Rating: 
Summary: Keep your old tape
Review: Being an admirer of "The Exorcist" I didn't like "the version you've never seen" at all. They did a great job remastering the picture and sound. But I think the film lost something, something small but very important. It's like coloring black-and-white pictures, a kind of sacrilege. And the segments they added, added nothing new to the movie. So I will keep the old tape, the original release.
Rating: 
Summary: Not scary at all
Review: I heard this movie was the ultimate of scary but I beg to differ. My mother and my friend told me that it was really scary and I was like ok lets see how it goes. It was completely pathetic. I didn't find one shred of scary in that movie at all. There were some cool parts like the spider thing down the stairs but not scary. It was probably one of the most disappointing scary movies. It may have been scary back then but frankly its as childish as a Disney film now.
Rating: 
Summary: IF I COULD GIVE MORE STARS...
Review: IF I COULD GIVE MORE STARS I WOULD, THIS IS THE BEST HORROR MOVIE EVER!!! I KNOW IT'S RE-RELEASE AFTER ALL THESE YEARS DATES THE FILM, BUT IT IS STILL #1! KIDS TODAY WATCH SCREAM, I KNOW WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER, AND SO ON BUT NONE OF THEM CAN COMPARE TO THE MASTER, THE MOST COMPELLING, FRIGHTENING, POWERFUL MOVIE OF ALL TIME. THIS IS BY FAR THE BEST MOVIE EVER MADE. LINDA BLAIR, FOR SUCH A YOUNG GIRL MAKES YOU SCARED SENSELESS, JUST SITTING IN THE BED. ELLEN BURSTYN AND MAX VON SYDOW HAVE DONE POSSIBLY THE BEST IN THE CAREERS. I TRULY WISH EVERYONE WOULD JUST WATCH THE MOVIE WITHOUT PAYING ATTENTION TO THE "FASHION OF THE DAY" AND REALLY JUST PAY ATTENTION TO THE MOVIE ITSELF. FORGET ABOUT THE TIME IN WHICH IT WAS MADE AND LISTEN AND SEE ALL THE GREAT SCARY, SPECIAL EFFECTS THAT THIS MOVIE HAS. IMAGINE HEARING THAT VOICE ONE NIGHT WHILE YOUR LYING IN YOUR BED AT NIGHT ALL ALONE, OR HEARING THAT BANGING COMING OUT OF YOUR ATTIC AND BELIEVING THAT IT'S RATS. I STILL GET THE CHILLS TO THIS DAY-AND YES JUST THINKING ABOUT IT NOW-I WANT MY HUSBAND TO OPEN OUR BEDROOM DOOR AND PEEK IN BEFORE I GO IN.
Rating:
Summary: THE EXORCIST AS HISTORY
Review: When America's favorite paperback of recent times, "The Exorcist" premiered as a movie in 1973, it was carnival time in theatre lobbys and Hollywood corporate headquarters. The film took in big profits and patrons were behaving as if they too were possessed by the devil. Long lines waited to see swirling heads, defrocked priests and a little girl who was no Shirley Temple. People freaked, ran from the theatre, got sick. The news press reported of ambulances arriving at theatres to escort ill patrons to the hospital. I remember many a cold night standing in the snow waiting to get another look at this ... show. When those lobby doors closed it was like being trapped in a cage with a ferocious animal. The chaos on the screen was only matched by the chaos in the theatre where people alternately laughed and genuinely screamed at the ridicolous horror, sometimes in the same breath uncontrolably. As kids, we couldn't get enough of it. I must had seen it five times in it's premier week, every show a packed house of 'Rocky Horror' responses that were never planned. "The Exorcist" was the tabloid 'catch phrase' of the day. It seems every church group in America was protesting the movie. There was talk that the story was based on the demonic possession of a Hollywood celebrity's child, we all knew who and we all believed it! We were told the real Catholic priests who played themselves in the movie were being ex-communicated from The Catholic Church, and yes, it's true, the Catholic Church rarely performs exorcisms. It was a glorious media ... circus and it retains that manipulative capitalist soul sucking spirit today. And to some of us it remains very dear. You see, the youth in 1973 could point up to the screen to a puke discharging, head spinning, foul-mouthed little girl with a fondness for crucifixes and say, "You know, some days I feel like that."
