The Exorcist Reviews
Daniel Mumby
Super Reviewer
May 12, 2013
Much like its cult contemporary The Wicker Man, there are whole sections of The Exorcist which don't feel like a horror movie at all. It spends a lot of its running time as a mystery film or character drama, and only truly becomes a horror film in its last couple of reels. Both films seek to create unease through a series of strange events, which arouse our suspicions while also leaving the possibility that we are just being paranoid. But for all its odd diversions into musical and comedy territory, Robin Hardy's film is the more effectively unnerving.
The reason for this lies in the director's sensibility. Throughout his career William Friedkin has been a filmmaker who has confounded expectations, in ways both good and bad. He has always made the films he wants, just the way he wants them, and to be a true Friedkin fan we have to totally buy into these unusual creative decisions. But where Hardy's juxtapositions in The Wicker Man actually contribute to the unnerving atmosphere by throwing us off the scent, Friedkin's choices feel more archly choreographed, like he is toying with us often at the expense of the film's content.
This practice of counterpointing the serious and the frivolous can be seen at the beginning of The French Connection. We are introduced to Popeye Doyle, one of the roughest, toughest, hardest detectives in film history - and one of his first scenes involves him busting a drug dealer while wearing a Santa outfit. Likewise, in The Exorcist, Friedkin shoots one of the main conversations about the ethics of exorcism in front of some nubile young ladies playing tennis. In both cases the juxtaposition makes the film memorable, but it also offsets and compromises the intended mood; we might remember it, but there's no guarantee that we'll remember it fondly.
Because of its iconic status, it's very hard to judge The Exorcist impartially. Most new viewers will be aware of some aspect of its legacy, whether it's the infamous spider-walk (cut from the original version), Regan's head spinning all the way round, the levitating bed, or the opening theme of Tubular Bells (which barely appears at all). There is a real danger of judging the film by its reputation, rather than actually seeing if it works plain and simple as a film. The only way to do this is to look at its different components in turn, assessing its technical strengths and the ideas it seeks to raise.
Whatever Friedkin chooses to fill his scenes with, The Exorcist is a good-looking film, at least for the time. Owen Roizman collaborated with Friedkin on The French Connection, and would later shoot The Stepford Wives, Network and Tootsie - in short, he knows what he's doing. His use of shadows is very effective, particularly in the exterior scenes around the Georgetown steps and the corners of Chris and Regan's house. Some shots are overly static, lending the film a creaky feel, but it never feels like the cinematographer is trying to impose himself or a given genre onto the story.
The film also has a very good cast, many of whom have become icons of the horror genre. Linda Blair is magnificent in her most famous role, drawing us in with the sweetness and innocence of Regan, and then freaking us out as this part of her is steadily drained and corrupted, before finally being rediscovered. Jason Miller is great as Father Karras, using his slumped shoulders and the lower part of his face to convey the burden on the troubled priest. Max von Sydow has a good amount of gravitas as Father Marin, and Ellen Burstyn rounds the cast out nicely as Chris McNeil, though she can be annoying at times.
The ideas raised in The Exorcist remain hugely controversial, particularly in this age of increased public scepticism and a heightened awareness of church scandal and corruption. Its main idea is that there can be discernible, physical proof of the existence of good and evil, and that faith is a powerful and important means of combatting the latter. While many film villains are built around and ultimately explained through trauma and psychology, Pazuzu is far more intangible, and the film offers few answers about his origins, motivations or eventual fate.
The four main characters are arranged on a spectrum according to the extent of their faith, and in what force they chose to believe. Chris has no faith, referring to priests as "witch-doctors" when the idea of an exorcism is first floated. She spends the film is a state of desperation, barely clinging on, and arguably the only reason she survives is because the demon did not target her initially.
Karras wears the cloth but is troubled by the death of his mother; the demon exploits his insecurity, and only when faced with the reality of his own death does he fully commit, and in doing so save Regan. Marin's faith is rock-solid: previous experiences with exorcism, coupled with a life spent in the service of God, have completely removed his fear of death. In the middle of all this is Regan, the unfortunate innocent who is not yet capable of understanding the forces warring over her soul. We could spend an age discussing the role and purpose of her suffering in a theological context, but the debates are perhaps too nuanced and complex for such a brief review.
