The Exorcist (1973)

1974

Photon no.25 (1974) pp.15-18; 18-23; 23 (USA)
"As a whole, The Exorcist is one of the great horror films; a film which is already deservedly being regarded as a classic in its field. I do not mean to imply that is should be considered a form of superior art film, or great cinema, for The Exorcist is at its weakest and most pretentious when it consciously strives for art. At its best it is a superb combination of the classic elements of horror and contemporary demands for thrills and visual violence. Essentially, it's a conglomerate freak show and roller coaster ride all rolled up into a neat marketing package which stands every chance of making more money than any other film ever made (...) Unlike Psycho, the only film I could conceivably compare it with offhand in terms of outright shock value, The Exorcist does not restrain itself to lengthy build-ups, but proceeds from shock to shock, each one attempting (generally successfully) to outdo the previous one, leaving we viewers stunned and dumb. I left the theater with a feeling akin to having left a carnival ride; a marvelous heart-pounding, nervous feeling the like of which was incomparable with any previous film experience." - Ronald V. Borst

CinemaTV Today no.10075 (23 March 1974) p.14 (UK)
"A cunningly calculated construction, ingeniously devised to turn the audience into a pack of Pavlov's dogs experiencing the fear and nausea they have been conditioned to expect. It reminds me og a Haunted House in a fairground, with bits of string simulating cobwebs, and gibbering skeletons made out of cardboard. Very effective the first time round; have a second go when you know what to expect, and you can see all the trip wires and levers. The simple secret of the box-office success of The Exorcist is that it is a good old-fashioned Horror that plays on all our deep-seated fears of the unknown, the supernatural, things going bump in the night, madness and the gleaming paraphernalia of the operating theatre. After years of high-camp, in-jokey, tongue-in-cheek larks, it isn’t suprising that audiences are flocking to have their blood curdled. As horror films go, The Exorcist is a very good horror because it achieves its aim with shrewdly generated suspense and excellent special effects. It is also a big con, piling on the agony in scenes that lead us up the garden path to nowehere, with erratic continuity, and loose ends of plot hanging out all over the place." - Marjorie Bilbow.

Journal of Popular Film vol.3 no.2 (Spring 1974) pp.183-187 (USA)
"It does not faithfully reproduce the characters of Blatty's novel; it wastes no time on any conflict other than that withing Damien Karras (...) Weakly handled is the cat-and-mouse game between Karras and Lieutenant Kinderman, a test of wits given impetus by Kinderman's genuine desire to understand this deeply sensitive young man. Instead of characters we are not exactly given caricatures; the figures on screen strioke me more as witnesses whose main task is simply to stand attentively at bay, observing the weird and wonderful events in the Georgetown house (...) In lieu of developed plot we get what Aristotle called "spectacle," unadulterated and unrelenting depiction of the horrible. The editing, moreover is flawed noticeably towards the end (...) Despite the movie's obvious flaws, it possesses undeniable power to shock." - Robert F. Willson Jr

Cinefantastique vol.3 no.2 (Spring 1974) pp.24-25, 40-41 (USA)
"The Exorcist has done for the horror film what 2001 did for science fiction: legitimised it in the eyes of thousands who previously considered horror movies nothing more than a giggle. Like 2001, The Exorcist has wormed its way into peoples' lifestyles by using the rules of the genre, not despite them (...) The film is well worth the wait. It works (...) The Exorcist is pure horror film; one which carefully establishes its own definition of the normal, then proceeds to tear that definition to shreds until order can be restored. Friedkin even succeeds in pacing it as the best horror films have been paced: like a funhouse ride which alternates its shocks with out anticipation of them." - Harry Ringel

Sight and Sound vol.43 no.2 (Spring 1974) p.120 (UK)
"So much of The Exorcist appears (...) to have been constructed simply to enhance the emotional impact of this diabolical vision, while the specific nature of its attack on everyone except the girl, and the religious context in which it is fought, are frustratingly skimped, The film moves, at the random dictates of the plot, through disconnected changes of atmosphere which alternately emphasise the banal and the sinister, while never managing to make even central characters seem peripheral to the creation of a satanic mood piece (...) (T)he film continually struggles to suggest through atmosphere what it promises but fails to provide in substance (...) Piecemeal in its construction, The Exorcist plods faithfully through the catalogue of incident in a less than perfect original. It suggests, rather like Rosemary's Baby, that the cinema's special sleight of hand - though displayed here with horrific skill - is still rather less lucky than the printed word at making vague suggestiveness cover a multitude of sins." - Richard Combs

