I think younger people are a bit more jaded and see things differently than those in the 70s and 80s when this film came out and was re released.
I found this clip awhile ago showing audience reactions when it first came out. I would imagine this was quite accurate according to the time period of 1973 when nothing really was made quite like this. I personally have not seen this film since the late 70s when it went into wide re release. I've not seen it since save for bits and pieces on youtube or on my netflix streaming. Love the Tubular Bells intro and the Iraq portions.
I think younger people are immune to anything less than extremely shocking and violent films (The Saw as one example), and because of this, they see The Exorcist in a different way than the older generation do. The film was thought of as terrifying and shocking back then. Younger people are used to films that are so much more shocking these days.
The first time I saw it i was impressed but not particularly scared. I think it was just too in-your-face, as most William Friedkin films are. It didn't help that I saw it in the mid-nineties after the subtler psychological terrors of Seven and Silence of the Lambs.
I saw it again at a packed university screening before it came out on dvd. The print was a bit patchy and people were laughing at the green soup and various other over-the-top moments, not laughing out of fear but laughing because it was all a bit daft.
This is the thing though, effects get better as the years/decades go by. Just look at the blood from the hammer horror films, this wasn't exactly realistic looking to me, but then again, I wasn't born early enough to have watched them films when they were first shown on TV.
I think younger people are immune to anything less than extremely shocking and violent films (The Saw as one example), and because of this, they see The Exorcist in a different way than the older generation do. The film was thought of as terrifying and shocking back then. Younger people are used to films that are so much more shocking these days.
However, I believe if such people approach a movie like Exorcist with the right attitude, ie being mindful of the era in which it was made, the nature of the special effects used in those days, the naturally dated air of the movie as a whole...and put it into context then they should hopefully not come away with this ridiculous 'comedy movie' conclusion.
I think unfortunately a lot of these people go into it with the wrong attitude, being told it is the scariest movie ever (which actually works against it, no movie can live up to that sort of hype), having had all of the famous moments described to them ad nauseum...and worse still, watching it drunk with a few mates...and probably not even concentrating or paying attention to the story.
And frankly...if all you can say after watching a movie as important, as influential, as well-made and as powerful as this is you thought it was a laugh...then despite what you may claim, you have not watched it at all. Not properly anyway.
Because I always find it interesting that most of the people who claim they laughed at it can barely muster a couple of sentences to say about it. Like I said before, it becomes like a 'badge of honour' to say not only did it not scare you, but you found it funny. I wonder if those stupid comments impress the girls when they chat them up?
'Oh, I saw the Exorcist...didn't scare me...in fact I laughed all the way through!'.
'Oh...you're such a hard man...wanna take me home?'
Queued at the Cinema to see the film when first released,
Cant say i was scared but i was shocked,certainly not the only one either, I said for years,The film will never be shown on TV.
Wonder why people arnt shocked today. shows the shock factor has moved right up.inevitable i suppose but not really a good thing.
Thought The Evil dead would never be shown on TV as well,
laughed myself last time i watched it.
i have fond memories of watching this when i was younger.. found an original beta-max version in my parents loft and while i had heard about it because of it's notoriety and being banned, it didnt have the labels it has today (i.e. Scariest movie ever made), we didnt have a beta-max machine by that time, we had moved to vhs
so i sneaked it out of the house one day as i was going to school and i went in to town and i knew of this oldy worldy video shop and i asked the guy in there to convert it to vhs, £10 he charged me and it was ready after school,
i geared myself up to watch it on a friday night with the lights off and it scared the sh1t outta me for weeks. .. even tho im an 80s kid, i can still relate to the who era of the movie.
love my story of how i first got to watch it though!
However, I believe if such people approach a movie like Exorcist with the right attitude, ie being mindful of the era in which it was made, the nature of the special effects used in those days, the naturally dated air of the movie as a whole...and put it into context then they should hopefully not come away with this ridiculous 'comedy movie' conclusion.
I think unfortunately a lot of these people go into it with the wrong attitude, being told it is the scariest movie ever (which actually works against it, no movie can live up to that sort of hype), having had all of the famous moments described to them ad nauseum...and worse still, watching it drunk with a few mates...and probably not even concentrating or paying attention to the story.
And frankly...if all you can say after watching a movie as important, as influential, as well-made and as powerful as this is you thought it was a laugh...then despite what you may claim, you have not watched it at all. Not properly anyway.