The film also uses Chris' scepticism as a means of exploring the position accorded to medicine in Western society. So much of the discourse around science concerns its place in a grand narrative, moving humanity out of superstition and into a place where we know all the answers. But Chris is ultimately just as shaky and insecure in the doctors' keeping as she is with the priests. The fear of the unknown still dogs her, and the emphasis we place on science and reason is not proof that evil doesn't exist, nor an effective means to combat it when it manifests itself.
The central problem with The Exorcist is that it fails to manifest these fascinating ideas in a way which can genuinely terrify an audience. Giving evil physicality is an interesting idea, and it's easy to appreciate the craft that went into Dick Smith's make-up. But the film becomes reliant on these physical effects to such an extent that the atmosphere built up in its early sections is compromised. It's not a shock-fest, but it isn't as intimidating as it should be.
When he made Rosemary's Baby five years previously, Roman Polanski very consciously played on the characters' surroundings to increase the tension. By emphasising the intimidating architecture of Rosemary's flat and the apartment complex as a whole, he created a sense of the whole world being against her even before the devil worshippers were introduced.
The Exorcist has moments where it becomes visceral and very scary - one of the main ones being where Regan is under medical examination. But these moments are interspersed with long sections of rudderless calm, so that when the scares intrude, they seem like more of a gimmick than was ever intended. You will be scared at some point watching the film, but Friedkin never quite achieves the level of unrelenting terror that Polanski created. There's something not quite right when a story driven by the Devil's influence isn't constantly intimidating.
The Exorcist is an intelligent and interesting horror movie which is more successful as a series of theological problems than as a means to be constantly scared. The cast and production values are very solid, and its ideas are well-formed without being neatly resolved - it just isn't scary enough to match the standard laid down by Polanski or his predecessors. In the end, the film is a must-see but not a must-love, and is by no means Friedkin's finest hour.
When something is billed as being the scariest film of all time, it's already setting itself up for a fall. Being scared is an entirely subjective experience: what will leave one person catatonic with terror would have almost no effect on another - worse still, they might even laugh at it. The Exorcist still has much to offer in the ideas it raises, or the performances through which they are raised, but after 40 years of iconic pop culture status, it's nothing like as scary as once it was.
Much like its cult contemporary The Wicker Man, there are whole sections of The Exorcist which don't feel like a horror movie at all. It spends a lot of its running time as a mystery film or character drama, and only truly becomes a horror film in its last couple of reels. Both films seek to create unease through a series of strange events, which arouse our suspicions while also leaving the possibility that we are just being paranoid. But for all its odd diversions into musical and comedy territory, Robin Hardy's film is the more effectively unnerving.
The reason for this lies in the director's sensibility. Throughout his career William Friedkin has been a filmmaker who has confounded expectations, in ways both good and bad. He has always made the films he wants, just the way he wants them, and to be a true Friedkin fan we have to totally buy into these unusual creative decisions. But where Hardy's juxtapositions in The Wicker Man actually contribute to the unnerving atmosphere by throwing us off the scent, Friedkin's choices feel more archly choreographed, like he is toying with us often at the expense of the film's content.
This practice of counterpointing the serious and the frivolous can be seen at the beginning of The French Connection. We are introduced to Popeye Doyle, one of the roughest, toughest, hardest detectives in film history - and one of his first scenes involves him busting a drug dealer while wearing a Santa outfit. Likewise, in The Exorcist, Friedkin shoots one of the main conversations about the ethics of exorcism in front of some nubile young ladies playing tennis. In both cases the juxtaposition makes the film memorable, but it also offsets and compromises the intended mood; we might remember it, but there's no guarantee that we'll remember it fondly.
Because of its iconic status, it's very hard to judge The Exorcist impartially. Most new viewers will be aware of some aspect of its legacy, whether it's the infamous spider-walk (cut from the original version), Regan's head spinning all the way round, the levitating bed, or the opening theme of Tubular Bells (which barely appears at all). There is a real danger of judging the film by its reputation, rather than actually seeing if it works plain and simple as a film. The only way to do this is to look at its different components in turn, assessing its technical strengths and the ideas it seeks to raise.
Whatever Friedkin chooses to fill his scenes with, The Exorcist is a good-looking film, at least for the time. Owen Roizman collaborated with Friedkin on The French Connection, and would later shoot The Stepford Wives, Network and Tootsie - in short, he knows what he's doing. His use of shadows is very effective, particularly in the exterior scenes around the Georgetown steps and the corners of Chris and Regan's house. Some shots are overly static, lending the film a creaky feel, but it never feels like the cinematographer is trying to impose himself or a given genre onto the story.
