Nope. I said it was a good movie. I was disappointed with the lack of scares, or scares of what I was expecting after all of the hype.

Your ignorance isn't paying off.

:rolleyes:

"Scares" are cheap. The Exorcist has real chills- the kind that stay with you longer than the three seconds they're on screen.

The Exorcist, has not stayed in my head. Yes, scares are "cheap". But when I can sleep at night, from no "chills", as you say, it does not have a mental impact. Has nothing to do with jump-out moments.

Dead Birds atmosphere, gave me "chills".

Henry: Portrait Of A Serial Killer, dug into my head mentally. As did Eraserhead.

The Exorcist, simply, did not show me anything, I haven't already seen. At no point in the film, did my skin go all tingly.

As I did say, I enjoyed the movie. It just did not have a lasting impact.

And another question for you two; Why are you trying to tell me, that my opinion, is wrong? My reviews, are simply my opinion. And my opinion, is that it's a really good movie, but not really a frightening one, like all the hype around it suggests.

:rolleyes:

If The Exorcist, frazzles you people to the marrow in your bones, then, by all means, be scared. If it is an awful movie to you, then please, don't watch it.

End.

:cool:

agree with Angra (god it pains me to say it) but 23/25=92/100 which is close to perfection

yet your review simply calls it good. I agree 100% that it is a 90+ film on a scale of 100, but that's because I really love it the film. You clearly don't love it - which it your perogative and I am not arguing with your taste - so your number system and review simply do not jive.

I'm going to explain this only once.

First thing, unless a film leaves me entirely stunned, I don't ever get over excited. I don't type, in this manner; "ZOMG!! THAT FILM ROCKED MY SOCKS!!! LOLOLOL!!!!". It isn't my style. When I say I "really enjoy a film" or "it's really good", that means that I thought it was fantastic. I'm just not a person that puts a lot of exclamation points after a sentence. I'm very to the point.

Also, I did "love" this film, as you could say. But you also have to understand, that when you build yourself up on hype, to view a movie for the first time, you are going to be disappointed, no matter how fantastic the movie really is. And the way everyone goes on about how horrifying this movie is, I was expecting to piss my pants (or the floor, as we are on The Exorcist), but it just didn't happen.

Now, I have just revised my review, and added a side note to it.

Maybe everyone will understand now?

:rolleyes:

Look for yourselves.

Shaft (1971)

Man...can you dig it?

This is a great flick...perfect example of that early 70's grit. Plus - and this goes without saying - Richard Roundtree in the title role is badass beyond definition.

Hey no need to get upset. Now you've explained yourself, opinions are opinion, so be it. I just didn't think "there weren't enough scares" was a good way to describe why you were let down by the film. What are "scares", really? That's all I wanted to know.

To each his own.

Scares being anything that is disturbing or create a mental freak-out. Jump out scares don't bother me.

I was let down by the hype, more than anything.

Have you read the book, VC?

Personally, I found it far scarier (not to mention generally more interesting) than the film version...if you can find a copy its worth a look. I'm in the same boat as you on the movie - very, very well done but doesn't match the hype at all - but I was still very impressed with Blatty's novel.

Nah, I haven't yet. Honestly, I wasn't aware that there was a novel.

Is this the one you're talking about?

Amazon Link

I'm going to order some stuff from Amazon soon, hopefully. I may add it to my cart as well.