Even 50 years later, this is still the scariest movie ever. But not for reasons you'd think

I have long maintained that “The Exorcist” is the scariest movie I’ve ever seen, and I like to check in with it every now and then to make sure that hasn’t changed.

The film, about Regan, a 12-year-old girl possessed by a demon, came out in 1973, so seeing how it holds up 50 years after its release seemed in order.

And, like every time I watch it, I am struck by what the movie really is — how little actual gore director William Friedkin shows the audience (though admittedly what he shows is reliably gross), and how much of the time is spent on everything else.

It’s basically 20 minutes of pea-soup projectile vomiting, head-spinning and unspeakable acts with religious artifacts, along with curl-your-hair profanity that makes you feel like you need to go to confession just for having heard it.

Even if you’re not Catholic.

'The Exorcist' is a character study at heart

Then what is the rest? An absorbing 1970s-style character study of a priest who has lost his faith, a mother terrified that she is losing her daughter and a girl who doesn’t understand and fears the changes she is going through.

It’s great. Not just a great horror movie, but a great movie, period.

It’s very much of its time, which is one of the attractions. Wouldn’t you want to go to a dinner party at a movie star’s home, with a priest banging out tunes on the piano and an astronaut in attendance? Those were the days, hahaha.

It’s true that some of the special effects, so cutting edge at the time that people in the audience fainted and threw up while watching the film, look somewhat primitive compared to contemporary CGI effects, though they’re still plenty shocking. The harrowing medical procedures doctors subject Regan to are just as unpleasant.

So yes, it is still terrifying, and not for the puke-y parts. In fact, in some ways, it’s scary in spite of all that. What’s really horrifying, and this is true of both the book and the film, is the unsettling feeling that this could happen to you.

And 50 years after its release, it still feels that way.

Fear factor: How Flagstaff childhood led to 'Scream VI'

For one thing, the film is exceptionally well made. Friedkin handles the domestic drama with the same assurance as the horror scenes. The cast is outstanding, most particularly Jason Miller as Father Karras, the haunted, tormented priest battling grief and doubt along with evil. (His Academy Award nomination for Best Supporting Actor was one of 10 Oscar nominations the film received, including Best Picture; it won for Best Screenplay and Best Sound.)

Character development is crucial to the film’s supernatural elements — it is rooted in what we have learned about the characters as people, and so seems all the more realistic.

And horrifying.

Is 'The Exorcist' the scariest movie ever?

But the scariest movie, still?

I think so. Although the reasons why doubtless have something to do with how I first experienced the film. That’s something that’s true of all movies, especially horror films. Walking out of “An American Werewolf in London” into a chilly, dark night with a moon high above doubtless colors my memories of the film (which I love).

With “The Exorcist” the context is especially important. The first time I saw the movie was on broadcast TV, while skipping trigonometry homework (talk about scary).

Which means I saw a truncated version, with the most gruesome bits cut out. And it was still the scariest thing I had ever seen.

It didn’t need all the gross-out scenes to terrify me, in other words. Just what they could show on regular television was enough. More than enough. Certainly when I saw the full version of the film it amplified my fears. (Being raised Catholic didn’t help, what with the built-in guilt.)

It was a new kind of horror for me — the notion of a normal, happy family slipping into chaos, madness, something far worse. Who’s to say it couldn’t happen again, and to me? This is what holds other possession stories, like "The Exorcist: Believer," back (even though it brings back Ellen Burstyn). It all goes crazy too soon and turns into a spectacle, not a story.

The film is based on William Peter Blatty's novel

The film is, of course, based on William Peter Blatty’s novel. Coincidentally I read that under unusual circumstances, as well — which also shaped my reaction to it.

In college, I took a class in gothic supernatural literature (I know, I know) and was behind in my reading. (Perhaps you detect a theme here.) Somehow I had mismanaged things until I had to read the entire novel in one night.

I highly recommend it.

Not blowing off schoolwork, but tackling the book in one giant binge, which concentrates the fear. The same themes are present (Blatty wrote the script, and the film is pretty faithful to the book) and all the more disturbing because, again, terrible things are happening to largely unremarkable people. Like you, sitting there on the couch reading about it.

(I had to go to the bathroom for several hours, but wouldn’t budge from the couch until one of my roommates got up.)

I don’t know if “The Exorcist” is the best horror movie. Some days I’d go with “The Shining,” or “Halloween.” “Get Out” and “It Follows” top my list of more recent scary films.

But I do know that “The Exorcist” hasn’t lost its ability to frighten or to entertain, no matter how many years go by.

How to watch 'The Exorcist'

Streaming on Max.

Reach Goodykoontz at bill.goodykoontz@arizonarepublic.com. Facebook: facebook.com/GoodyOnFilm. X, formerly known as Twitter: @goodyk.

Subscribe to azcentral.com today. What are you waiting for?

This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: At 50 'The Exorcist' is the still the scariest movie ever. Here's why