The film also has a very good cast, many of whom have become icons of the horror genre. Linda Blair is magnificent in her most famous role, drawing us in with the sweetness and innocence of Regan, and then freaking us out as this part of her is steadily drained and corrupted, before finally being rediscovered. Jason Miller is great as Father Karras, using his slumped shoulders and the lower part of his face to convey the burden on the troubled priest. Max von Sydow has a good amount of gravitas as Father Marin, and Ellen Burstyn rounds the cast out nicely as Chris McNeil, though she can be annoying at times.
The ideas raised in The Exorcist remain hugely controversial, particularly in this age of increased public scepticism and a heightened awareness of church scandal and corruption. Its main idea is that there can be discernible, physical proof of the existence of good and evil, and that faith is a powerful and important means of combatting the latter. While many film villains are built around and ultimately explained through trauma and psychology, Pazuzu is far more intangible, and the film offers few answers about his origins, motivations or eventual fate.
The four main characters are arranged on a spectrum according to the extent of their faith, and in what force they chose to believe. Chris has no faith, referring to priests as "witch-doctors" when the idea of an exorcism is first floated. She spends the film is a state of desperation, barely clinging on, and arguably the only reason she survives is because the demon did not target her initially.
Karras wears the cloth but is troubled by the death of his mother; the demon exploits his insecurity, and only when faced with the reality of his own death does he fully commit, and in doing so save Regan. Marin's faith is rock-solid: previous experiences with exorcism, coupled with a life spent in the service of God, have completely removed his fear of death. In the middle of all this is Regan, the unfortunate innocent who is not yet capable of understanding the forces warring over her soul. We could spend an age discussing the role and purpose of her suffering in a theological context, but the debates are perhaps too nuanced and complex for such a brief review.
The film also uses Chris' scepticism as a means of exploring the position accorded to medicine in Western society. So much of the discourse around science concerns its place in a grand narrative, moving humanity out of superstition and into a place where we know all the answers. But Chris is ultimately just as shaky and insecure in the doctors' keeping as she is with the priests. The fear of the unknown still dogs her, and the emphasis we place on science and reason is not proof that evil doesn't exist, nor an effective means to combat it when it manifests itself.
The central problem with The Exorcist is that it fails to manifest these fascinating ideas in a way which can genuinely terrify an audience. Giving evil physicality is an interesting idea, and it's easy to appreciate the craft that went into Dick Smith's make-up. But the film becomes reliant on these physical effects to such an extent that the atmosphere built up in its early sections is compromised. It's not a shock-fest, but it isn't as intimidating as it should be.
When he made Rosemary's Baby five years previously, Roman Polanski very consciously played on the characters' surroundings to increase the tension. By emphasising the intimidating architecture of Rosemary's flat and the apartment complex as a whole, he created a sense of the whole world being against her even before the devil worshippers were introduced.
The Exorcist has moments where it becomes visceral and very scary - one of the main ones being where Regan is under medical examination. But these moments are interspersed with long sections of rudderless calm, so that when the scares intrude, they seem like more of a gimmick than was ever intended. You will be scared at some point watching the film, but Friedkin never quite achieves the level of unrelenting terror that Polanski created. There's something not quite right when a story driven by the Devil's influence isn't constantly intimidating.
The Exorcist is an intelligent and interesting horror movie which is more successful as a series of theological problems than as a means to be constantly scared. The cast and production values are very solid, and its ideas are well-formed without being neatly resolved - it just isn't scary enough to match the standard laid down by Polanski or his predecessors. In the end, the film is a must-see but not a must-love, and is by no means Friedkin's finest hour.
Alexander D
Super Reviewer
July 20, 2011
It's only when I watch a truly brilliant horror film that I begin to realize why the genre has deteriorated in recent years. Such films as The Exorcism of Emily Rose and The Rite want to be the new Exorcist, but it's humanly impossible to shape garbage into glory on a budget and severe time constraints. We sit in front of such clones and see the crust of The Exorcist: mutilated and demonic bodies vs. priests. But there's no inner core, no depth to keep us awake throughout the film, let alone throughout the night.
