It is a pity this movie is so underrated, but I think the main reason for that is the fact that people judge the movie before seeing it, so they won't watch it objectively. Another reason perhaps is the adventurous style of the film, but it is acceptable because father Merrin is younger than in the original film. The best actor to portray a young father Merrin is certainly the wonderful Stellan Skarsgård, what a stylish performance, this superb actor gives such a perfect image of how the main character would have been at the moment in his life when he lost his faith. The two other most important roles by Izabella Scorupco and James D'Arcy are excellent, the best supporting role is performed by Alan Ford. The madness and the confusion in the final battle between the Turkana and the Brithish are convincingly brought to screen. As for the crew members, I was very impressed by Trevor Rabin his soundtrack, the production design of Stefano Maria Ortolani and the magnificent cinematography by Vittorio Storaro. Conclusion: if you watch this film objectively than you will probably enjoy it. All though sometimes over the top, Renny Harlin has made a good prequel to the original one, with some very memorable scenes.
344 Reviews
Before Regan and Merrin Met
BaronBl00d5 September 2005
Director Renny Harlin creates an intriguing, interesting prequel to the events shown in The Exorcist and its two sequels. This film follows Father Merrin to East Africa, initially having given up his priesthood, where his expertise has been called upon to explain some ancient temple that had been unearthed from the sand and dirt at a major archaeological dig site. The temple is in pristine shape and has some major anti-Church motifs abounding. Merrin soon realizes a demon exists and...well, you get the general picture. This film worked for me for a number of reasons: it is story driven as well as effects driven, it has solid acting, great location shots, and a strangely, highly flawed script that does create interest. The last half of the film begins to bog down under the weight of some of the makeup and special effects, but never to the point of overtaking the film and its atmosphere. And atmosphere is one thing this film has plenty of. I especially liked the way the character of Father Merrin was treated. He is a flawed man with an interesting past that the film delves into through flashbacks. These flashback scenes are effectively done and help make Merrin all the more real. The acting of Stellan Skarsgard in the role is the film's principal strength along with some innovative camera-work. Sure, much of the script is hokey hooey and will not make terribly much sense - I'm still not sure what happened in the end, but the film works nonetheless for the aforementioned reasons. I was pleasantly surprised despite some pre-conceived ideas going into the film.
Not the piece of trash that I was expecting
The_Void24 April 2005
There's no denying that this Exorcist prequel is surplus to requirements in terms of movies that needed to be made; but in spite of that, it's actually not bad at all. The film was never going to be received well, due to the fact that it's a prequel to one of the greatest horror movies ever made, and of course the whole Paul Schrader fiasco; but I'm happy to report that The Exorcist: The Beginning has risen from amidst the chaos and turned out to be a very decent horror movie. The action takes place before the events of the classic 70's movie, but it still follows the same character - Father Merrin, who was played by the great Max Von Sydow in the original, and is brought to life by Stellan Skarsgård in this movie. We follow him as he joins a British expedition in Kenya after an ancient church that has been buried underground for hundreds of years has been uncovered. You know what's coming, and this discovery is a springboard for all kinds of evil to be inflicted on the surrounding village.
The film really falls down on the character side, as we never really get to know any of them and with the possible slight exception of the lead; not a single one has any depth. That's unimportant, however, as this film's main focus is definitely the atmosphere; and it's suitably malevolent throughout, which does the film no end of favours. The action is very slow, especially for the first hour, but it hardly matters as watching the plot bathe in the atmosphere is always entertaining enough, and while it is slow you can always count on something to happen that will get the excitement levels back up. The film features several shocking and disturbing sequences, my personal favourite being the hyena attack; with the stillborn birth coming a close second. The CGI in the film leaves a lot to be desired, especially on the aforementioned hyena attack, but the effects aren't too much of an important element anyway. When the film boils down to it's ending is when it really lets rip, and the final fifteen minutes or so deliver some really great horror. While this film doesn't even nearly touch the original; it's much better than you would think considering all the turmoil surrounding the release and on the whole I give it a thumbs up!
The film really falls down on the character side, as we never really get to know any of them and with the possible slight exception of the lead; not a single one has any depth. That's unimportant, however, as this film's main focus is definitely the atmosphere; and it's suitably malevolent throughout, which does the film no end of favours. The action is very slow, especially for the first hour, but it hardly matters as watching the plot bathe in the atmosphere is always entertaining enough, and while it is slow you can always count on something to happen that will get the excitement levels back up. The film features several shocking and disturbing sequences, my personal favourite being the hyena attack; with the stillborn birth coming a close second. The CGI in the film leaves a lot to be desired, especially on the aforementioned hyena attack, but the effects aren't too much of an important element anyway. When the film boils down to it's ending is when it really lets rip, and the final fifteen minutes or so deliver some really great horror. While this film doesn't even nearly touch the original; it's much better than you would think considering all the turmoil surrounding the release and on the whole I give it a thumbs up!
Maybe the worst of the year
gregsrants22 August 2004
Number one on Entertainment Weekly's list of the scariest movies of all time. Number 196 of the top 250 movies as rated by fans on the IMDb.com database. Number one R-rated film of all-time if adjusted for inflation. Banned in several countries including the United Kingdom. Possibly the scariest and most controversial film ever made.
