The Exorcist (1973) Poster

(1973)

User Reviews

Review this title
1,102 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
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.
347 out of 394 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
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.
379 out of 446 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
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.
248 out of 303 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
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
206 out of 251 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
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.
262 out of 330 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
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
121 out of 163 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
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!
106 out of 148 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
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.
116 out of 169 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
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.
45 out of 62 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
The Godfather of Horror.
kylekool1504 July 2007
The Exorcist is simply a masterpiece. Great Cinematography darkens the atmosphere and a superb screenplay enhances the dialog. There is plenty of excellent actors in this film as well. Loads of great performances from actors such as: Linda Blair, Ellen Burstyn, Jason Miller, Max von Sydow. I pressure you to see the re-edited one. Trust me, it's not a remake. It's a better editing of sound and picture, and even some NEW footage that is of the same quality.

If you enjoy horror movies of any kind, and/or like a good drama, this film is for you. A Head-spinning performance from Linda Blair makes it even more horrific, seeing a little innocent child getting possessed by a horrid demon. Ellen Burstyn give another great performance, as a mother going through shock and worry about what is happening to her daughter. This acting is all together very powerful, realistic and leaves for a better cinematic experience overall.

Other great notable parts of the movie, are the satisfying amount of good dialog, quotes, and scenes. Gut-wrenching horror conjoins with gritty drama in this absolutely awe-inspiring movie. See it for yourself if you haven't yet, you must; because it is definitely a memorable film.

4 of 4 Stars
14 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Suspense , mystery , shocks and grisly horror is this classic terror film
ma-cortes3 March 2008
This known story concerns about a mother (Ellen Burstyn) and her daughter (Linda Blair), the latter is possessed and two Fathers , Karras (Jason Miller) and Merrin (Max Von Sidow) attempt to free Regan MacNeil from possession by the devil . Meanwhile , a Police Inspector (Lee J. Cobb) is investigating the weird events . And the priests suffering incredible risks trying to unravel mystery of demon living inside Regan .

This is a fairly suspenseful and horrifying story, based on a supposedly true flick . The movie begins well and grows more and more until the scary and eerie finale . Top-notch picture, thanks to fine acting , tight pacing , well mounted edition and skillful special effects with magnificent make-up by Dick Smith . Creepy acting by Linda Blair , due to death threats against Linda Blair from religious zealots who believed the film "glorified Satan", Warner Bros had bodyguards protecting her for six months after the film's release . On the first day of filming the exorcism sequence, Linda Blair's delivery of her foul-mouthed dialogue so disturbed the gentlemanly Max Von Sydow that he actually forgot his lines . The script is awesome , the acting excellent and the direction by William Friedkin plenty of good pace and conviction . Enjoyable secondary cast such as Lee J Cobb , Kitty Winn and Jack McGowran who died at the time finished the movie and added a legend about Exorcist's curse . Dark cinematography in sinister and mysterious atmosphere by Owen Roitzman and frightening musical score adding Mike Oldfield's soundtrack ¨Tubular bells¨ . The tale is rated ¨R¨ for graphic violence and profanity but contains gore and guts . Reiussed in 2000 by means of a special edition by director with ten minutes approximately additional footage with new amazing scenes as Regan downing stairs .