Eugene B
Super Reviewer
October 30, 2012
William Friedkin does an exceptional job inducing fear and graphic supernatural horrors in the 1970s classic. Though some dialogue may be difficult to interpret, what sets this upon a pedestal is its dynamic cast and eerie, disturbing and at times gory scenes. The Exorcist really set the standards for modern day horror/supernatural suspense/thrillers. 4/5
Tyler R
Super Reviewer
April 11, 2012
Here it is, the movie that every horror movie today seems to be ripping off. The Exorcist is the classic movie about a little girl possessed by the Devil. The little girl is sweet, she's trying to live a normal life, then BOOM! Satan's making you masturbate with a crucifix. The opening scene sets up what you're in for with this film; something mysterious and eerie at the same time. You can't watch this film and not be disturbed by what's happening. The idea of a little girl being possessed is pretty tiring for today's standards, but back in 1973, this stuff was every movie goers worst nightmare. People fainted, some left the theaters in ambulances, there were theaters that provided barf bags because everyone kept puking into the wind during this movie. I can't blame them. This movie delivers a lot of genuinely terrifying stuff that sticks with you long after the movie is over. Everyone knows about the barf and head spinning scenes and those are all disturbing, but the thing that really got me was the spider walk scene. I'm telling you, that's creepy stuff that can't be forgotten easily. The special effects are fantastic in a really demented way. There is stuff that happens in this movie that I think even modern filmakers would struggle with. The dialogue is really interesting and the characters are all respectable, but the acting...holy shit is the acting great. Max von Sydow and Jason Miller are both great as priests, Ellen Burstyn does a really good job, but the show-stealer is Linda Blair in her infamous role as the possessed girl. Her performance is part of what drives the movie. No possession movie is complete without someone who's possessed and Linda Blair knocks it out of the park. I actually felt fear for this little girl, not because she could rip my face off in a heart beat, but because she's just a normal girl who can't really control whatever the Devil makes her do. The movie does a really good job of making you root for the priests. When it all hits the fan and the climax comes around, it really slaps you in the face. The climax for the movie is one of the most intense scene in any horror movie ever. It's actually quite surprising. If you haven't seen it, I won't spoil it, but if you have, then you know what I'm talking about. This is one of those films where you're not really sure if you want to rewatch it because of what was just seen. The Exorcist is without a doubt one of the scariest movies ever made. If you love horror films, this one is a must see. If you're feint-hearted, then don't see this movie. It's likely to put you in a shock coma.
Market Man
Super Reviewer
August 29, 2012
I'm very impressed with this film. First off, for being made in 1973 the special effects still hold up well today. Second, it's damn scary. The beginning is a bit slow, but once things start happening, it's disturbing. Not many horror films are this good, and "The Exorcist" ranks alongside some of my favorites.
Matthew Samuel M
Super Reviewer
August 26, 2012
An exceptional film with superb acting, writing, directing, and cinematography. With no missteps and with a realistic approach to a supernatural premise, The Exorcist is an epic and ingenious classic film.
Emil K
Super Reviewer
January 7, 2012
If Friedkin would only stick with more psychological horrors then this could have even been something great but by turning possessed Regan's symptoms into a effect circus of peasoup and twisted limbs, Friedkin's film takes more easy way out and shocks audiences with it's disturbing images rather than trusting the eerie atmosphere it creates.
Max Von Sydow is very good in a leading role as a Father Merrin what is one of his best performances on screen ever. Ellen Burstyn and Jason Miller are both good also in a supporting roles. Only Linda Blair's performance is something closer to an manic makeup circus than a well nuanced performance.
Director Friedkin has made many better films than The Exorcist in his great career. Films like Sorcerer, French Connection, Rampage, Jade, The Hunted and Bug are much more convincing works in his filmography than The Exorcist is. This is a film that does occasionally deliver some good scares but as a whole it feels unbalanced work.
WIlliam Friedkin's dark and haunting The Exorcist is film which has gained classic status in film history. In my opinion it is slightly overrated work that does have it's moments of terror, but overall it is a mixed bag.
If Friedkin would only stick with more psychological horrors then this could have even been something great but by turning possessed Regan's symptoms into a effect circus of peasoup and twisted limbs, Friedkin's film takes more easy way out and shocks audiences with it's disturbing images rather than trusting the eerie atmosphere it creates.
Max Von Sydow is very good in a leading role as a Father Merrin what is one of his best performances on screen ever. Ellen Burstyn and Jason Miller are both good also in a supporting roles. Only Linda Blair's performance is something closer to an manic makeup circus than a well nuanced performance.