The movie was The Exorcist, the horror film about a possessed child that took the world by storm in 1973. Those of us lucky enough to see the film in a packed theatre or to have lived through its release will never forget the experience. News about paramedics being on hand in major cities to handle the panic stricken and reports of people fainting in theaters were rampant. Religious leaders like Billy Graham condemned the film claiming the movie itself to be possessed by the devil and there were rumors of a curse put upon the production crew that grew increasingly elaborate with every broken telephone connection.
All the hype and hysteria lead to buckets and buckets of cash for the Warner Bros. Studio and then two inferior sequels (which seem to be the right of passage for a film in this genre). Restored in 2003, director William Friedkin added some 'never-before-seen' footage and re-released The Exorcist theatrically. Its second run scared up another $40 million to add to its already impressive cume.
So based on a franchise that fizzled out with the third installment in 1990 only to be resurrected with the 30-year anniversary DVD edition of the original, Hollywood has decided to go back and try and breathe new life into the series by telling the story of Father Merrin before he encountered the possessed Regan MacNeil in the apt titled Exorcist: The Beginning.
Going backwards in time is usually easier for filmmakers as they don't have to deal with leftover character explanations or story plots that still needed resolve. But this was the least of the films production problems.
First were the revolving door of directors attached to the project including John Frankenheimer who stepped down from the production eerily just before his death. Then Paul Schrader (Auto Focus) came on board and shot an entire film. Studio executives were however unimpressed with the lack of scares and gore and greenlit the film to be re-made again under the helm of Renny Harlin (Cliffhanger). Harlin re-shot the entire film incorporating only a few scenes from the original Schrader version.
The next obstacle was with the availability of the actors for a second full shooting schedule. When Gabriel Mann was unable to reprise his role due to a scheduling conflict, another actor, namely James Darcy from Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World was brought on board to replace him. Other actors and actresses and additional story lines were added to help shape Harlin's new vision and voila, two versions of a film to make the perfect 2-sided DVD (Like that will ever happen!).
Whether Schrader's version will ever see the light of day is unknown and that is too bad, for in the interim, we are left with a shell of a film that is so misguided and uninteresting, it made Scary Movie look like an Oscar contender. For those of you who caution to comment that no film could ever live up to the original, I argue that this movie stands on its own to being the worst of in the series and maybe even one of the worst films of 2004.
Exorcist: The Beginning centers on the Father Merrin character. Here, he is not far removed from the brutality he witnessed during World War II and his faith has severely waned. While aimlessly drifting through Egypt, Merrin is contracted to help in the excavation of a church that has been uncovered as part of an archaeological dig in Kenya. As their desecration begins, an evil is unleashed unto the land with unspeakable force. How much force you ask? Well, enough force to cause the MPAA of slapping a NC-17 rating on the film unless specific cuts were made. As Merrin continues his research strange things begin to happen to the village. Tribesmen fall into uncontrollable seizures, hyenas begin lurking amongst the workers and after a young boy is torn apart, his younger brother seems to be in a state reminiscent of Regan MacNeil. While the everyone from the Vatican to the British Army tries to interfere with the progress or the information being released as part of the dig, Merrin and the local doctor (Izabella Scorpuco) defy the warning signs of evil as they try to put the pieces of the churches puzzle together.
For a movie that is suppose to scare the pants off us, I didn't even feel a tug at my zipper. I was actually surprised at the lack of scares and how the film tried to resort to the usual tricks to try and induce jumps. Clocks that stop ticking, crosses that turn upside down when you're not looking and doors that open and close on their own have all been done before and wouldn't scare even my young nephew despite the fact that with each attempt they blast a sound bit so loud that it's obvious that they felt they needed the help. Also crippling the films credibility were the below average special effects. The hyenas were so CGI as to be distracting and the possessed individual in the final chapter comes after Father Merrin like something out of the Evil Dead series. In maybe the most ridiculous scene in the film, dead butterflies stuck to a hobby board begin fluttering. Scary indeed.
Maybe the filmmakers should have taken a look at the history of church related mysteries in the past five years. The Order and Stigmata proved that people are no longer interested in seeing religiously overtoned thrillers. Maybe the real horrors of war and its atrocities being broadcast over our breakfast tables have us more grounded in present day repugnance.
It would not be fair to bark at the acting in Exorcist: The Beginning simply because Stellan Skarsgård and company have so little to work with, they don't seem to be interested in their roles and let's face it it's hard to take the bull by the horns when the bull is a donkey.
For all my bitching and complaining, I will give this stinker a ½ star. I did like the opening that had a wide angled shot that takes place after a war leaving thousands dead or dying on the battleground, and I will admit to not seeing the twist at the end of the film even if it was for lack of interest. But ½ star or no stars, my hopes is that people read this review and spare themselves the wallet ravaging to give this dog the box office it deserves.