Films and Filming vol.20 no.7 (April 1974) p.38 (UK)
"If anything's going to dissuade people from going the movies (sic), it's this film. To describe it as a witch's brew is charitable; it's a kind of gooey mess with bits and pieces gleamed from the horror film genre, the thriller genre and the psycho-drama floating around on the surface (...) Even if the plot picks up a little after a while, you’re still stuck with William Friedkin's direction, which at times really is appalling. When it comes to the sequences involving the 'possessed' girl (Regan, the film star's daughter - who else?), he just seems to fall apart - hardly surprising, I suppose, since the make up on her face would be better suited to a circus clown. Friedkin displays very little ability in stringing together the bits of film, failing throughout to create anything resembling suspense (...) Where Friedkin is at his most disappointing is in the battle between the Devil in Regan and the Exorcist. This should have been a powerful psychological game of wits rather than mere melodramatic jam. Assuming that the Devil can control man's mind to some degree, he should have distorted the truth to such an extent that Father Merrin was fighting himself or his assistant in the exorcism, Father Karras. Friedkin is obviously not totally unaware of the possibility of perceptual manipulation, for he does show the Devil taunting Karras in the manifestation of his dead mother, but he seems afraid to let go of horror film conventions and move into relatively unexplored regions. Had he abandoned the plastic masks and make-up, The Exorcist might have proved an artistic as well as commercial, triumph." - Alexander Stuart

Monthly Film Bulletin vol.41 no.7 (April 1974) p.71 (USA)
"The dispiriting thing about The Exorcist is not so much that it so patently expects to be taken seriously, as the fact that it has been taken seriously by reverend gentlemen talking about "a social and religious phenomenon". In fact, of course, it is no more nor less than a blood-and-thunder horror movie, foundering heavily on the rocks of pretension (...) It is symptomatic of what is wrong with the film that in adapting his novel, Blatty has simply thinned it out, leaving in characters who now have no function whatsoever (Father Dyer, Sharon Spencer, Willie) or are there merely as convenient plot hooks (Burke Dennings, Kinderman, Karl), wasting time with them which would have been better spent exploring atmosphere and motivations. Predictably, perhaps, the film is at its best in the centre section where it can forget about significance and concentrate on the chills (...) (W)ith Mercedes McCambridge doing sterling work on the demon's hoarsely mocking voice, the film does build up a fair tension - and an expectation all the more dashed when the Merrin-Devil confrontation promised in the (much too) exquisitely shot prologue turns out to be a mumble of oaths and prayers which doesn't even attempt the dialectic it had in the novel." - Tom Milne

Film Quarterly vol.27 no.4 (Summer 1974) pp.61-62 (USA)
"The Exorcist is the trash bombshell of 1973, the aesthetic equivalent of being run over by a truck. Evidently a lot of people think that great art is supposed to be like this; if it shocks them, it must be brilliant. The movie is shocking all right - the press has been full of stories about fainting, vomiting, fleeing viewers - but you'de have to be a block of wood not to be shocked by the spectacle of a child systematically turned into a yellow-eyed, slime-spewing, head-swivelling monster. Despite their pontificating about Greek tragedy, the mystery of faith, and Good vs. Evil, director William Friedkin and writer-producer William Peter Blatty have actually made an ugly, gloating exploitation picture, a costlier cousin of those ghoulish cheapies released to drive-ins and fleapits almost weekly in major American cities (...) The movie ruthlessly manipulates the most primitive fears and prejudices of the audience. Reactionaries who want to return to that old-time religion can have their beleagured (sic) beliefs shored up by this circus of horrors. They can quake because Satan will get them, too, if they don't toe the line, and the can grin because the pointy-headed intellectuals can't solve the enigma (...) The real star of of this sickening exhibition is Friedkin, and it's hard to imagine how he can be taken seriously any more. The reservations that many had about his sandblasting suspense technique in The French Connection have certainly been borne out by The Exorcist. He has become a directorial demagogue bringing in the sheep and chortling backstage. Why try to be a mere artist when you can have power like this?" - Michael Dempsey.

Film Comment vol.10 no.3 (May / June 1974) pp.32, 34-35; 33, 35 (USA)
"(A)lthough I found the film brutally manipulative and disgusting, it is far too important a phenomenon to dismiss lightly (...) The Exorcist is not the first bad movie to be a hit, but it is a new kind of blockbuster; it represents a new extreme in the cinema of cruelty." - Stephen Farber

Jump Cut no.1 (May / June 1974) pp.3-5 (USA)
"The Exorcist doesn't need the publicity that it's gotten. Despite some glaring flaws, the film can stand very comfortably on its own (...) I'm sure that other critics will give Linda Blair more than ample praise for her portrayal of Regan, which I thought was weak. These same critics will give the special effects people and the make-up people credit for what it (sic), to me, perhaps too obvious and over-worked in the film. I personally think that the film will endure, not because of the shock scenes surrounding the possessions, but because of the fascinating psychology in the Chris and Karras characters and the exceptional acting of Ellen Burstyn and Jason Miller as these characters. Of the two, the role of Chris is the more difficult and thus the more rewarding. Whether The Exorcist retains its power over the years hinges, I think, on the acting of Ellen Burstyn." - William Van Wert.