Director Friedkin has made many better films than The Exorcist in his great career. Films like Sorcerer, French Connection, Rampage, Jade, The Hunted and Bug are much more convincing works in his filmography than The Exorcist is. This is a film that does occasionally deliver some good scares but as a whole it feels unbalanced work.
LorenzoVonMatterhorn
Super Reviewer
August 5, 2007
When a girl is possessed by a mysterious entity, her mother seeks the help of two priests to save her daughter.
REVIEW
The story is simple enough. Innocent girl possessed by a demon. But what makes "The Exorcist" different from any horror film is that it's not about blood and gore like most slasher films, and there are characters we care about, rather than just a bunch of airheads in which we tend to find ourselves rooting for the villain to slaughter them. Yes, there is plenty of disturbing scenes throughout "The Exorcist", but it's a character-driven film. That's what I really enjoyed about this movie. All the performances are brilliant. Ellen Burstyn perfectly conveys the tension and fear a mother would experience during such a horrific supernatural event. Max Von Sydow (who's only in the movie for about twenty minutes) gives a performance that should've won him an Oscar. He conveys the sense of hope in the film. His words, "The power of Christ compels you!" still rings in my mind.
Jason Miller expresses the sadness and imperfection that every person experiences, which is particularly unique since his character is a priest. And I can't forget Linda Blair as the little girl who's possessed. Even though Mercedes McCambridge did the voice of the demon (a voice that I will never forget), Blair's facial expressions and actions throughout the film as she transforms from good to evil is nothing short of perfect. And the fact she did this role at such a young age should've also garnered her an Oscar. The other aspect I cannot overlook in this film is the technical feats. I found the works of cinematography, editing, and sound design to be top-notched, even by today's standards. I mean, the filmmakers made a bed float in the air before the invention of CGI! That cannot be beaten. And the whole exorcism sequence, well, I'll just say I could not keep my eyes off of the screen. I've now have come to appreciate William Friedkin as a legendary director for pulling off such a brilliant film. This movie won 2 Oscars back in 1974 for adapted screenplay and sound. Yet again, another superior film has been screwed over by the academy. I try not to put much stock in awards, but "The Exorcist" is a rare jewel that should not have been so sourly overlooked. This may be a horror film, but it's not like any other one. There's plot, characters, symbolism, and important messages of self-sacrifice and the presence and triumph over unimaginable evil. Of all the words I've used to describe this film, there is one that can sum it up. Unforgettable.
"Somewhere between science and superstition, there is another world. The world of darkness."
When a girl is possessed by a mysterious entity, her mother seeks the help of two priests to save her daughter.
REVIEW
The story is simple enough. Innocent girl possessed by a demon. But what makes "The Exorcist" different from any horror film is that it's not about blood and gore like most slasher films, and there are characters we care about, rather than just a bunch of airheads in which we tend to find ourselves rooting for the villain to slaughter them. Yes, there is plenty of disturbing scenes throughout "The Exorcist", but it's a character-driven film. That's what I really enjoyed about this movie. All the performances are brilliant. Ellen Burstyn perfectly conveys the tension and fear a mother would experience during such a horrific supernatural event. Max Von Sydow (who's only in the movie for about twenty minutes) gives a performance that should've won him an Oscar. He conveys the sense of hope in the film. His words, "The power of Christ compels you!" still rings in my mind.
Jason Miller expresses the sadness and imperfection that every person experiences, which is particularly unique since his character is a priest. And I can't forget Linda Blair as the little girl who's possessed. Even though Mercedes McCambridge did the voice of the demon (a voice that I will never forget), Blair's facial expressions and actions throughout the film as she transforms from good to evil is nothing short of perfect. And the fact she did this role at such a young age should've also garnered her an Oscar. The other aspect I cannot overlook in this film is the technical feats. I found the works of cinematography, editing, and sound design to be top-notched, even by today's standards. I mean, the filmmakers made a bed float in the air before the invention of CGI! That cannot be beaten. And the whole exorcism sequence, well, I'll just say I could not keep my eyes off of the screen. I've now have come to appreciate William Friedkin as a legendary director for pulling off such a brilliant film. This movie won 2 Oscars back in 1974 for adapted screenplay and sound. Yet again, another superior film has been screwed over by the academy. I try not to put much stock in awards, but "The Exorcist" is a rare jewel that should not have been so sourly overlooked. This may be a horror film, but it's not like any other one. There's plot, characters, symbolism, and important messages of self-sacrifice and the presence and triumph over unimaginable evil. Of all the words I've used to describe this film, there is one that can sum it up. Unforgettable.
