The Exorcist

→ in
Tools    





This isn't really a review, I just wanted to say I was very disappointed. The way everyone was going on about this movie you'd think it was the scariest movie ever. I'll admit I was startled in places but never "scared" or "horrified".

This is the new one, not the old one btw.
__________________
RussellG



It can't live up to the hype...and especially not this much later. It's scary stuff, to me...but it was much, much scarier back in the 1970s, I'm sure. Most of the adults I talk to on the matter tell me it's easily one of the scariest movies they'd ever seen, but I'm sure that had something to do with its time. I don't think "disturbing" movies like that where anywhere near as common as they are now. Shock-value wasn't quite as dried up then, I think.



Ok I guess in this 70's The Exorcist would have been quite scary.

But nothing seems to scare me these days. Oh well I guess it's too much in this day and age.



I ain't gettin' in no fryer!
You have to admit though, it's creepy to think that things like this actually happened. In some cases, they still happen.

They based the movie on an actual event that happened around 1900, if my memory serves me correct.
__________________
"I was walking down the street with my friend and he said, "I hear music", as if there is any other way you can take it in. You're not special, that's how I receive it too. I tried to taste it but it did not work." - Mitch Hedberg



Guy
Registered User
I thought this is a pretty scary film. What did you expect?



mightymose's Avatar
Registered User
After talking to some older people about this film I've come the conclusion that what made it so scary upon it's initial release was that there were reports of exorcisms all over the country. It made what would have been a scary horror movie into a completely terrifying horror movie.

Even today I find it to be a frightening movie. The first time I saw The Exorcist was upon it's rerelease last year(?). It didn't really scare me at the time, but I attributed that to the audience laughing and being so laid back. I bought the DVD when it came out and my mind was changed forever. Not only had I not caught the freaky images that flash on the screen for a split second at a time, but there are some awesome sound effects through the rear channels. Couple that with a great script, solid locations, and amazing performances and you spell success.

I should probably note that I've always been fortunate in that I am capable of watching movies in the context of when they were created. I am not sure if this is b/c I have seen way to many movies or if it's because my parents raised me to appreciate things from all different time periods. Old horror movies like The Exorcist and Night of the Living Dead still scare the crap out of me if watched in the right atmosphere... meaning at night with the lights off and preferably a thunderstorm outside I still enjoy the classics even during the daytime, but they just aren't quite as frightening.



Ok I guess in this 70's The Exorcist would have been quite scary.

But nothing seems to scare me these days. Oh well I guess it's too much in this day and age.
That's because your grown now, and much of your childhood fears have been explained away through science and or understanding.

But as far as the new Excorcist...I haven't watched it yet (or if I did, it had such little impact that I just forgot about it..)...I would love to see it, and compare it to the original...

I guess the only way I could get it now is to order it online...



I see there are some definite patterns in how people react to this movie. Religious people think it is horrifying, agnostic people think it is creepy, and atheist people think it is hilarious. But I really can't figure out the people who say it's scary because of its "subtlety." How on earth is vomiting, head twisting, levitation, and masturbation subtle? This movie is intended to shock and offend, not scare. I mean, a "subtle" possession movie would have the demon murmuring in a low, unearthly voice, not shrieking like the Incredible Hulk. Everything is just too over-the-top.

There are parts that are pretty sick and twisted, but nothing really scary. It didn't take me long to figure out that this is nothing but shock schlock. I didn't find it as funny as some people do (although the pea soup vomit was rather amusing), but I did find it disappointing, insulting, and irritating.
__________________
Defeat is not bitter unless you swallow it.



I didn't care for The Exorcist either and I thought it did a pretty good job conjuring up some frightening scenes. It's definitely not a straight jump scare flick, but everything outside of the music and the make up is pretty poor.
__________________



... It didn't take me long to figure out that this is nothing but shock schlock.
Really? For a horror film I would've said that The Exorcist is, pretty much, the antithesis of "shock schlock". Thoughtful, well written and directed, relying on the combination of visuals and aurals to create an atmostphere of dread and horror.

but everything outside of the music and the make up is pretty poor.
I just quoted this as I think this is completely wrong, too. If you were saying you didn't find it scary, that'd be fine. I didn't (don't) find it scary either and I saw it when I was eight, but that's one of the most well crafted (in every area) horror films of all time.



Ignore my post from eight years ago earlier in this thread. I don't disagree with myself, but I'm not sure why I was so focused on the fact that it's probably less shocking these days.

Anyway, this is one of those films I've seen either all or most of over the years, but have never bothered to sit down and watch "properly." So, I ask you, no one in particular: do I go with the original theatrical version, or the re-released "Version You've Never Seen"?



Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.
Original theatrical version, by a mile+. I hope you enjoy it. The opening Iraq scenes introducing Max Von Sydow as Father Merrin and his run-in with Pazuzu are a terrific stand-alone mini-movie. Then it immediately jumps to the dread of Georgetown, D.C. The add-ons in the other version ruin the perfectly-edited build-up of the original. meatwad, one other thing The Exorcist has is excellent acting.



I didn't (don't) find it scary either and I saw it when I was eight, but that's one of the most well crafted (in every area) horror films of all time.
So it's one of the most well crafted horror films of all time ... but it's not scary ? This kind of blows my mind. Sorry to skip over the performances, I did find some of them very strong - despite what they're working with.



So it's one of the most well crafted horror films of all time ... but it's not scary ? This kind of blows my mind. Sorry to skip over the performances, I did find some of them very strong - despite what they're working with.
Yeah, I don't really get the problem here. It is a well crafted film, but it doesn't scare me. Only two films ever have (as I believe I've mentioned on the site before) and they are Pinocchio (when I was about 8) and The Entity which I saw when I was about 10.

I didn't like the LOTR's films. I found them boring and completely uninteresting, but to deny that they're well made films would be stupid but, going along with your logic, I'd have to wouldn't I?



will.15's Avatar
Semper Fooey
I saw it after all the hype and everyone told me how scary it was. When I finally saw it, I didn't think it was so scary maybe partly because everyone already told me the most shocking stuff, but I still thought it was a very well made film. I still think it would have been scarier if not for Friedkin's jump cut style, perfect for the French Connection, but not a horror movie. Its best moment come in the third act where he finally slows down.