The Excorcist (1973) (mini-review++)


(If you’re curious, my review process. It’s also pasted at the end of this post. I don’t believe in Rotten Tomatoes. I just believe in me.)

(***all-purpose SPOILER ALERT*** there may be some in this review)

The mini-review:

The Excorcist (1973)

acting 7

directing 7

effects 4

editing 6

writing 6


3 out of 5 šŸ™


I didn’t see The Excorcist until I was 25 years old. Why? Because I was too scared to. I am not a horror movie fan. I respect the genre but I’m just a big chicken. But I was doing the AFI Top 100 so I had to watch it. For 99% of the film, I was not scared. And I was only mildly creeped out. I found the special effects, which I’m sure were excellent when it was released, to be comically bad. The only time I was scared was when the camera focused on the attic door and there were these noises and it was intimated that there was something horrible up there. That unseen terror sends a person with a ludicrous imagination like me into cowering. One last note: I was raised Catholic and this movie still didn’t scare me. And, again, I scare easy.




Review process: (this is always evolving, I’m sad to say. I’m more of a watcher who makes mostly unhelpful observations about things I have absorbed. I am not unlike a pop culture blob.)

Two scores are assigned: (I don’t believe in Rotten Tomatoes. I just believe in me)

(1) Shark Wrighter (SW) Score: Based on a sum of 5 sub-scores (acting, directing, writing/story, cinematography &/or animation &/or effects, editing) with 1 being terrible and 10 being terrific.

(2) Octopuses (0-5 šŸ™, with 5 being fantastic and 0 being feces)

(3) Octopuses are my unquantifiable feelingā€¦not that SW score is scientificā€¦but this one is even less so

(4) ++ This optional section includes any incredibly *brilliant observations that don’t fit into simple quantitative slices like the scores and octopuses *(they are likely NOT brilliant)

Leave a Reply