Followed by two sequels and numerous imitations , in 1977 ¨the Heretic¨ by John Borman with Richard Burton , deemed awful and in 1990 titled ¨The Exorcist III¨ by William Peter Blatty with George C Scott, Brad Dourif , Ed Flanders and Nicol Williamson . Furthermore, spawned two prequels starred by a young Father Merrin , Stellan Skarsgard , and set in Africa , both of them directed by Paul Schrader and Renny Harlin .
16 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
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.
49 out of 73 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Still a powerful film, more than thirty years on...
stephenneale6728 August 2006
More than thirty years on, The Exorcist remains a very powerful film and was a cinematographic milestone in 1973. Repeated duplication of the genre has, no doubt, 'desensitized' a new generation of movie-watchers, though it remains an unnerving masterpiece. It is not difficult to understand why the film generated such a seismic global impact all those years ago, since it imposed an unprecedented sensory attack on the viewer. Regan's vile physical appearance, combined with her vile language and blasphemous diatribe sent a shock wave around the world. Moreover, many people seemed to believe the claims that the film was based on a true story and could therefore actually happen to them. Electricity consumption must have soared for several months in 1973 as people who had seen the film slept with their lights on! It is still not a film I would feel comfortable watching before going to bed. On another level, I found parts of it profoundly moving and actually cried at the end when Regan was finally released from her possessor and wept in the arms of her mother and Father Damien, having lunged himself through a window and down a precipitous flight of steps, managed to find just enough life in himself to indicate that he had retained his faith and repented of his sins by motioning his fingers in the sign of penitence when comforted by a distraught colleague. Possibly the only thing that lets the film down if one really sits and thinks about it is the underpinning concept that an ancient demon which had existed since the dawn of time should wish to possess the body of a twelve year old child and emit a string of juvenile profanities. But then the film was designed to shock all along!
48 out of 73 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Simply, the greatest "Horror" film ever made ...
ElMaruecan8227 March 2011
What scares us more than anything? The answers are multiple : the dark, the evil, a mysterious presence, death ultimately; in fact, anything incontrollable. And when you think about it, all these elements have something in common: they refer to an unknown force whose presence is palpable. Indeed, the unknown scares, because it can't be seen, can't be controlled, therefore, can't be fought.

These are the primitives fears that tortured the life of people since the dawn of humanity, and we inherited this fears in the same unconscious way our children will. We're aware of our mortal nature, and each of our fears is driven by this awareness, which is due to the biggest fear, the fear of the unknown. And the genius of "The Exorcist" is that it perfectly plays on these primitive instincts of ours, to provide the greatest Horror film ever made, a thrilling masterpiece of realism that'll haunt cinematic memories for ever.

As soon as the Tubular bells start ringing, the film is inhabited by an atmosphere that will never desert it, a fearsome and gloomy ambiance absorbing any place we're watching the film in. Everything is directed with such confidence and meticulousness, the thrills almost come precociously. Indeed, before anything happens, we feel something WILL happen, but we don't know what. It seems like a cinematic trick, but not any director has the guts to let you wait more than almost half an hour before the oddities happen. The set-up is slow paced in "The Exorcist" because it's a movie that respects our intelligence, and doesn't try to provide cheap thrills. William Friedkin who had just made another realistic masterpiece, the Best Picture Winner "The French Connection" is so confident he gives us enough time to discover the characters, to get into their daily life, patiently waiting for the pivotal point that will join their fates. The direction, the writing are all in subtlety, and work because even though nothing happens yet, we keep our guard up, we know there's an evil presence somewhere, we can feel it.

This is an old cinematic device started by directors who hadn't enough money to portray credible monster-type villains: they understood that sometimes, the scare is more efficient from the suggestion of a presence than its explicit depiction. When you see, you know, and if you know, you can control, but in "The Exorcist", the villain is here, but we never see him, he's like the shark from "Jaws" or "Alien", with a slight difference, he's not visible because he controls the body of a poor little girl. Linda Blair, as the demonically possessed Regan MacNeil , is so convincing, it broke my heart to see how the evil can have so devastating effects on a pure little soul. And the tragedy of Regan is the torment of her mother, Chris, Ellen Burstyn, perfect as a totally helpless woman, incapable of saving her little girl. And this is the fascinating aspect of the film, more than a horror drama, it also works as a thrilling mystery. A mystery where the Lieutenant Detective Kinderman, Lee J. Cobb in one of his great last roles, is the one who investigates about the strange phenomena that occurred and acts as a bridge between the victims and the priests.

