William Friedkin's The Exorcist is one of the finest horror films ever made and is my own personal favorite horror film (it scares the sh!t out of me), although I rate JAWS and Halloween highly too. I find this film scary not only for the truly terrifying images and Dick Smith's wonderful special effects, but the sound design and voices scare the crap out of me. The acting too is first rate, this is a very special film, The Godfather of the horror genre.
The only thing that actually bothered me about the film was that evil is finally revealed to be an actual supernatural entity for real (which I can believe), it does explain how much the entity can have control over our own bodies. But how was it tonally a mess? The movie was a great crescendo. Are you calling that bad? Or are you just being provocative as a reaction to the claim that it was perfect art?@@Dr170
Thanks, I do love the fact that The Exorcist is now 50 years old this year (as of 2023), however I am saddened recently that William Friedkin passed away at the age of 87, may he rest in peace.
For me, the true horror of this movie is being a mother, whose daughter is gravely ill and keeps getting passed from expert to expert to expert, with nobody ever able to offer a solution or diagnosis. That is the most horrifying situation a parent can be in, that utter helplessness where not even the supposed experts are able to help you and your daughter.
The spider walk scene is completely ridiculous and totally ruins the slow but steady possession of Regan. The only justification for its inclusion is shock value.
The Only justification for the Whole film was shock value. It's Trash and shameful. Everyone who contributed to its production should have gone to fucking jail for subjecting a child to this filth. The Priest at the End was identified as a pedophile. Why am I Not surprised?
Agree, never like the spider walk ... its not scary at all to me, more like a cheap gimmick ... the whole movie in its theatrical form was horror at its best in the highest calibre of movie making without resorting to cheap scares but with the anniversary edition, all the added "faces" and the spidewalk it suddenly become a cheap horror movie ....
Completely agree!! I am a purist and the original theatrical cut is a masterpiece. The spiderwalk ruins the mood of the movie for me and was put back in to sell more tickets.
Friedkin did this cut out of his friendship for William Peter Blatty who protested elimination of some of the scenes restored for the 2000 cut. One could call this version the writer's cut.
This is a outstanding horror movie. One of the best in modern Cinema. I say this film and The Shining are the top two best horror films in my opinion. William Frederick (one of my favorite directors) did a spectacular job directing this masterpiece. The cast is terrific performance's especially Linda Blair. RIP Max Von Sydow. The music is a big part of the films intensity. I heard there was a lot of controversy when this film came out in 1973. Audience members passing out in the lobby getting very sick to their stomach. I saw this film on the big screen on its rerelease in 2000. It was great and enjoyed the experience watching the film. It was still scary in 2000. The movie held up well after all those years.
Scariest movie ever, still after all these years. I advise anyone who hasn't seen the theatrical cut to do so. It's kind of a hard find but worth it. All the anniversary and director's cuts etc., reissues are tainted by added music and visual effects. Un-needed and they detract from the film's power. Saw it at a drive in 76 when I was ten. Scarred for life but I loved it!
Absolutely right you are . All those faces on door and corner of the frame etc feels very gimmicky and tacked on ... and the spider walk also gimmicky af, too cheap .. the movie is not about gore, that spider walk really spoils the psychological tone ...
@@88feji My family flew to Florida this past Halloween and I watched this movie on the video player on the back of the seat. There werent any kids around so I didnt sweat upsetting anyone.
I remember watching the 2000 cut with my Dad when we rented on VHS when I was 15. The religious stuff certainly went over my head, but the fact my old man lets me watch a horror film with him felt like a rite of passage before I would later become a fan of the genre.
Totally agree with Roger on the alternate ending. The movie is basically over and the added nonsense with the priest and the detective was totally unnecessary.
I still feel this is a really scary film. Great film. I admire the religious elements and there were some humorous scenes where the young girl is posssed and pukes at one of the Catholic priest. Or when she takes the crucfix of Christ and stabs herself while yelling blasphemous obscenities. Years later "Scary Movie 2" spoofed "The Exorcist" and I'll never forget the scene where James Woods plays as one of the CATHOLIC priests and see the posed child and gives a straight face and says "Fuck this" and tries to run away. Too funny haha
I do not think the spider walk ending, with an increasingly possessed Regan vomiting blood, worked at all A cheap jump scare They should have re worked or embellished the original spider walk
The exorcist and all it's great and it is the splendid horror movie but I think one of the ripoffs beyond the door is much better and much scarier that movie influenced me that movie with Jessica Mills is the most horrifying demon I've ever seen in my life still gives me nightmares
I have not seen part three, but Jeffery Dahmer used to get-off on scenes from Exorcist III. What scenes do you think they were? (I'm just DYING to get-off).
This is the ultimate horror movie. Stop pronouncing Reagan's name wrong. Another correction... A demon is inside of Reagan, not the Devil. Did you chew actually watch this film?
