Given multiple reviews about 1973 ['movie'] ['The Exorcist'], each offering insights, opinions, or criticisms on a single topic, merge them into a single, cohesive review. When reviews offer opposing viewpoints, ensure that both perspectives are represented in a balanced way. Structure the text to flow smoothly, weaving different points together to create a well-rounded summary. Ensure the text remains clear and easily understandable by removing any jokes, insider references, or quotes.Aim for a polished and engaging tone, creating a review that feels comprehensive and reflects the diversity of opinions. The text should be very long. Here the given reviews: ['The blueprint for this sub-genre & with good reason. Paving the way for dark story-telling with fearful intensity & deep themes. The pacing drags & it is clearly old but the practical effects & score are legendary. . . . The blueprint for this sub-genre & with good reason. Paving the way for dark story-telling with fearful intensity & deep themes. The pacing drags & it is clearly old but the practical effects & score are legendary. . . . The blueprint for this sub-genre & with good reason. Paving the way for dark story-telling with fearful intensity & deep themes. The pacing drags & it is clearly old but the practical effects & score are legendary.', 'There has been a library full of comments about The Exorcist down the years; the film itself gathered such notoriety in England that Channel Four, who had the television rights, decided not to screen it for several years. As to myself, I first saw it around 1980 or so in a re-issue, and have viewed it three or four times since, in an effort to understand what disturbed so many people. I can only think it is the religious angle of the story, that the Church seems to accept that Regan is indeed possessed by a demon from Hell, thereby giving the film some verisimilitude. The Exorcist is a well-made film, decently acted and directed, but time has not been kind to it. Unlike The Wicker Man or Don\'t Look Now, which were both released in the same year, the film simply never succeeds in really getting under your skin. During the first hour or so the story is generally presented along realistic lines, although it does seem to take a long time to get going and there are little moments of supernaturalism - the sounds in the loft, the Ouija board, etc. However once the demon is revealed the whole thing slides into self-parody. It\'s rather obvious that Linda Blair is overdubbed with entirely different dialogue during the "profanity" exchanges. Blair is very convincing for the most part, giving a performance that type-cast her in sub-basement horror films for years afterwards. Yet the presentation simply never convinces you - seeming to be just an excuse for some mechanical Hollywood effects, pea soup projectile vomiting (which actually looks extremely fake - like the goop they used to drop on people in TISWAS)and the bed is obviously being pulled up and down on wires, as is Regan in her levitation bit. DVD sharpness reveals this rather poor effect. However some of the film does work, Karras suddenly being confronted by his recently-deceased mother in Regan\'s place, is a spooky and unsettling moment, and Father Merrin\'s entrance to the McNeil home is justifiably famous, caught in silhouette against an unearthly light from Regan\'s window. If only the rest of the film had been as subtle. I have to say when judged against it\'s contemporaries, it simply isn\'t as good, is too slow and suffers from a rather undeveloped plot. The Omen maybe a cruder film but it is a much more effective one. The Exorcist is an important film historically, then, but not in terms of quality. Future generations may well wonder what all the fuss was about.'] Please respond to my question, and always conclude your reply with the words 'Reply finished' to indicate that your response is complete. Ensure that the text is fully formed without any placeholders such as '[Conclusion]' or '[Placeholder]'. Make sure the reply is fully contained before these words and is not cut off prematurely. Thank you.