So many questions are raised in the beginning, we understand that sooner or later, we'll have an exorcism. Well, it's the title, isn't it? But the set-up is necessary. The parallel stories where we're transported into the universes of Father Damien Karras, portrayed by Jason Miller, and the iconic Father Merryl, Max Von Sydow, challenge our patience: we can't wait for the exorcism ... but without the build-up, the climax would be worthless. It's a movie where any flaws can be caused by an impatience from the director, an eagerness to distract the masses with thrilling moments, but a big impatience could have ruined such a magnificent and ambitious project. And "The Exorcist" would never have been the masterpiece it is without this patience. However, this would never have been such an iconic horror masterpiece without the few horrifying moments that punctuate the movie between the set-up and the climax. And by horrifying, I won't give any clues, let's just say it works on every level: visual, sounds, atmosphere, cinematography, dialogs, special effects, and of course, timing, since all these effects come at the least expected moments, provoking reactions in total symbiosis with the characters. We feel and fear for them, as the realism implies that it could even happen to us. This is no Hollywood, this is true horror.

Lately, the American Film institute listed the Top 100 movies and I must admit I was shocked not to see "The Exorcist" in the list... it's a classic, probably the most horrifying horror film ever made. It has everything, a dazzling cinematography incarnated by the iconic shot of Father Merryl's shadowy silhouette coming from the mist, an unforgettable villain, and of course shocking moments where the make-up, the visual and sound effects prove how vital they are for such a genre that relies so much on realism. But this realism would have been nothing without the genius of the script and the masterful direction, that could finally let the film exude all its greatness in the last act, one of the most unforgettable climactic sequences ever, putting "The Exorcist" among those films that transcends the simple act of watching, becoming more of experiences.

And this is why I waited for years and years before finally getting to watch "The Exorcist", one of the few movies that scared me even before watching it. And all I can say is that it met my expectations. And watching it at night (with someone, I would recommend) gets more hypnotic and absorbing after each viewing … "The Exorcist" is a must-see and ... be careful, any second, it can surprise you, really …
9 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
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.
108 out of 195 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A Horror Classic
mjw230531 January 2005
This is a very highly rated horror movie for a good reason, when it was realised it broke the mould of everything that preceded it, and set the standard for the horror genre for decades to come; because of this it should retain its place Movie history forever.

The sheer terror this movie instilled in people, during the year of its release is even today unmatched by anything. Time, however has altered its effect on its audience, we simply are not as easily shocked as we used to be.

For anyone who hasn't seen this movie yet, my advice is this, approach it with an open mind, and remember when it was made, this is the only way you will appreciate it for what it is.

Difficult for new audiences to appreciate, but it is still a classic, time won't change that.

8/10
10 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
One of the most well made movies ever made.
keduck26 February 2018
The Exorcist was a movie that I had been interested in seeing since i was in middle school. I was rather intrigued about what is considered to be the scariest movie of all time. Having recently seen it for the first time, I can say that it's probably not exactly scary in terms of modern horror movies, but I knew that going into it. Older horror movies favored slow build-up and dread over jump scares. They work better for repeat viewings, versus getting jump scared once and not even flinching on the second viewing.

Despite the creepy elements, what really stood out to me about the movie was the sheer craftsmanship of the whole thing. This is one of the best made movies I have ever seen. The acting is phenomenal, particularly from Linda Blair as Regan. The make-up done on her is iconic. The effects still hold up for the most part. The atmosphere is top notch, you always feel that something is off,even in the calmer moments. The only issue I feel worth mentioning for someone who hasn't seen it is there are quite a few slow scenes of people talking, but even then the actors are giving such good performances it hardly matter.