Because I always find it interesting that most of the people who claim they laughed at it can barely muster a couple of sentences to say about it. Like I said before, it becomes like a 'badge of honour' to say not only did it not scare you, but you found it funny. I wonder if those stupid comments impress the girls when they chat them up?
'Oh, I saw the Exorcist...didn't scare me...in fact I laughed all the way through!'.
'Oh...you're such a hard man...wanna take me home?'
I totally agree Ted. The posts that I am gobsmacked at are the ones that say "I wasnt scared of the clips I saw"............so basically they have never seen the film start to finish but they werent "scared" of the little scary clips they saw!
Fair enough, if you watch it right from the beginning and either dont like it, dont find it scary or whatever thats your perogative, not all of us are going to find the same things frightening. But to say you werent scared of the "clips" - wow how brave are YOU eh:eek::D???
Im sure if I watched a "clip" of "the scarrrrriest filum evvvvvver" I could possibly hold it together also, it wouldnt be rocket science.........
Back to the Exorcist. I watched it in 1973 at the age of 16. I had already read the book so knew what the story was. I loved the way it started so slowly, it was about a third into the film when stuff actually started to happen, this built the characters, the priest, the little girl and her monther, and even the detective, and made us care about them..........so when things did happen - that made (well me anyway) emotionally invested in them. Okay the effects are dated NOW looking back, but the story itself really stands the test of time. Last year I went to see "the last Exorcism", this year "Insidious" and I have to say Ive never seen such a load of steaming crap ..............in my opinion the Exorcist is streets ahead of the likes of that lazy shlock film making. Its a story about a little girl who became possessed by a demon.
To those who say what a powerless demon that couldnt do much but lie in the bed - well the fact that it took the little girl and was slowly killing her was enough for me. Yes the head spinning was "too much" I agree, it was completely unrealistic - the pea soup vomitting a step too far but in my opinon apart from those two scenes which EVERYONE now thinks of as main scenes in the film..............99.9% of it is still seriously scary.
I spoke to my 16 year old son about it, he said it didnt scare him, much! When we talked about it he said it was becuase he had seen so many parodies of it in Scary Movie and the like, that when he watched it "for real" thats all he could think about - and I do understand that - but remember when I was 16 and had never seen anything like this, it made a huge impact on me, I couldnt sleep for a couple of weeks thinking about it.
Nowadays of course we have the fantastic special effects, the "have it now" shocks, and a lot of people find the Exorcist very boring - but scholck and gore dont scare me - I guess the supernatural DOES, the Exorcist had both going on in its day, the slow build up of the story and then the shock when things started to happen that we had never seen in the cinema before- for me it was a scary combination.
But hey if you didnt find it scary thats your call also - noone is right or wrong, its just opinons.
BUT I find it hugely amusing when SOME posters can give very expert views on why it wasnt scary when they havent even seen the flippen thing all the way through!.
Well i don't know about everyone being scared watching it back in the 70s, easy to get scared and shocked mixed up.
I am sure many were scared,i am sure many were not scared but shocked. it broke new ground in so many ways.
remember a scene in Jaws, diving deep looking at a boat wreck, next sec head pops up out of nowhere,
i remember jumping out of my seat nearly, many others did as well, lots of us then couldn't stop laughing,
certainly only lasted a split second and found it funny,
More of a shock than scary.
Well i don't know about everyone being scared watching it back in the 70s, easy to get scared and shocked mixed up.
I am sure many were scared,i am sure many were not scared but shocked. it broke new ground in so many ways.
remember a scene in Jaws, diving deep looking at a boat wreck, next sec head pops up out of nowhere,
i remember jumping out of my seat nearly, many others did as well, lots of us then couldn't stop laughing,
certainly only lasted a split second and found it funny,
More of a shock than scary.
I understand what you say, but I certainly for one am very aware of the difference of being "frightened", for example of the supernatural and something I dont understand, and "shock".......
.........and something like Jaws, which I actually went to see when it first came out also - it made me frightened and shocked in a totally different way, in that you could get your head round a big shark that ate people, because thats what they sometimes do, in real life............the Exorcist was a different kettle of fish as you were trying to get your head round something that was so totally OUT of real life as it was possible to be, especially as it was a sweet little girl.
I understand that the Exorcist had a lot of "shock" scenes but they really were in relation to the story as a whole and not there purely for the shock value......
Ive seen a lot of "scary" films since, I do like a good old adreneline rush..............but there are only a few that stand out as frightening, the Omen, and in recent years (well relatively) the Ring gave me the willies......Nightmare on Elm street still stands up IMO.
