Scary, yes. But scariest?

Rating: 3/10 (30 July 2015)

I scare easily. Movies like Alien, Silence of the Lambs, Sleepy Hollow and, yes, even Mars Attacks, traumatised me for extended periods of time. The Exorcist was, despite its eerie foreboding name, not scary.
A friend and I wanted to watch a good, classic, horror movie and settled on The Exorcist, as it reportedly fulfilled all our criteria â€“ in fact, I was a little reluctant at first, what with the honour of being "the scariest movie ever." IMDb has even granted the movie an almighty 8.0.
While setting the scene, giving us a backstory, everything being all fine and happy in the beginning is great for a horror movie, this one started out a little too slow. We waited and waited, ready to cover our eyes and squeal in terrified delight, but nothing was happening. The blurb states that a mother hires two priests to help her possessed daughter, but the daughter doesn't show scary signs of possession until halfway through the film, the first priest visits her even later, and the famed second priest shows us his face for the last ten minutes, if even that. This movie is more accurately the story of a worried mother and a parallel story of a depressed priest-psychologist. Then at some point an exorcism takes place.
No doubt the makeup on Linda Blair is great, but while the demon-girl's look has a lot of potential, she doesn't do anything scary. What is horrifying about puking pea soup? I can go check out the local nightlife and would surely witness comparable scenes. The levitation scene is also more "cool" and strange than scary. Okay, the demon can fly in her sleep, but she's not torturing anybody. When Regan spews profanity at her exorcist, my friend and I burst out laughing and had to rewind and listen to her line again. After the movie we even went back hoping to get another good laugh. (We did).
The scariest part in this movie was Regan's second trip to the hospital, and the creepiest, most annoying villains were the stubborn doctors who would rather torture a little girl than let her see a psychologist. Rather than anti-religion (in fact, this movie seems to glorify faith more than anything since, after exhausting the rational medical options, only a priest is able to save the day), this movie is anti-psychology, branding mental illness as a horrible crime, and preventing one from seeking help for it.
The method of storytelling with numerous short takes is also headache-inducing. Scenes are so short and bounce from one time, place and character to the next, that it's difficult to follow. Nobody wants to read a book. That is written. Like this. In very short takes. There's no time. To get into the mood. Or feel. For the. Characters. Isn't this. Super. Annoying?
There are so many minor characters with their own stories and quirks that not only is it difficult to remember them all, but it begs the question of why are we shown this. I didn't even remember who Burke, the man Regan killed, was. What was the point of the drunken man at the party? Why was the detective's loneliness such an emphasised motif? Wouldn't the movie have been a nice concise package without the extra side sequences?
Finally, screen writing is clearly lacking, since the movie ends with a accumulation of unanswered questions and discrepancies. Sure, fans have tried to fill in some of the gaps, and movies don't need to state everything point-blank, but when everything is speculation it gives the impression of an improvised, not-so-thought-out story. When, how and why Regan? If the demon wanted to just scare the populace, wouldn't he have picked a publicity figure or someone whose possession would become widely known and cause more controversy, maybe a famous priest? How about the pope? Why did the demon fear fake holy water? What happened to the demon in the end? (Can non-corporeal demons even die? Would he have passed onto another person?) Why was the demon so sex- crazed? What was the point of levitating and spider walking? Where did the crucifix come from (and why)? Who desecrated the statue? Was Regan possessed by the Devil, as she claimed?
Yes, even I know from reading about the movie, that the demon was Pazuzu, but I shouldn't have to devour Wikipedia, read the book, or watch any bombed sequels to get all my questions answered. I'm judging this movie as a movie and not as the separated Siamese twin of the novel. As a standalone piece of film art, this is a poorly executed example.
So all in all, with the combination of slow storytelling, short scenes that end when they'd just started, scarce action, a litter of names and stories that add no substance, unanswered questions, and some hilarious profanity, why is The Exorcist a good movie?