The Exorcist is considered by many to be the scariest movie of all time, and if it's not quite that, it definitely stands as one of the best made scary movies ever.
7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Not scary: downright amazing.
Tubular_Bell27 April 2004
I was influenced into watching this film after maybe the 100th listen to Mike Oldfield's masterpiece "Tubular Bells" (the full, 48-minute album, not the 4-minute edit!), which was used in this movie's soundtrack. I wasn't exactly frightened or scared by the movie. I was expecting something gory and gruesome in this movie, but oh, was I wrong. And that's good, because I don't like movies that are gratuitously gory and gruesome. This movie is anything but gratuitous. I wasn't scared, but I was amazed and fascinated by the atmosphere, intelligent story and masterful filmmaking. It feels really genuine, and there are maybe 2 or 3 movies I have seen that felt genuine. It's a beautiful story about faith, and deals with the "good vs. evil" scheme in an unusual way. There are so many layers to the story, it's difficult to discuss them all in one or two paragraphs. Suffice to say, all of those different elements come together seamlessly. The story is beautiful. The build up of tension is truly gripping. It is not scary, it's disturbing. Those looking for gory scarefests should look somewhere else. I was truly intrigued by the movie, and the glorious resolution was both shocking and uplifting. Did good defeat evil, after all? That's up for the viewers to decide.

A haunting movie, this is - especially for Mr. Oldfield, whose "Tubular Bells" would haunt him for 30 years.
9 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Still Shocking After All These Years
ccthemovieman-13 April 2006
Few movies shocked people like this one when it came out. Almost 35 years later, it will still shock you if you've never seen it. It's definitely recommended, but beware of some very gross scenes, brutal language and a sordid and genuinely frightening story.

The special effects still hold up. They don't look dated and they are just as creepy. The story starts a bit slowly, but once in kicks in, it's tough to put this DVD on pause. This is still an intense, repulsive and scary movie filled with memorable scenes as a demon takes control over a young girl's body.

Two things bothered me in the film that probably don't upset most people: way too much usage of the Lord's name in vain - almost all by the girl's mother, played by Ellen Burstyn. The second - and I am not Catholic - is the pitiful portrayal of yet-another Hollwood weak priest. This priest is smokes, drinks, swears, steals, etc.. etc, and is a pitiful excuse for a cleric: just the kind filmmakers love to portray. One priest - get this - says his idea of heaven is to be a nightclub performer for eternity and have everyone like him. Obviously, people who makes films have NO clue about "religion." Not a single clue. But, this was '70: the most irreverent film-making period in our history, so it's no surprise.

However - to its credit - the film does an excellent job of convincing even the most ardent atheist that demons do exist, that there really is a devil, and that he is not to be taken lightly. It's no joke, and the shock value of this film might have gotten some people to start thinking there is something to all this "spiritual stuff."

Whatever your theology, or lack of it, this movie is one you will never forget. It is beyond anything seen before it or since. I recommend the DVD that advertises this as "The Exorist: The version you've never seen." That's the best and most complete version of this terrifying film.
36 out of 68 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
a milestone
dromasca5 June 2005
I saw 'The Exorcist' 32 years too late. This was not the kind of films to be allowed in the Communist Romania of my youth. It's really a milestone in the horror movies genre.

I dare say that if 'Exorcist' was made today it won't go controversy-free. In the current moralistic climate, and with the on-going debates about the role of the Catholic church, a film about Catholic exorcism would generate some debate. The thing is that three decades passed and as we got used with this one, we can argue now about the 'Da Vinci Code'.

The art of the movie is to take the very un-believable story of a pre-teen-age girl with a deteriorating mental health and make us believe that the only logical explanation is that she is possessed. We would not believe it in real life, we truly believe it on screen. The means to achieve this artistic truth are mostly classical cinema, good story telling and solid acting but at the same time the film is revolutionary by bringing to screen for the first time elements of the horror genre that have become routine since then - levitation, psycho-kinetic capabilities, and especially the make-up that transforms the angelic Linda Blair into a demonic kid-monster.

Director William Friedkin had 'French Connection' in his record when he did 'The Exorcist'. This was to be his last great film, unless the future will bring us surprises - he is still working, now in his 70s. But these two movies are more than most directors do good in their whole lives, and well enough to book him a place in the history of the seventh art.
6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Deep Archetypical Contrasts
tedg30 November 2000
In the documentary on the DVD, von Sydow says that if you are open to it, this film will scare you and perhaps affect you spiritually. Certainly true. Why this and not the many other similar films? Keep in mind that essentially all the rest of Friedkin's work is mundane, worthless.