I honestly cant think of a really brilliant horror movie this year, and still think the Exorcist, if you havent seen all the parodies and piss taking skits about it, remains up there. My husband watched it in the 70s and wont watch it again, he says theres "something" about it...................:eek:
I beleieve that this was the only horror film that my mother completely forbid me to watch until I was about 16 although when I finally got the chance I did not see what the fuss was all about. Sure it was disturbing in places, even funny on occasion, but essentialy I didn't find it scary, even as a Christian.
I understand what you say, but I certainly for one am very aware of the difference of being "frightened", for example of the supernatural and something I dont understand, and "shock".......
.........and something like Jaws, which I actually went to see when it first came out also - it made me frightened and shocked in a totally different way, in that you could get your head round a big shark that ate people, because thats what they sometimes do, in real life............the Exorcist was a different kettle of fish as you were trying to get your head round something that was so totally OUT of real life as it was possible to be, especially as it was a sweet little girl.
I understand that the Exorcist had a lot of "shock" scenes but they really were in relation to the story as a whole and not there purely for the shock value......
Ive seen a lot of "scary" films since, I do like a good old adreneline rush..............but there are only a few that stand out as frightening, the Omen, and in recent years (well relatively) the Ring gave me the willies......Nightmare on Elm street still stands up IMO.
I honestly cant think of a really brilliant horror movie this year, and still think the Exorcist, if you havent seen all the parodies and piss taking skits about it, remains up there. My husband watched it in the 70s and wont watch it again, he says theres "something" about it...................:eek:
Yes don't get me wrong there have been a couple of occasions when i have felt very uncomfortable.maybe even scared.
Number one for me has to be the famous Psycho scene,
were he runs into the cellar with big knife, High pitched screeching and the hanging light bulb swinging all over the place,
saw that as a young lad when I managed to sneak in under aged, my hair stood on end and i was terrified.
The scene in Silence of the Lambs were Jodie Foster is walking round a completely dark cellar watched by the maniac made me feel very uneasy, certainly not shocked so i would have to class it as being scared.:eek:
You have to say that probably as a horror film it hasn't dated that well. The effects and pacing aren't what a modern audience are used to.
this much is true. most people approaching the exorcist and the omen for the first time nowadays seem to prefer the omen. it's less heavy-handed, better paced and structured much more like a modern movie.
the exorcist is still shocking but only if you see it in the right context or have been brought up in a way that means you find it shocking. If you want to be bored by the slow opening and mickey take the pea soup and head spinning and other over-the-top antics then it is very easy to do so.
the idea of laughing at the exorcist now is quite common. the omen doesn't tend to provoke that response though, Richard Donner's approach being much more subtle than William Friedkin's.
this much is true. most people approaching the exorcist and the omen for the first time nowadays seem to prefer the omen. it's less heavy-handed, better paced and structured much more like a modern movie.
the exorcist is still shocking but only if you see it in the right context or have been brought up in a way that means you find it shocking. If you want to be bored by the slow opening and mickey take the pea soup and head spinning and other over-the-top antics then it is very easy to do so.
the idea of laughing at the exorcist now is quite common. the omen doesn't tend to provoke that response though, Richard Donner's approach being much more subtle than William Friedkin's.
Im with you there. I find the Omen equally if not more disturbing than the Exorcist, while still thinking is a great movie for its day.
Strangely the remake of the Omen just a few years ago didnt have the same menace as the original.
The scene with the little girl swearing was possibly the funniest thing i've ever seen...
I guess this is because I seen it parodied in scary movie 2 and I was kinda shocked that it was a true representation of how the girl actually acted in the film..
The only horror film that ever had a true effect on me was the original Halloween. I was 6 or 7 when i watched it and Ir frightened the living daylights out of me and I had a very bad experience after seeing the film that night and I still get teased about it by my brothers and sister now (i'm 20)
I think anyone who expects to have their opinion taken seriously about a film where they have only seen clips must be slightly confused.
In 1973 there had never been anything quite like The Exorcist which is why it was banned on video for nearly 20 years and was not seen on tv until nearly 30 years after it came out.
Any film that is nearly 40 years old will not stand up in certain aspects compared to todays movies , but the fact that it got placed as the most scary film ever shows that it did what it intended to do very well
Shame that Friedkin went back and made the changes though .
When he first did it he was against the idea and still preferred his original cut , but now he's changed his mind and prefers the revised version.
I only saw the movie, for the first time, about 10 years ago when I was in the USA-having avoided it because of its reputation over the years.
