while rather slow in developing, it did hold my interest, and I did care about the outcome, and it was pretty creepy, if not exactly terrifying. Again, a pretty good horror flick, but no great masterpiece.
The Exorcist
Malcs22 March 2000
Warning: Spoilers
I've never really been much of a fan of horror films because I've never been able to suspend my belief long enough to let a monster scare me. To me psychological demons are much more effective than overdone makeup jobs. I prefer The Haunting with Claire Bloom, or The Shining with Jack Nicholson. But the all-time classic has got to be The Exorcist. One of the reasons The Exorcist always scares the bejesus out of me is because it treats an epistemological subject very seriously, even when the one character you'd expect to step forth willingly, young priest Father Karras (Jason Miller), does his best to dissuade Ellen Burstyn that her daughter is possessed by a demon. Of course, by that time Karras has already confessed to a fellow priest that he's started to lose his own faith because he realizes that the problems he has to deal with of his congregation are too much for one man, especially a man who keeps neglecting his own mother during the last days of her life. I think one of the reasons this is such a successful film is that the concept of a demon is treated as intangibly as our imagination's reach: How WOULD the devil deal with us if confronted? By reading each of our souls, finding whatever carefully hidden secrets there are and spewing them back in our faces as spiritual ammunition. Not only that, but when you see Regan (Linda Blair) in the opening scenes gently horseplaying around with her mother and her sister, the charm and goodness she radiates leaves you completely floored when she finally does become possessed and turns into a creature so horrible that you forget all about Regan. The lynchpin is having Max von Sydow cast as the aging priest who comes to finish off the work that Father Karras has started. Von Sydow who has been Ingmar Bergman's spiritual warrior for so many of his films dealing with the epistemological nature of the universe. And credit must go to Mercedes McCambridge for supplying the voice of the demon.
I think The Exorcist is one of the best "lit" and photographed films of all time. The use of shadow is brilliant; very low key (simple things like showing a lit hall, yet having the far stairway at the END of the hall not lit...very subtly eerie stuff) yet incredibly evocative. I mean, the shadows damn near have colors. Director of Photography Owen Roizman, whose work can be seen in "The Addams Family" and "Grand Canyon," shot "The Exorcist." Roizman's credits include such famous titles as "The French Connection," "Network," "Tootsie," "Three Days of the Condor," "The Electric Horseman" and "Havana." In a movie that took 180 days to make (three times the average), the exorcism alone took three months-and on some of those days the crew felt lucky to get one shot. That was because director William Friedkin wanted to make it visually clear that the satanic spirit inside the possessed girl had made the room unbearably cold. A refrigerated set representing her bedroom was constructed on a sound stage, and air conditioners worked all night to lower its temperature to 40 degrees below zero. "When we set up the lights in the morning, that would raise the temperature to around zero, which was necessary if we were going to be able to see the frost on the actor's breath," Roizman explained. "We also kept the humidity very high. It was an unbelievably uncomfortable way to work."
Look closely using stop-action laserdisc to reveal the flash-frames of Satan's face, which Friedkin inserted almost subliminally at two places, and to reveal a subtle double-exposure in which the evil spirit seems to peer out through Blair's eyes. There are semi-subliminal single-frame shots in this film: when the priest is dreaming of his mother coming up out of the subway, there is a single frame shot of a face (Eileen Dietz), painted black and white, grimacing. There are two other places where this image is supposedly displayed: when Regan, lying on the bed, turns to look at Father Merrin and Father Karras, and just after the head-turning scene. Do not watch this alone.