1998

Empire no.113 (November 1998) pp.106-115; 34 (UK)
"Dubbing this "the most terrifying film ever made" does it few favours, for it is so much more. It is a film of truly exceptional performances - Burstyn's collapse is almost as startling as that of her screen daughter; Miller's shocking crisis of faith (...) is deeply moving; and Von Sydow's immense strength in the face of advancing years and the ultimate challenge are the foundations on which The Exorcist towers. It is also a film of stunning effects, all special because they are physical and not CGI. Finally, it is a film of plain terror dues partly to the words "inspired by real life events" but primarily because all the horror is manifest in an innocent and helpless child (...) For those coming to it for the first time, raised on a succession of demon spawn exploitational slasher flicks, it can easily be spoilt by some wisecracking oik in the stalls. But as his laughter becomes more nervous and less frequent, grip those armrests tight, feel every hair stand to attention - and let yourself believe." - Neil Jeffries

Film Review November 1998 p.20 (UK)
"Friedkin has (...) elicited the best acting you will probably see in a horror film. It is not for nothing that Burstyn, Miller and Blair were all nominated for Oscars. Also praiseworthy are Dick Smith's now legendary make up effects, which are still hugely effective a quarter of a century on. Inevitably, the film carries with it some baggage that now works against it. Blair's first reference to her bed shaking prompted smug titters of recognition at the press screening I attended. But once Friedkin has drawn us into his story of demonic possession - of credible lives shaken by the power of an unimaginable evil - the laughing stopped. The Exorcist may not be the greatest film of all time, but it is a beautifully made one. And it is hard to recall another horror film that matches it in eloquence and power." - James Cameron-Wilson

1999

Empire no.119 (May 1999) p.126 (UK)
"The plot is basic, but its execution, and more importantly, the ideas is presents are what define the film. Friedkin's insistence on realism means that even when the effects of the day don't hold up, the implication behind them remains as powerful as ever - we all know it's pea soup but the power of that image is a child (having already defiled herself in the crucifix masturbation scene), verbally defiling a priest is supremely unnerving (...) The Exorcist is by no means the splatterfest we often take the horror genre to be. It moves at its own pace, building up a sense of dread that has rarely been attempted in cinema since. To say that it works is an understatement. The Exorcist gets you where you live. For the uninitiated, prepare to be haunted." - Bob McCabe

Total Film no.28 (May 1999) pp.31, 97 (UK)
"Yes, The Exorcist is a scary film. No, it isn't very nice. (It's always distressing to hear a child use the word "cunting".) But it has lost much of its impact; Satan's trident just ain't as pointy as it used to be. Cold fact is, the squirmiest scene surely has to be the spinal tap sequence, and not the much-gabbed-about pea-soup vomit episode. Still, you can't deny that it deserves the classic tag, and, in video form, remains a taut, insidious, claustrtrophobic thriller. It may not have the yoof of today squealing and grabbing for the nearest cushion, but it will make the more thoughtful members of its now much wider audience chew a few fingernails. And, ignoring issues of personal hygiene, there.s nothing wrong with that." - Dan Jolin

2000

Empire no.127 (January 2000) p.148 (UK)
"The Exorcist gains its extraordinary power from the combination of a superb script and textured, precise direction and editing, that delivers a subtle growing anxiety which, about an hour in, suddenly blossoms into full-blown terror for the protagonists that you really, really believe in. Maybe not the greatest film ever made, but certainly up there." - Adam Smith

Empire no.130 (April 2000) pp.56; 146-147 (UK)
"If there was a film that shaped a genre, this is it. Undoubtedly the catalyst for the resurgence in horror in the late 70s and early 80s, its influence can be spotted just about wherever you care to look. From cinematography through to the almost subliminal use of sound, its impact continues to ripple onwards to this day. If you enjoyed last year's The Sixth Sense and The Blair Witch Project, you know who to thank." - anonymous

Starburst Special no.44: Summer Sci-Fi Films p.114 (UK)
"A wonderfully low-key drama as opposed to flashy effects show, The Exorcist remains a seminal horror film." - anonymous

Empire no.138 (December 2000) p.67 (UK)
"The Exorcist, in any form, is not without cheap shocks or easy thrills. Watch it with a popcorn audience raised on rollercoaster rides like Scream (1996) and people will laugh. Sneak into a quiet, late night screening, give yourself over to it, believe and you will be terrified." - Colin Kennedy

Film Review Special no.33 2000 - 2001 Preview p.82 (UK)
"Still, by far, the most intense and unsettling horror film of them all." - anonymous

2002

Sight and Sound vol.12 no.1 (January 2002) p.59 (UK)
"Despite such notorious scenes as Regan spewing green vomit or masturbating with a crucifix, the brilliance here lies less in the moments of Grand Guignol horror than in the restraint: the attention to character, the craftsmanship and the sheer conviction of the storytelling. At once a religious parable, a study of tortured adolescence and a warped satire about a single-parent family, it hasn't dated in the slightest." - Geoffrey Macnab