TheDudeLebowski65
Super Reviewer
June 9, 2010
The Exorcist is classic horror at its finest. One of the defining films of the genre, The Exorcist remains one of the benchmark films in the genre by generating some of the scariest moments ever put before a viewing audience. In my mind, there is no scarier horror film than The Exorcist. Sure there has been the many reasons as to why this film is scary, the spider walk scene, the Exorcism scene and such. One thing though that keeps the horror constant throughout this picture is the atmosphere and tension. William Friedkin is a phenomenal director that delivers an effective and memorable horror experience. This film has definitely stood the test of time. Four decades after its release, The Exorcist still stands among countless imitators as The great film that redefined the genre. The cast is brilliant with powerful performances by Linda Blair as the possessed girl Regan, Ellen Burstyn as Regan mother and Max Von Sydow. All the actors deliver here, and each bring a powerful, memorable performance that elevates The Exorcist to the status that it is today. Many people have claimed that this isn't a scary film or what not. Well, I have to disagree. The Exorcist is a powerful film that delivers memorable scares. Unfortunately with an audience like today, they'll obviously scorn a great film like The Exorcist and say that it's not scary and what not. Well in the end, this is truly a film for cinema elitists and unlike cheap jump scares that induce 10 seconds of terror; this classic has a powerful and genuinely unnerving atmosphere for two hours that cannot and will never be topped. Horror fans still vote this as the best horror film ever made, and it's easy to see why.
Directors Cat
Super Reviewer
February 19, 2012
It wasn't terrifying but instead was very engaging and it creeped me and freaked me out a lot. The Exorcist has brilliant acting, special effects for the time and will never fail to give you the ultimate mindf**k. It started out slow (too slow) but there's still a lot to admire though in this Kubrick-esque psycho horror. It poses questions without giving answers or a back story and with it's slightly gothic and entirely religious overtones, The Exorcist deserves to be called a classic. It's very eery and has a brilliant conspiracy/true story set up that makes it even creepier.
Joe M
Super Reviewer
August 27, 2011
This is truly one of the most disturbing and frightening movies ever made, especially for a person of faith.
FilmFanatik
Super Reviewer
January 24, 2007
I was fortunate enough to catch The Exorcist: Extended Director's Cut (formerly The Version You've Never Seen) on the big screen and I'm lucky to have the great blu-ray book edition which includes both versions of the film. I've never really seen it as a horror film, per se. It seems more like a character study or a thriller than an outright horror film. It's impeccably crafted and pretty much scared the shit out of anyone who saw it upon its first release. My mother won't even watch the film today, despite my pleas of it only being a movie. I'm not sure if it's William Friedkin's best film (I'd lean more toward The French Connection or Sorcerer for that), but it is a masterpiece, and holds up today just as much as did yesterday - regardless of which version you choose. By the way, I like both versions pretty equally if you want to know.
blkbomb
Super Reviewer
January 18, 2011
"The Devil Inside"
I'll admit that after seeing The Exorcist for the first time, I thought it was overrated. A lot of that came from my expectations. I thought it was going to be the scariest thing I had ever seen, and that I would be pissing myself while watching. Then I saw it, and I didn't find it at all scary. The first time I watched it I found it more funny than anything else. But going back and re-watching it a few years later, I see that I wasn't watching close enough and that I must have been to stupid to see the brilliance of this film. Upon another viewing, I didn't laugh(except for the crucifix penetration, but come on, who wouldn't laugh). I found it much more disturbing on a second viewing. Still not scary, but extremely disturbing.
What I failed to realize the first time was just how great the setup is. We see Regan. She is a nice and well behaved 12 year old whose main objective in life, at this point, is to have a horse. She is innocent and sweet. That sets the possession up perfectly. Now we have a demon in Regan's body, yelling obscenities and telling old men to... well, you know. We are emotionally invested in Regan from the start. We watch as a demon tears her apart and we just want it to stop.
Another thing I missed the first time, was just how well made it is. It isn't a standard, poorly acted and shot horror film. It is superbly shot and acted. I am a young to middle aged Ellen Burstyn fan(as she got older I stopped caring), and I can only thing of one performance from her I liked more; that being her role in Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore. She gives a powerful performance in a role where she has to capture fright and sorrow at an ultimate level. You don't even have to say anything for Max Von Sydow, except his name. The guy is a fucking legend. I also enjoyed Jason Miller as Karras and Linda Blair is really good as Regan.
