Uploader Comments (MuchasMovies)
Top Comments
-
does it mean that the spider walk was not in the original 73 version..? and later has been put in 2000's version..?
Video Responses
All Comments (50)
-
Sorry..but those flashing demon faces should never have been added for the 2000 cut. That is pretty silly. Also, Friedkin ruined the beginning of the with that "new" opening.
-
@RetardGirl1000 No, there is no film like that. A carpenter doesn't keep his shavings. Or better put, all the footage released after the film has been ambrosia. And I suppose it would be awesome to see everything in one film. Big Exorcist Fan where are you? Oh, thanks for sharing, commenting,
-
@jott890604 One of the greatest comments I have ever heard! What's even funnier: they could do it. Regan is grown up (Blair) and is being haunted by the demon. Hey, the purpose of The Exorcist was to exact revenge on Merrin, so why not on the little girl that gotta away? Hmmm? Thanks for commenting. LOVE. IT.
-
I WANT A NEW VERSION LIKE "THE EXORCIST: THE RETURN" WITH LINDA BLAIR GROWN UP ¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡
¡¡
I hate the 2000 version. I still pop in my remastered widescreen vhs to watch the original cut. Friedkin ruined the opening of the film, as with the 2000 cut one cant hear the terrifying music. Also, adding all those flashing demon faces was pretty silly.
mrlopez2681 1 month ago
@mrlopez2681 No! LOL. The 2000 version was useless (I hate to admit it) but I always see it as fan-fiction. Some book material that had not been filmed finally was released, including the spider-walk scene. The flashing demon face was just...plain stupid. That was lame. The closing, the two priest dialogue were good, but again not necessary. BUT, nothing beats the original. It's my favorite movie. Thanks again.
MuchasMovies 1 month ago
Best. Horror. Movie. Ever... Nuff said.
WhatTheFrenchToast00 2 months ago 7
@WhatTheFrenchToast00 THUMBS UP! WAY UP!
MuchasMovies 2 months ago
;)
jott890604 2 months ago
@jott890604 :p
MuchasMovies 2 months ago