I think The Exorcist is one of the best "lit" and photographed films of all time. The use of shadow is brilliant; very low key (simple things like showing a lit hall, yet having the far stairway at the END of the hall not lit...very subtly eerie stuff) yet incredibly evocative. I mean, the shadows damn near have colors. Director of Photography Owen Roizman, whose work can be seen in "The Addams Family" and "Grand Canyon," shot "The Exorcist." Roizman's credits include such famous titles as "The French Connection," "Network," "Tootsie," "Three Days of the Condor," "The Electric Horseman" and "Havana." In a movie that took 180 days to make (three times the average), the exorcism alone took three months-and on some of those days the crew felt lucky to get one shot. That was because director William Friedkin wanted to make it visually clear that the satanic spirit inside the possessed girl had made the room unbearably cold. A refrigerated set representing her bedroom was constructed on a sound stage, and air conditioners worked all night to lower its temperature to 40 degrees below zero. "When we set up the lights in the morning, that would raise the temperature to around zero, which was necessary if we were going to be able to see the frost on the actor's breath," Roizman explained. "We also kept the humidity very high. It was an unbelievably uncomfortable way to work."
Look closely using stop-action laserdisc to reveal the flash-frames of Satan's face, which Friedkin inserted almost subliminally at two places, and to reveal a subtle double-exposure in which the evil spirit seems to peer out through Blair's eyes. There are semi-subliminal single-frame shots in this film: when the priest is dreaming of his mother coming up out of the subway, there is a single frame shot of a face (Eileen Dietz), painted black and white, grimacing. There are two other places where this image is supposedly displayed: when Regan, lying on the bed, turns to look at Father Merrin and Father Karras, and just after the head-turning scene. Do not watch this alone.
cerebral, plausible, and compelling
Jonny_Numb15 September 2005
There are certain scenes in "The Exorcist" that have a great power to them (the exorcism itself is a masterful set-piece) and others that are a bit shaky (including the drunk, unfunny director cracking Nazi jokes in the presence of a German butler); but overall, it is a film that mines genuine fear from a pervasive sense of vulnerability. In dealing with the possession of a young girl (Linda Blair) by an unseen, inexplicable force, we feel as if nothing is safe, therefore making the potential of horror that much greater. I suppose the story is probably the most familiar in the annals of horror at this point, but to recap: actress Chris MacNeil's (Ellen Burstyn) daughter, Regan (Blair) comes under the spell of a vile, vulgar demon (at one point implied to be the Devil itself), and when the most well-paid psychiatrists and doctors come up clueless, the Catholic ritual of exorcism is suggested. While the performances of Burstyn and Blair aren't revelatory (Chris often seems like an overly dramatic starlet in need of a Xanax, and Regan is confined to heavy make-up), the thread of plot dealing with Damien Karras (the Gabriel Byrne-ish Jason Miller), a priest who suffers the death of his mother and is afraid he's losing his faith, adds a believable, consequential depth to the tale--the visible doubt he conveys during the exorcism finale (alongside the brilliant Max von Sydow) makes the tension resonate on a higher level. "The Exorcist" is cerebral, plausible, and compelling...in my book, it may not be 'the scariest movie of all time,' but it unlocks an undeniably gripping fear.
Wow... what a bad movie.
Chromium_531 October 2004
Having looked over the other user comments, I see there are some definite patterns in how people react to this movie. Religious people think it is horrifying, agnostic people think it is creepy, and atheist people think it is hilarious. But I really can't figure out the people who say it's scary because of its "subtlety." How on earth is vomiting, head twisting, levitation, and masturbation subtle? This movie is intended to shock and offend, not scare. I mean, a "subtle" possession movie would have the demon murmuring in a low, unearthly voice, not shrieking like the Incredible Hulk. Everything is just too over-the-top.
There are parts that are pretty sick and twisted, but nothing really scary. It didn't take me long to figure out that this is nothing but shock schlock. I didn't find it as funny as some people do (although the pea soup vomit was rather amusing), but I did find it disappointing, insulting, and irritating.
4/10 stars.
There are parts that are pretty sick and twisted, but nothing really scary. It didn't take me long to figure out that this is nothing but shock schlock. I didn't find it as funny as some people do (although the pea soup vomit was rather amusing), but I did find it disappointing, insulting, and irritating.
4/10 stars.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
