Lists
- ranked 3 in AFI's 100 Years...100 Thrills
- ranked 6 in Roger Ebert's Best Films of 1973
- ranked 6 in The Guardian 25 Best Horror Films Of All Time
- ranked 49 in The Guardian Top 100 Films
- ranked 53 in Empire 100 Greatest Movies (1999)
- ranked 97 in Empire 100 Greatest Movies (2003)
- ranked 181 in They Shoot Pictures, Don't They? 1000 Greatest Films (March 2006)
- ranked 194 in They Shoot Pictures, Don't They? 1000 Greatest Films (December 2006)
- ranked 202 in The IMDb Top 250
- ranked 206 in Empire 500 Greatest Movies (2008)
- ranked 209 in They Shoot Pictures, Don't They? 1000 Greatest Films (August 2005)
- one of 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die
- one of 101^w102 Movies You Must See Before...
- one of AFI's 100 Years... 100 Movies Nominees
- one of AFI's 100 Years... 100 Thrills Nominees
- one of Guardian 1,000 films to see before you die
- one of Richard Corliss's Top 25 Horror Films
- one of The New York Times Best 1,000 Movies Ever Made
I agree with everything in Pauline Kael's negative review: "slugging, coercive style", "piles up points like a demonstration", "there's nothing the actors can do with the juiceless stock roles", "if the audience ever started giggling at the sounds and tricks, the picture might collapse, because it's entirely mechanical and impersonal".
But: Friedkin is also right about the film's documentary quality, that this very processional style somehow helps gives the narrative the weight of truth. Scenes such as Regan (Linda Blair) with the crucifix still seem shockingly transgressive almost 50 years later; reeling from that surprise, more risible twists (e.g. rotating heads) are easier to accept. I'm inclined to think that these transgressions are the only reason that the film works at all, and so tend to agree with criticisms that the director's cut is strictly worse, with added scenes (like Regan's backwards crab-walk) at best unnecessary.