Landmark film greatly weakened by the passage of time

Rating: 6/10 (30 November 2005)

I won't bother to repeat what others have said about the impact of this film in its time. Some of the things that were strengths then are still strengths now. 'The Exorcist' was one of the first films of supernatural terror to feature a committed cast of first-rate professional actors and a very strong script that took its story seriously. Friedkin's direction, the relatively slow pace, and the clarity and restraint of the cinematography and almost subliminal soundtrack work as well as they ever did. For example, Friedkin makes effective use of silence and very quiet sounds instead of smothering everything in the pounding rock soundtrack that has since become the norm. The special effects, however, are primitive and largely unconvincing, and many of the most 'horrific' moments simply don't work for an audience conditioned to a far higher standard of realism. (For this viewer, thirty years on, some of the most frightening things in the film were items of Ellen Burstyn's wardrobe.)
The biggest problem, however, is that 'The Exorcist' is now a victim of its original popular success and subsequent inflated critical reputation. In the thirty years since its appearance, the film has been plundered mercilessly, with the result that almost everything that made it distinctive at the time has since attained the status of cliché. By the time the film re-emerged it had inevitably lost much of its aura of originality. This accounts for some of the impatience of the younger audience with the film; the rest follows from disappointment that 'The Exorcist' simply isn't, in 2005, 'the scariest movie of all time'. If you can watch it without preconceptions, it's still a good and serious movie, and one every fan should know. Watch it back to back with 'Constantine' and ask yourself whether the old guys didn't know a thing or two.