A large part of the question, I think, is that the creators of the film have stumbled into a rich field of archetypal conflicts, stuff deeper than just a sweet kid cursing and masturbating.

The film is set in a Jesuit University. Even today, if you go there, you find a very strange vibe. The notion of authoritarian faith being crammed down from above certainly has a place in society, but such a brotherhood running an academy of open inquiry is a puzzling, disturbing mix. And that's underscored and mirrored by a similar (though less militant) conflict around psychiatry. Here we have the priests of `medicine' torturing this little girl to confirm their theories.

The priest is the center of the film, and embodies all this: Arcane `faith' versus modern inquiry; Taking direction blindly rather than acting on knowledge; Understanding the mind versus understanding the soul; Serving the weak (his mother) versus battling powerful evil. Friedkin increased these ambiguities wherever he found them, usually against the positivist stance of Blatty.

Interesting in this context are two tricks, one conscious, the other I suspect not.

The conscious one is the self-referential wrapper. This is film about a film star, making a film. What triggers the possession are the visits by the director who probably had some deviant intent or action. He is the first victim. Thus, Friedkin places himself in the action and himself openly exploits Linda Blair. Meanwhile the actor playing the director dies in real life.

The unconscious one is the Persian reference. Best scholarship has Judaism coming from Zoroastrianism flavored by Egyptian superficialities. A lower form of Zoroastrianism devolved into the much more widely adopted Mithraism, characterized by the warring of good and evil. This is sort of the professional wrestling of religious belief, both in style and substance, and continues today to be the root of `fundamentalism.' So in a very real way, Satan was invented in northern Iran, and any student of religion will end up `digging' around there.

How sad and strange that this film seems to have bolstered the Catholic church.
19 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
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.
17 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
One of the best horror movies ever made
wandereramor7 April 2012
What's remarkable about The Exorcist, especially when you compare it to other horror films, is its patience. It takes the time to calmly develop the ordinary home life of a modern postnuclear family, letting you get comfortable in the setting, and then things slowly get stranger and stranger, until eventually everything you knew has been upset or overturned.

There's a fear of the future here, of a new deviancy that the older generation can neither understand or control, which very much positions The Exorcist in the social battles of its age, possibly even as a backlash against the youth revolt of the 1960s. But there's also a more universal fear here -- the fears of parenthood, and the unshakable notion that your child might turn out to be a monster and you would be responsible.

More than this social commentary, what stands out is the excellence of execution -- the note-perfect direction, pacing, cinematography, and acting. None of this is very flashy, but it all has a kind of technical skill that makes The Exorcist a terrific movie, and one of those rare gems that can be admired for both ideas and craftsmanship. It's considered a classic for a reason, and should absolutely be included in the canons of not only the horror genre but the New Hollywood era of major studio art films.
7 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
"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.
7 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
The Devil Inside
Lady_Targaryen28 April 2006
Warning: Spoilers
This is one of the scariest movies of all time. The first time I watched it, I was 12 years old and I was with some friends and with my brother. We all were pretty scared with this story of possession and horror of the poor girl named Regan Teresa MacNeil,specially because all the time they were showing the connections with demon's statues, figures and faces. Reading the trivia section, I can see that many things were quite spooky and hard even for the actors and actresses, like when they say that the '' Director William Friedkin went to some extraordinary lengths to abuse the cast. He fired off guns behind the actors to get the required startled effect. He was said to have slapped one actor across the face before rolling the camera. He even went as far as to put Linda Blair and Ellen Burstyn in harnesses and have crew members yank them violently.''

But Linda Blair, even know until today for her role as Regan and almost with her career ended, was an amazing actress who was spectacular in the role of a possessed girl.
9 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed