I mean I guess at the time it was pry scary?

Rating: 5/10 (8 January 2019)

This wasn't scary. I'm a horror film aficionado and I can't believe I've never watched this. I guess because it's been such a part of the culture for so long-all the spoofs etc...that I kinda felt like I had already watched it in a way.
I would say this is more engrossing than scary. I just think some scenes went on for too long and don't see how they were necessary. The exchange between the Mom and daughter before bed the one night just went on and on and got to be uncomfortable. Kids aren't usually that enamored or lovey dovey with their parents like that. I could see if she had been much younger but she was supposed to be 11 in this and usually by that age they have started to separate physically and emotionally from their parents. It was kinda cringeworthy.
The whole first part didn't seem integral to the story. The scene in the beginning went on forever but wasn't really explained. Why did we need Max Von Sydow? It was Jason Miller who was the main priest.
The makeup was so over the top and fake that it just made it funny and not scary. I will say though that the bruise on Ellen Burstyn's face was very realistic looking and as it progressively got better you could still see it until it was barely there BUT that was a detail that many films today overlook. People get hurt in scenes in movies today and the next scene they have nothing. The directors today could take a page from this book in that regard. Continuity would seem like the easiest thing to keep track of between scenes but it's severely lacking in many of today's films.
I loved the one scene where the doctor comes out to talk with Ellen Burstyn about her daughter as he lights up a smoke! Wow! We've come a long way since then right?
Ellen Burstyn always struck me as an actress who is always angry in every role and I see that she hasn't changed much. She was so bi*chy to people in this. She's either like that IRL and isn't acting much or she's a really good actress cause she just seems like a mean nasty woman.
My other issue with this is-after seeing what Linda Blair was portraying on the big screen I had to ask myself what kind of parents would allow a child to act in such a depraved film? It was very sexual and disturbing...not scary...more that it's just sick. I just don't think young children should be exposed to that kind of stuff. They are too young to process such heavy material. I guess people's morals go out the window along with the care and keeping of young children's impressionable minds and innocence when Hollywood comes calling or money is involved. Priorities seem messed up.
This film def has a 70's vibe which of course comes across as very dated. I also don't get why Jason Miller was nominated for an Oscar for his performance. He had screen presence for sure and wasn't bad but he wasn't in the film that much and the scenes he had were brief. I get why Linda Blair was nominated but not him.
Lastly I see that not much has changed as far as endings go with horror films. This seemed like a very ho hum ending. After all that happens they just drive away and the other priest is just standing near the site where Jason Miller died and that's it. I kept waiting to see them cut back to the dig at the beginning to show some other kind of artifact but nope just a priest standing and thinking...um ok? I mean eh.
Overall I guess I'd recommend it if you want to see what others call a classic but honestly I don't see what the fuss is all about. You just must've had to have been there at the time to appreciate it.