This movie has been labeled as the scariest film of all time and I can see why, even though I don't find it scary. Exorcism films just don't scare me. This is more than just a scary movie though. It is not only one of the most important horror films of all-time, but one of the most important films period. What it did for the horror genre speaks for itself. It is easily one of the most influential films ever made.
Demon: Your mother's in here, Karras. Would you like to leave a message? I'll see that she gets it.
Regan: Captain Howdy, do you think my mom's pretty? Captain Howdy? Captain Howdy, that isn't very nice!
"The Devil Inside"
I'll admit that after seeing The Exorcist for the first time, I thought it was overrated. A lot of that came from my expectations. I thought it was going to be the scariest thing I had ever seen, and that I would be pissing myself while watching. Then I saw it, and I didn't find it at all scary. The first time I watched it I found it more funny than anything else. But going back and re-watching it a few years later, I see that I wasn't watching close enough and that I must have been to stupid to see the brilliance of this film. Upon another viewing, I didn't laugh(except for the crucifix penetration, but come on, who wouldn't laugh). I found it much more disturbing on a second viewing. Still not scary, but extremely disturbing.
What I failed to realize the first time was just how great the setup is. We see Regan. She is a nice and well behaved 12 year old whose main objective in life, at this point, is to have a horse. She is innocent and sweet. That sets the possession up perfectly. Now we have a demon in Regan's body, yelling obscenities and telling old men to... well, you know. We are emotionally invested in Regan from the start. We watch as a demon tears her apart and we just want it to stop.
Another thing I missed the first time, was just how well made it is. It isn't a standard, poorly acted and shot horror film. It is superbly shot and acted. I am a young to middle aged Ellen Burstyn fan(as she got older I stopped caring), and I can only thing of one performance from her I liked more; that being her role in Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore. She gives a powerful performance in a role where she has to capture fright and sorrow at an ultimate level. You don't even have to say anything for Max Von Sydow, except his name. The guy is a fucking legend. I also enjoyed Jason Miller as Karras and Linda Blair is really good as Regan.
This movie has been labeled as the scariest film of all time and I can see why, even though I don't find it scary. Exorcism films just don't scare me. This is more than just a scary movie though. It is not only one of the most important horror films of all-time, but one of the most important films period. What it did for the horror genre speaks for itself. It is easily one of the most influential films ever made.
Demon: Your mother's in here, Karras. Would you like to leave a message? I'll see that she gets it.
Jens S
Super Reviewer
June 13, 2006
One of the scariest movies of its time. Although the film is losing some of its dark magic after several views, it's still a classic, despite of a rather slow introduction of the characters and relatively few scare scenes. But the very unique and eerie atmosphere and Mike Oldfield's soundtrack make up for it and several of the scary scenes are unforgettable and iconic parts of pop culture by now.
axadntpron
Super Reviewer
March 8, 2011
Still after all these years, this film is just as powerful as it has always been. Anachronistic in clothing and speech, but timeless in its exploration of demonic possession, crisis of faith, and the pursuit of God. Friedkin takes his time, setting up the mental state of father Karras, the love between Reagan and her mother, and the fruitless attempts of doctors to classify Reagan's "mental illness." When the demon possession really sets in, the build up really pays off and Friedkin takes us on a ride that has us gripping the arm of our chair for the remainder of the film. It is an excellent and superbly crafted film and one that should not be missed by anyone who claims to be a horror fan.
Zach B
Super Reviewer
October 22, 2011
My first encounter of this film was when I started to hear about this film from television specials about horror films around Halloween. People have always said that this film is beyond terrifying, beyond suspenseful, and is still controversial. Well, I decided to give this film a watch a while back and I was not really scared of the film. Yeah, the pea soup vomit did make me jump, but nothing really nailed me back to my chair. A few years later and after reading the wonderful book by William Peter Blatty, I was mistaken.
It must have been due to how young I was, but when you are older and you have something of a good knowledge of religion, then this film will scare you due to how well made, crafted, and acted this film is. There has been numerous films that deal with exorcisms, but few are as good as this film.