I did/do find some of the dialogue amusing, but in the context of it being a 40 year old movie, it is exceptionally well made and some of the religious themes and images disturbing-not in an offensive way, but in a thought provoking way, much like the Omen very much does.
With any genre, but in particular sci/fi and horror, comparisons should best be avioded with productions today, because just like the early 70s, people would say 'how was King Kong considered frightening in 1933'-well the fact is, it was, just like the Universal horror films where. But tastes change as do public tolerances and how movies are made.
Personally, I prefer a good story to a slasher movie, and the Exorcist is an excellent story,
Asking whether anything is 'the scariest ever' is a rhetorical question. Always subjective. However, I do feel that the Exorcist is one of the most perfectly crafted horror movies ever.
Original in many ways, groundbreaking, very well acted and scripted, and very shocking for its era. The effects, however dated, have that raw feel missing from the polished movies of today.
The supernatural aspects of this movie were going to affect an audience raised with religion rooted in their subconcsious mind. A young girl being possessed - and swearing - was before pretty shocking. Before all the gangster movies of the 80's and 90's made the f'bomb common.
To be fair, many people born after 1980 will not be scared or shocked by this. They have seem the TV scetches, Re-Possessed, Scary Movies etc.
For me The Exorcist is one of the best horror movies, not for it's scary bits but the way it is filmed. As someone else said, there was a hub of films in the early 70's that used complete naturalistic dialogue that seemed like they weren't even from a script. It gave the viewer total realism to the point you felt you were watching a documentary. I seem to recall Friedkin said that he actually allowed the actresses who played Regan and her mother, to form a bond off set so it was totally believable on film. He also let them ad-lib and just film them. Some of the time you can't actually work out what they are saying as it's so real. Add to the fact that the pacing, much like the book, is much slower than today's films, you find yourself knowing and caring about the characters. So when the horror scenes come up, because you've invested so much into the realism the film gives, it shocks you.
As some posters have said, you have to watch the film in the correct frame of mind. Most viewers nowadays would not find it entertaining enough, not enough going on in the beginning etc. Attention span is so different now. But watching it in the context it was made to be watched (and not to just poke fun at the dated effects), it still is creepy. The special effects were never the real scary parts. The complete metamorphosis of a young girl into some demon was the shocking part, along with the realistic dialogue was what scared people witless because it asked questions about religion.
Those people who say it's funny not scary are probably those who don't get Psycho either - especially as it's black and white. I still think Psycho has two of the scariest scenes in any horror, because they build the suspense up and edit it in a way no horror does nowadays. The only ones recently that have creeped me out have been the Japanese ones like the Ring, and Grudge because the director uses atmosphere and suspense more that just 'shock value'
another reason why it fails either to scare todays audience is religion does not play as big a part in todays everyday life as it did back in the 70s, people were god fearing back then,and the whole idea of being possesed by a demon and a priest having to exorcise it out of you, i think (correct me if im wrong) you need to have went/still go/ or understand the christian faith for it to have an effect?
i mean an atheist is going to have a hard time believing a priest can rid a child of a demon, do you know what i mean?
Comments
I think younger people are immune to anything less than extremely shocking and violent films (The Saw as one example), and because of this, they see The Exorcist in a different way than the older generation do. The film was thought of as terrifying and shocking back then. Younger people are used to films that are so much more shocking these days.
This is the thing though, effects get better as the years/decades go by. Just look at the blood from the hammer horror films, this wasn't exactly realistic looking to me, but then again, I wasn't born early enough to have watched them films when they were first shown on TV.
However, I believe if such people approach a movie like Exorcist with the right attitude, ie being mindful of the era in which it was made, the nature of the special effects used in those days, the naturally dated air of the movie as a whole...and put it into context then they should hopefully not come away with this ridiculous 'comedy movie' conclusion.
I think unfortunately a lot of these people go into it with the wrong attitude, being told it is the scariest movie ever (which actually works against it, no movie can live up to that sort of hype), having had all of the famous moments described to them ad nauseum...and worse still, watching it drunk with a few mates...and probably not even concentrating or paying attention to the story.
And frankly...if all you can say after watching a movie as important, as influential, as well-made and as powerful as this is you thought it was a laugh...then despite what you may claim, you have not watched it at all. Not properly anyway.
Because I always find it interesting that most of the people who claim they laughed at it can barely muster a couple of sentences to say about it. Like I said before, it becomes like a 'badge of honour' to say not only did it not scare you, but you found it funny. I wonder if those stupid comments impress the girls when they chat them up?
