Reviews provided by RottenTomatoes
The Exorcist, like most memorable Hollywood movies, gains its power from the way it mixes opposites: new-style realism and sexual radicalism, old-style horror and religion.
When I first saw The Exorcist, I saw only the literal side of the story. But as I watched it again, I began to view the movie as a dark fairy tale about a parent whose child is experiencing a painful trauma.
The Exorcist, with its excellent cast, mounting intensity, and ingeniously constructed surprises, is still a commanding achievement.
New York Times:
The Exorcist is not an unintelligently put-together film, which makes one all the more impatient with it.
New York Post:
Von Sydow, Blair and Mercedes McCambridge (the originally uncredited actress who dubbed Regan's gross mutterings) are flat-out terrific.
This 1973 horror thriller is highly instructive as well as unnerving.
Some movies aren't just movies. They're closer to voodoo -- they channel currents larger and more powerful than themselves.
New York Daily News:
The movie that launched a new era in horror films, and which, for one generation, remains one of the scariest experiences of their lives.
There is nothing dated about The Exorcist, which remains an effective excursion into demonic possession more than a quarter of a century after it was first unveiled to the public.
If movies are, among other things, opportunities for escapism, then The Exorcist is one of the most powerful ever made.
Friedkin and Blatty seem to care nothing for their characters as people, only as victims-props to be abused, hurled about the room, beaten and, in one case, brutally murdered.
Aall The Exorcist does is take its audience for a ride, spewing it out the other end, shaken up but none the wiser.
It's good stuff but, basically, The Exorcist is a museum piece, something to be enjoyed for its historical value, its datedness and its almost quaint shock value.
An expert telling of a supernatural horror story.