Advanced Search >
Help Me Search

DVD

Upcoming Release Calendar
Film Awards & Top 10s By Year
All-Time High Scores
All-Time Low Scores

Recent DVD/Video Releases

sort by namesort by score

Stars indicate the most critically-acclaimed movies.

Exorcist: The Version You've Never Seen, The

EMAILPRINTWarner Bros.

Exorcist: The Version You've Never Seen, The reviews
82
8.2 User Score:

Movie Info

Genre(s): Horror

Written by: William Peter Blatty (also novel)

Directed by: William Friedkin

Release Date:
Theatrical: September 22, 2000
DVD: December 26, 2000

Running Time: 131 minutes, Color

Origin: USA

Summary

RATING: R for strong language and disturbing images

Starring Ellen Burstyn, Max von Sydow, Lee J. Cobb, Kitty Winn, Jack MacGowran, Jason Miller, and Linda Blair

In this re-release of the horror classic, a 12 year old girl (Blair) becomes possessed by a malevolent spirit, and her only hope is an exorcism. Two priests are summoned to exorcise the demon.

What The Critics Said

All critic scores are converted to a 100-point scale. If a critic does not indicate a score, we assign a score based on the general impression given by the text of the review. Learn more...

100

Portland Oregonian Kim Morgan

Isn't just a horror film, but an American classic. Watch again and reflect for days after -- at your own risk.

100

Charlotte Observer Lawrence Toppman

Classically scary.

100

San Francisco Chronicle Peter Stack

Friedkin has said the new, expanded version of his film has a more spiritual tone. But it's still a shocker.

Read Full Review >
100

Chicago Tribune Michael Wilmington

Re-released now in a digitally enhanced, sonically improved and slightly longer version, the movie is even better than it was in 1973.

91

Entertainment Weekly Owen Gleiberman

Here, in paranoid, bad acid trip form, is the real birth of girl power.

Read Full Review >
90

Film.com John Hartl

The best thing about the new Exorcist is the spiffed-up soundtrack.

Read Full Review >
90

Variety Robert Koehler

This edition of the seminal example of genre sensationalism refined by the cream of Hollywood craftsmanship is more complicated than a standard director's cut.

Read Full Review >
90

Dallas Observer Robert Wilonsky

That's what directors do when they have nothing new to say: They go back and rewrite the past, if only to avoid facing the future

Read Full Review >
89

Mr. Showbiz Larry Terenzi

It's shlock, yes, but at least it's highbrow shlock.

88

USA Today Susan Wloszczyna

Retains the power to turn heads -- and stomachs.

Read Full Review >
88

Boston Globe Jay Carr

An upsetting landmark. Don't take the children.

88

Philadelphia Inquirer Desmond Ryan

Suffice it to say I prefer the original conclusion, and I think most Exorcist fans will agree

88

New York Post Lou Lumenick

His (Friedkin) very lack of subtlety is both the strength and weakness of The Exorcist in the 21st century.

88

San Francisco Examiner Wesley Morris

The amazing thing about the film, for anyone who hasn't had an intentional Hollywood scare lately, is that it still delivers on the most visceral level

88

Chicago Sun-Times Roger Ebert

Was and is a brilliant horror film, one with an archetypal ability to reach and disturb us. If I were showing The Exorcist to a friend, I would show the 1973 version without the slightest hesitation.

Read Full Review >
88

Miami Herald Rene Rodriguez

The Exorcist has lost none of its ability to invade your nightmares.

80

Washington Post Desson Thomson

A museum piece, something to be enjoyed for its historical value.

Read Full Review >
80

Rolling Stone Peter Travers

There's something elemental about The Exorcist, even with the new hopeful ending that betrays the bleak original.

80

Chicago Reader Don Druker

You're scared witless much of the time, even if you conclude afterward that this 1973 movie was really pretty amateurish and simpleminded.

Read Full Review >
75

New York Daily News Jack Mathews

The movie that launched a new era in horror films, and which, for one generation, remains one of the scariest experiences of their lives.

Read Full Review >
70

TV Guide Frank Lovece

This truly terrifying film version of the best-selling Blatty novel is far superior to the book.

Read Full Review >
70

TNT RoughCut Susannah Breslin

Still packs a wallop of terror for those with the strength of stomach for it.

50

Christian Science Monitor David Sterritt

This hugely popular horror yarn is less a cleverly spun story than a disjointed collection of shockeroos, surrounding a few ghoulishly effective moments with overcooked plot twists and in-your-face vulgarity.

Read Full Review >
40

Washington Post Stephen Hunter

11 minutes longer than the original, and 11 minutes worse.

Read Full Review >

What Our Users Said

The average user rating for this movie is 8.2 (out of 10) based on 33 User Votes

Note: User votes are NOT included in the Metascore calculation.

Vanessa L. gave it a10:
This movie is sooooooooooo scarey that I had to sleep with my parents for a whole week. Just the thought of being in a bedroom creeps me out due to the fact that most of the film is shot in Ragen's room. The effects are brilliant, and the film itself does its job as a horror flick; it lets our imaginations run wild without our control. If you like extreme horror movies, you should definetly consider watching this. Otherwise, KEEP AWAY UNTIL YOU CAN TAKE IT!!!

Marc D. gave it an8:
The original film never frightened me. What it did went much deeper. Friedkin's original film adaptation of the Blatty novel was a landmark in cinematic horror because it was constrained by the limitations of its medium. Instead, it used them to provide the most while showing you as little as possible. Emotions like horror, and its close cousins suspense and tension, don't need to be created within the audience. They need to be brought to the surface. This is why 'The Exorcist' remains compelling viewing after 33 years. The concepts and themes within the film isn't anything we haven't seen before. It's always been there. The fear works because the fear is real on a primal level which we can't truly explain. We fear what we know. Subjecting the audience, the false sense of safety within that dark theatre is now revealed to be a silly misguided illusion. Friedkin knew this. As does fear. This version simply shows the same thing. And it's scary. Not as much though. We see a little more than we should. Ultimately, the best horror told is the one which leaves more to the imagination of the audience. Give us more credit Hollywood. Highbrow horror works.

[Anonymous] gave it a0:
Nothing but terrible.

M D gave it a10:
Miles ahead of its time and fully deserves the title of 'classic'.

Tony B. gave it a10:
For non-believers, a brilliantly conceived and executed horror classic. For the rest of us, it's all that and more, a tale awesome in its implications.

raphaella p. gave it a10:
This is a great film, this excelent!!!!

Rick T gave it a10:
This horror movie will always stand the test of time because it is simple horror with good vs. evil. This movie gets into your mind and you always remember it. I first saw the movie in 1973 and I could not watch in the theatre. I kept my head down the entire time. The gutteral sounds were frightening enough to send me to the lobby. I can now look at the film but it still remains to be very disturbing and thought provoking. I believe the re-release version is better. The spider walk scene scared the .... out of me and was totally unexpected. Most horror films end up becomming slasher movies. You cannot watch this film and not be effected by the disturbing turn of events.

Read more user comments >

Popular on CBS sites: SEC Football | NFL | Video Game Cheats | iPhone | Video Game Reviews | Notebooks | Antivirus Software

About CBS Interactive | Jobs | Advertise

© 2009 CBS Interactive Inc. All rights reserved. | Privacy Policy (UPDATED) | Terms of Use