'Oh, I saw the Exorcist...didn't scare me...in fact I laughed all the way through!'.
'Oh...you're such a hard man...wanna take me home?'
Cant say i was scared but i was shocked,certainly not the only one either, I said for years,The film will never be shown on TV.
Wonder why people arnt shocked today. shows the shock factor has moved right up.inevitable i suppose but not really a good thing.
Thought The Evil dead would never be shown on TV as well,
laughed myself last time i watched it.
so i sneaked it out of the house one day as i was going to school and i went in to town and i knew of this oldy worldy video shop and i asked the guy in there to convert it to vhs, £10 he charged me and it was ready after school,
i geared myself up to watch it on a friday night with the lights off and it scared the sh1t outta me for weeks. .. even tho im an 80s kid, i can still relate to the who era of the movie.
love my story of how i first got to watch it though!
I totally agree Ted. The posts that I am gobsmacked at are the ones that say "I wasnt scared of the clips I saw"............so basically they have never seen the film start to finish but they werent "scared" of the little scary clips they saw!
Fair enough, if you watch it right from the beginning and either dont like it, dont find it scary or whatever thats your perogative, not all of us are going to find the same things frightening. But to say you werent scared of the "clips" - wow how brave are YOU eh:eek::D???
Im sure if I watched a "clip" of "the scarrrrriest filum evvvvvver" I could possibly hold it together also, it wouldnt be rocket science.........
Back to the Exorcist. I watched it in 1973 at the age of 16. I had already read the book so knew what the story was. I loved the way it started so slowly, it was about a third into the film when stuff actually started to happen, this built the characters, the priest, the little girl and her monther, and even the detective, and made us care about them..........so when things did happen - that made (well me anyway) emotionally invested in them. Okay the effects are dated NOW looking back, but the story itself really stands the test of time. Last year I went to see "the last Exorcism", this year "Insidious" and I have to say Ive never seen such a load of steaming crap ..............in my opinion the Exorcist is streets ahead of the likes of that lazy shlock film making. Its a story about a little girl who became possessed by a demon.
To those who say what a powerless demon that couldnt do much but lie in the bed - well the fact that it took the little girl and was slowly killing her was enough for me. Yes the head spinning was "too much" I agree, it was completely unrealistic - the pea soup vomitting a step too far but in my opinon apart from those two scenes which EVERYONE now thinks of as main scenes in the film..............99.9% of it is still seriously scary.
I spoke to my 16 year old son about it, he said it didnt scare him, much! When we talked about it he said it was becuase he had seen so many parodies of it in Scary Movie and the like, that when he watched it "for real" thats all he could think about - and I do understand that - but remember when I was 16 and had never seen anything like this, it made a huge impact on me, I couldnt sleep for a couple of weeks thinking about it.
Nowadays of course we have the fantastic special effects, the "have it now" shocks, and a lot of people find the Exorcist very boring - but scholck and gore dont scare me - I guess the supernatural DOES, the Exorcist had both going on in its day, the slow build up of the story and then the shock when things started to happen that we had never seen in the cinema before- for me it was a scary combination.
But hey if you didnt find it scary thats your call also - noone is right or wrong, its just opinons.
BUT I find it hugely amusing when SOME posters can give very expert views on why it wasnt scary when they havent even seen the flippen thing all the way through!.
But thats not to say it's a very important, well made and good film.
I am sure many were scared,i am sure many were not scared but shocked. it broke new ground in so many ways.
remember a scene in Jaws, diving deep looking at a boat wreck, next sec head pops up out of nowhere,
i remember jumping out of my seat nearly, many others did as well, lots of us then couldn't stop laughing,
certainly only lasted a split second and found it funny,
More of a shock than scary.
I understand what you say, but I certainly for one am very aware of the difference of being "frightened", for example of the supernatural and something I dont understand, and "shock".......
.........and something like Jaws, which I actually went to see when it first came out also - it made me frightened and shocked in a totally different way, in that you could get your head round a big shark that ate people, because thats what they sometimes do, in real life............the Exorcist was a different kettle of fish as you were trying to get your head round something that was so totally OUT of real life as it was possible to be, especially as it was a sweet little girl.
I understand that the Exorcist had a lot of "shock" scenes but they really were in relation to the story as a whole and not there purely for the shock value......
