Special effects hold up, and so does the story

Rating: 8/10 (25 September 2000)

WARNING: This review may reveal portions of the film plot.
The big question for movie makers in the year 2000 -- will the classic 1973 film "The Exorcist" still sell tickets with its "home grown" special effects in the age of digital realities appearing on the screen every few weeks?
In my opinion, the answer is a resounding "yes!" The film scares you, rather than shocks, horrifies, or disgusts as the typical "horror" film of 2000 tends to do. And it does it with what are truly "special effects." In the year 2000 every special effect seems to be digital -- and it shows. There is nothing special about the effects anymore -- they are all done the same way. I'm impressed instead with "The Exorcist." When Linda Blair is being jolted back and forth in her bed, upright then prone, upright then prone, slamming forward and back, you can't help but wonder how they did this to her, because it LOOKS real -- there isn't a digital glow around the edges. And somehow you know that whatever they did, she really was tossed back and forth in that shot. The effects here are still "special," even 27 years later.
The one thing that did date the film was something else beyond the effects, and that was the medicine in the film. The technology for scanning Blair's brain when the doctors are convinced she has a brain lesion are positively horrifying -- did we really do that to people just 2 decades ago? The machines are big, clunky, and terrifyingly old, and that dates the film more than anything.
The second area in which the film fell short was the ending. It is quite abrupt, and seems to leave you in the lurch -- a bit of a letdown really.
Overall though, you won't be disappointed. Great acting and great writing combine with the camera work to make the film a top notch thriller, with combinations of suspense and terror, and plenty of blood thrown in. This combined with the extremely adult language makes for the film's "R" rating.