LittleLotti

This film is presented as a true crime documentary about a serial killer in California. It delivers exactly what it promises and for that I can't fault it.

The cast gives mostly believable performances as investigators and witnesses being interviewed for the production, and the story is entertaining throughout. The ending is not as satisfying as you would hope it to be, as a lot of the things that had been such a main focus during the entire investigation are never given an explanation, and this is purposeful, not a mistake or oversight. Sure, the viewer can probably come up with their own theories as it's not super mystifying but it would've been nice to be given a complete explanation for the motives behind the murders.

I have to commend everyone involved for the commitment to the bit and for this feeling like a legitimate true crime doc right down to the score. I was entertained and I enjoyed this. There's nothing groundbreaking here but it was a decent way to spend an hour and a half. If you like true crime docs you'll probably enjoy this.

I'm convinced that because this movie was consider a "bomb" at the box office even though it didn't perform THAT poorly, they got a bunch of people to say that it's "the best film they've seen" or the "best film of the year" and that created a lot of hype and high expectations. Unfortunately high expectations typically lead to disappointment.

I'm not saying this was a bad movie because it's not. But it's not a masterpiece. It wasn't even a movie that I'm glad I watched. It was just okay.

At almost 3 hours long I feel like I should've walked away with at least a satisfaction of having seen something "pretty good" but instead it was honestly quite forgettable and just sort of meh.

I expect a lot of people to think I'm wrong, but I just cannot understand why people are giving this 10 stars. There are a few slightly comical moments, the actors are all fantastic, but as a whole it's nothing spectacular. I also took issue with the score, while I understand it's meant to be quirky, I found it to be awfully distracting at times and there were several scenes where it just didn't fit right.

Overall I can't find anything about this movie to recommend it to anyone. It was just an okay film.

Listen, there are no words to convey how much this movie terrified me when I watched it for the first time when I was only 10. It's been 24 years and I haven't been able to so much as look at a picture of the possessed Reagan, hear the theme song, or even hear the name Linda Blair without feeling a surge of panic rise in my chest. This movie scarred me for life and made me avoid horror movies for most of it.

Now that I watch horror all the time I've been curious to see just how scary The Exorcist really is through the eyes of an adult who isn't fazed much anymore. Plus I know so many people call it a masterpiece of filmmaking and that alone made me want to watch it again. But god, the fear I had to do so was so strong it took me this long. But I ultimately decided that there's no way a movie from 1973 can possibly be THAT terrifying so I finally gave myself exposure therapy and wow how different I feel about it now.

I can understand that when this movie was released it was unlike anything ever seen on screen before. It's shocking, explicit, vulgar, and yes, terrifying for the time. Through a modern lens it's a little outdated, particularly the dubbing of the demonic voice, and the scares don't quite hit like they used to, and even if they did, the flow of this film feels disjointed and I found myself getting frustrated with the editing.

My two main issues with this film is 1. You've got a girl strapped to a bed who's speaking backwards, moving furniture without actually moving, eyes are bright greenish yellow, and the priest is basically shrugging it off saying there's no proof of demonic possession. Umm, what? So y'all just see furniture flying around and an unearthly voice and it doesn't send you running away screaming?

The other issue is the editing. It feels clunky and even jolting at times. There will be an intense scene of something crazy going on and suddenly an abrupt cut to people carrying on, so you're left to wonder, well... what did everyone do at the end of that scene? It just doesn't flow well and it leaves a lot to be desired.

I do have to praise the effects and the acting. Linda Blair really gave an incredible performance and set the bar quite high for anyone to ever play a possessed character afterwards. Ellen Burstyn is convincing as a frightened mother desperate for help and answers, although at times it can feel a little too dramatic. But overall the performances remain strong after all these years. And the effects team did a fantastic job at the makeup and creating some genuinely unnerving imagery that still evoked that terror in me that I remember from my childhood viewing.

Alas, if I'm grading this movie from a modern viewpoint, it really isn't anything that great in my opinion. I can't see myself ever watching this again, but not out of fear this time. There's nothing that subsequent viewings will reveal, there really isn't anything entertaining, and one viewing is definitely enough for me. I still can appreciate what it did for cinema at the time of release, but after 50 years it's bound to lose that reverence. It definitely paved the way and set a bar for future possession films and that will never be discredited.