Ive seen a lot of "scary" films since, I do like a good old adreneline rush..............but there are only a few that stand out as frightening, the Omen, and in recent years (well relatively) the Ring gave me the willies......Nightmare on Elm street still stands up IMO.
I honestly cant think of a really brilliant horror movie this year, and still think the Exorcist, if you havent seen all the parodies and piss taking skits about it, remains up there. My husband watched it in the 70s and wont watch it again, he says theres "something" about it...................:eek:
Number one for me has to be the famous Psycho scene,
were he runs into the cellar with big knife, High pitched screeching and the hanging light bulb swinging all over the place,
saw that as a young lad when I managed to sneak in under aged, my hair stood on end and i was terrified.
The scene in Silence of the Lambs were Jodie Foster is walking round a completely dark cellar watched by the maniac made me feel very uneasy, certainly not shocked so i would have to class it as being scared.:eek:
this much is true. most people approaching the exorcist and the omen for the first time nowadays seem to prefer the omen. it's less heavy-handed, better paced and structured much more like a modern movie.
the exorcist is still shocking but only if you see it in the right context or have been brought up in a way that means you find it shocking. If you want to be bored by the slow opening and mickey take the pea soup and head spinning and other over-the-top antics then it is very easy to do so.
the idea of laughing at the exorcist now is quite common. the omen doesn't tend to provoke that response though, Richard Donner's approach being much more subtle than William Friedkin's.
Im with you there. I find the Omen equally if not more disturbing than the Exorcist, while still thinking is a great movie for its day.
Strangely the remake of the Omen just a few years ago didnt have the same menace as the original.
The scene with the little girl swearing was possibly the funniest thing i've ever seen...
I guess this is because I seen it parodied in scary movie 2 and I was kinda shocked that it was a true representation of how the girl actually acted in the film..
The only horror film that ever had a true effect on me was the original Halloween. I was 6 or 7 when i watched it and Ir frightened the living daylights out of me and I had a very bad experience after seeing the film that night and I still get teased about it by my brothers and sister now (i'm 20)
In 1973 there had never been anything quite like The Exorcist which is why it was banned on video for nearly 20 years and was not seen on tv until nearly 30 years after it came out.
Any film that is nearly 40 years old will not stand up in certain aspects compared to todays movies , but the fact that it got placed as the most scary film ever shows that it did what it intended to do very well
Shame that Friedkin went back and made the changes though .
When he first did it he was against the idea and still preferred his original cut , but now he's changed his mind and prefers the revised version.
I did/do find some of the dialogue amusing, but in the context of it being a 40 year old movie, it is exceptionally well made and some of the religious themes and images disturbing-not in an offensive way, but in a thought provoking way, much like the Omen very much does.
With any genre, but in particular sci/fi and horror, comparisons should best be avioded with productions today, because just like the early 70s, people would say 'how was King Kong considered frightening in 1933'-well the fact is, it was, just like the Universal horror films where. But tastes change as do public tolerances and how movies are made.
Personally, I prefer a good story to a slasher movie, and the Exorcist is an excellent story,
Original in many ways, groundbreaking, very well acted and scripted, and very shocking for its era. The effects, however dated, have that raw feel missing from the polished movies of today.
The supernatural aspects of this movie were going to affect an audience raised with religion rooted in their subconcsious mind. A young girl being possessed - and swearing - was before pretty shocking. Before all the gangster movies of the 80's and 90's made the f'bomb common.
To be fair, many people born after 1980 will not be scared or shocked by this. They have seem the TV scetches, Re-Possessed, Scary Movies etc.
A little, but mostly sick in every single way!
As some posters have said, you have to watch the film in the correct frame of mind. Most viewers nowadays would not find it entertaining enough, not enough going on in the beginning etc. Attention span is so different now. But watching it in the context it was made to be watched (and not to just poke fun at the dated effects), it still is creepy. The special effects were never the real scary parts. The complete metamorphosis of a young girl into some demon was the shocking part, along with the realistic dialogue was what scared people witless because it asked questions about religion.
Those people who say it's funny not scary are probably those who don't get Psycho either - especially as it's black and white. I still think Psycho has two of the scariest scenes in any horror, because they build the suspense up and edit it in a way no horror does nowadays. The only ones recently that have creeped me out have been the Japanese ones like the Ring, and Grudge because the director uses atmosphere and suspense more that just 'shock value'
i mean an atheist is going to have a hard time believing a priest can rid a child of a demon, do you know what i mean?
i was only thinking about The Entity yesterday when in this thread...
briliant film and yes suspenseful and creepy