But if one was to think about why this film is terrifying, it is mostly due to two factors: this story was based off of an exorcism that happened in the 1940s and the acting of Linda Blair. When I started doing research into the case that inspired this film, it did create a bit more of terror when watching it to know that, while the story was altered, that this actually did happen regardless.
Now for the acting of Linda Blair. Oh, my God. It is heart breaking to watch this film and to think about all that this poor girl had been through just for this role. I mean, she had to disregard every moral she believed in, had to go through explainable pain for this performance, and do not get me started on how the press and people reacted to her did when this film came out (basically people thought she was pure evil). She went through hell and back for this role and she makes it... mind blowing. Rewatching this film, and this is true to if you have seen the film numerous times, you are still in shock that she did not win the Academy Award for best supporting Actress.
This is a film unlike any other. That is all one can even say about this film. It is completely in a class all by itself. This film has been parodied, ripped on, destroyed by two prequels and one sequel (Legion was not all that bad), but it is still proven that this film is effective and for many years to come will still scare people.
A few days ago, I was burning some time in my Latin 1A class by speaking to some kids about horror films they enjoy. The reason that this was brought up was due to me reading William Peter Blatty's The Exorcist. Withing five minutes the entire conversation turned around to what made this film scary in the first place. Everyone had different answers ranging from the spider walk to the religious overtones, to even the scientific perspective of the entire film. Now, these are kids that find any film that is more then ten years old boring, and yet they are scared of this little horror film from 1973. With that entire conversation I had that lasted about ten to twenty minutes, it only proven one thing: The Exorcist is the prime example of a film that lives up to it's hype decades after it was released and can still scare and give kids nightmares.
My first encounter of this film was when I started to hear about this film from television specials about horror films around Halloween. People have always said that this film is beyond terrifying, beyond suspenseful, and is still controversial. Well, I decided to give this film a watch a while back and I was not really scared of the film. Yeah, the pea soup vomit did make me jump, but nothing really nailed me back to my chair. A few years later and after reading the wonderful book by William Peter Blatty, I was mistaken.
It must have been due to how young I was, but when you are older and you have something of a good knowledge of religion, then this film will scare you due to how well made, crafted, and acted this film is. There has been numerous films that deal with exorcisms, but few are as good as this film.
But if one was to think about why this film is terrifying, it is mostly due to two factors: this story was based off of an exorcism that happened in the 1940s and the acting of Linda Blair. When I started doing research into the case that inspired this film, it did create a bit more of terror when watching it to know that, while the story was altered, that this actually did happen regardless.
Now for the acting of Linda Blair. Oh, my God. It is heart breaking to watch this film and to think about all that this poor girl had been through just for this role. I mean, she had to disregard every moral she believed in, had to go through explainable pain for this performance, and do not get me started on how the press and people reacted to her did when this film came out (basically people thought she was pure evil). She went through hell and back for this role and she makes it... mind blowing. Rewatching this film, and this is true to if you have seen the film numerous times, you are still in shock that she did not win the Academy Award for best supporting Actress.
This is a film unlike any other. That is all one can even say about this film. It is completely in a class all by itself. This film has been parodied, ripped on, destroyed by two prequels and one sequel (Legion was not all that bad), but it is still proven that this film is effective and for many years to come will still scare people.
Daniel L
Super Reviewer
October 8, 2011
One of my favorite horror films and one of the scariest of all time. The Exorcist features interesting characters and dialogue, disturbing special effects and truly frightening scenarios.
DreamExtractor
Super Reviewer
March 21, 2011
The Exorcist deserves the title as greatest horror film ever, and although its not my favorite, its definently one of them. The plot is actually great and never dies down from trying to be a smart and creepy horror film that is the most famous horror film of all time.The cast is great, Linda Blair will always be the most remembered person from this movie, from the turning head or the crawling body, she is just perfect. I was scared out of my mind during this film, and I can honestly say The Exorcist is the essential film for all horror fans everywhere, and I loved it.
Carlos M
Super Reviewer
September 18, 2011
A true landmark in horror cinema that drives the characters into such genuine desperation and scares the hell out of many viewers even today. With a careful pace and an exquisite direction, Friedkin leads us through a remarkable work about evil and unrelenting pain, one that we accept without reservations and never doubt for a minute.
Eric A
Super Reviewer
September 26, 2011
This started it all! The original that created many phonies after it, many still to this day. Very engaging and scary to say the least, but what I find to be even more extraordinary, is the fact that it was made in 1973, a time when films like this simply weren't attempted.