Rating: 
Summary: And the Spanish subtitles?
Review: This movie is great.... and this new edittion really deserves to be buy, but in the box they announce spanish and portuguese subtitles, but when I saw it, it only had english and french subtitles. This is a big flaw for a big company like Warner, they should be more careful with the extras they announce. Well, about the movie: If you expect to see a lot of cool scary extras, you'll be dissapointed, there are a few scary ones (new ones), but the sound is really what impressed me, in some scenes the 5.1 really shocks you.... it's really scary.
Rating:
Summary: its cool but its not scary
Review: i have to say its a good movie but it is not scary at all. i don't know why people say its scary. its more like funny than scary
Rating:
Summary: The best horror film of all time!
Review: William Friedkin winds a tale mischief with a tale of evil. When a normal 12-year-old girl begins a curious journey with a Quija board, strange things start to happen. From deaths related to the Macneil family, to strange phenomena occuring inside the little girls bedroom.... When released into theaters, this movie plagued peoples dreams FOREVER! USA Today nominated this movie the scariest ever made, and I have to agree with them!
Rating:
Summary: This is a part of the masterpiece but not *the* masterpiece.
Review: The Exorcist first gripped my attention when I was 10 years old, and from then on I've found the movie only increasingly compelling. Viewing The Version You've Never Seen in the theater in September 2000 marked the first time I'd seen The Exorcist on the big screen, and I loved the experience ... even though I was aware the entire time that I was not watching the true masterpiece that William Friedkin's motion picture is. Still, I saw the movie two more times while it played in theaters and was gripped by the details every time. Regardless, though the added scenes are, in some ways, helpful to the progress of the story and truer to the spirit of William Peter Blatty's novel, the movie still differs from the novel in many, many details. More importantly, Friedkin helped fashion a soundtrack to the 1973 original that focused on subtlety and the rawness of the moment. There were not many musical pieces, if any at all, to speak of, certainly no underlying score throughout much of the dialog. But there's plenty of that here in scenes that were heretofore silent save for the dialog itself. Music thrown into a dialog scene tells me one thing: OK now, you're SUPPOSED to be scared here. I'd rather just be scared on my own, thank you very much. Perhaps people today don't relate to the kind of quiet, intense terror that the original Exorcist espoused. Though I really like this new movie and recommend it especially to the die-hard fans like myself, I as an Exorcist buff found the added sound elements, as well as the video tricks -- superimposing Pazuzu and the face of death on doors, walls and range tops -- gratuitous. OK, *all* movies are gratuitous, but Regan's face morphing into a monster's during the hypnotizing scene was far too gratuitous for the ideology of this movie. It was like pandering to an audience full of people who are assumed to not want to put up with the movie's subtle dialog and relatively quiet landscape (the quiet scenes far outnumber and run longer than the noisy ones that everyone talks about). Now, of course I expect some modern-day responses to the conventions of yesteryear. I almost laughed myself seeing Chris MacNeil walk around in shawls and plaid skirts. And, when Dr. Klein advised Chris MacNeil to get a prescription of Ritalin for her daughter, I could understand the snickering from the audience. Yet I think the film still stands up, and I can attest to it, hearing the gasps all around me when Regan fled down the stairs in her bloody "spider walk" or viciously masturbated with a crucifix. And I still felt the tension and sadness in the audience when emotions ran high in the film, when Karras broke down thinking about his mother and when Chris begged for a priest because Regan "has already seen every f--king psychiatrist in the world." I recommend this movie, but keep in mind that the masterpiece was finished a generation ago. This is just a little more whipped cream on top of the sundae ... OK, a rather gory little sundae, but still tasty.
Rating:
Summary: Still the champion of horror
Review: 30 years old, the movie not me. And still makes me fold into the fetus position like i did somewhere back in the eighties. Lot of new footages, i.e. the "Famous???spiderwalk". Will another ever top this??
Rating:
Summary: Simply a masterpiece
Review: Re-released 27 years later, one of the greatest horror films of all-time is still deeply unnerving. Much has been made about the new "director's cut", that the newly-included, never-before-seen footage detracts from the original rather than adds. It is true that the film's epilogue is dragged out for no apparent reason but that is not a significant enough reason to keep people from watching it again. It's simply one of the best films around.
|