The movie was The Exorcist, the horror film about a possessed child that took the world by storm in 1973. Those of us lucky enough to see the film in a packed theatre or to have lived through its release will never forget the experience. News about paramedics being on hand in major cities to handle the panic stricken and reports of people fainting in theaters were rampant. Religious leaders like Billy Graham condemned the film claiming the movie itself to be possessed by the devil and there were rumors of a curse put upon the production crew that grew increasingly elaborate with every broken telephone connection.
All the hype and hysteria lead to buckets and buckets of cash for the Warner Bros. Studio and then two inferior sequels (which seem to be the right of passage for a film in this genre). Restored in 2003, director William Friedkin added some 'never-before-seen' footage and re-released The Exorcist theatrically. Its second run scared up another $40 million to add to its already impressive cume.
So based on a franchise that fizzled out with the third installment in 1990 only to be resurrected with the 30-year anniversary DVD edition of the original, Hollywood has decided to go back and try and breathe new life into the series by telling the story of Father Merrin before he encountered the possessed Regan MacNeil in the apt titled Exorcist: The Beginning.
Going backwards in time is usually easier for filmmakers as they don't have to deal with leftover character explanations or story plots that still needed resolve. But this was the least of the films production problems.
First were the revolving door of directors attached to the project including John Frankenheimer who stepped down from the production eerily just before his death. Then Paul Schrader (Auto Focus) came on board and shot an entire film. Studio executives were however unimpressed with the lack of scares and gore and greenlit the film to be re-made again under the helm of Renny Harlin (Cliffhanger). Harlin re-shot the entire film incorporating only a few scenes from the original Schrader version.
The next obstacle was with the availability of the actors for a second full shooting schedule. When Gabriel Mann was unable to reprise his role due to a scheduling conflict, another actor, namely James Darcy from Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World was brought on board to replace him. Other actors and actresses and additional story lines were added to help shape Harlin's new vision and voila, two versions of a film to make the perfect 2-sided DVD (Like that will ever happen!).
Whether Schrader's version will ever see the light of day is unknown and that is too bad, for in the interim, we are left with a shell of a film that is so misguided and uninteresting, it made Scary Movie look like an Oscar contender. For those of you who caution to comment that no film could ever live up to the original, I argue that this movie stands on its own to being the worst of in the series and maybe even one of the worst films of 2004.
Exorcist: The Beginning centers on the Father Merrin character. Here, he is not far removed from the brutality he witnessed during World War II and his faith has severely waned. While aimlessly drifting through Egypt, Merrin is contracted to help in the excavation of a church that has been uncovered as part of an archaeological dig in Kenya. As their desecration begins, an evil is unleashed unto the land with unspeakable force. How much force you ask? Well, enough force to cause the MPAA of slapping a NC-17 rating on the film unless specific cuts were made. As Merrin continues his research strange things begin to happen to the village. Tribesmen fall into uncontrollable seizures, hyenas begin lurking amongst the workers and after a young boy is torn apart, his younger brother seems to be in a state reminiscent of Regan MacNeil. While the everyone from the Vatican to the British Army tries to interfere with the progress or the information being released as part of the dig, Merrin and the local doctor (Izabella Scorpuco) defy the warning signs of evil as they try to put the pieces of the churches puzzle together.
For a movie that is suppose to scare the pants off us, I didn't even feel a tug at my zipper. I was actually surprised at the lack of scares and how the film tried to resort to the usual tricks to try and induce jumps. Clocks that stop ticking, crosses that turn upside down when you're not looking and doors that open and close on their own have all been done before and wouldn't scare even my young nephew despite the fact that with each attempt they blast a sound bit so loud that it's obvious that they felt they needed the help. Also crippling the films credibility were the below average special effects. The hyenas were so CGI as to be distracting and the possessed individual in the final chapter comes after Father Merrin like something out of the Evil Dead series. In maybe the most ridiculous scene in the film, dead butterflies stuck to a hobby board begin fluttering. Scary indeed.
Maybe the filmmakers should have taken a look at the history of church related mysteries in the past five years. The Order and Stigmata proved that people are no longer interested in seeing religiously overtoned thrillers. Maybe the real horrors of war and its atrocities being broadcast over our breakfast tables have us more grounded in present day repugnance.
It would not be fair to bark at the acting in Exorcist: The Beginning simply because Stellan Skarsgård and company have so little to work with, they don't seem to be interested in their roles and let's face it it's hard to take the bull by the horns when the bull is a donkey.
For all my bitching and complaining, I will give this stinker a ½ star. I did like the opening that had a wide angled shot that takes place after a war leaving thousands dead or dying on the battleground, and I will admit to not seeing the twist at the end of the film even if it was for lack of interest. But ½ star or no stars, my hopes is that people read this review and spare themselves the wallet ravaging to give this dog the box office it deserves.
Or, Exorcist: the African version
Leofwine_draca24 February 2011
Here's a film which had a more interesting story behind the cameras rather than on the screen. This beleaguered production originally had Paul Schrader directing, but studio bosses were unhappy with his more intellectual interpretation of the events so they hired go-to guy Renny Harlin for extensive reshoots that amped up the gore content. What emerges is a troubled, visceral production with occasional flashes of greatness. Overall it's a let down, with a sense of what could have been rather than what is.
The film sets off on a poor footing with some extremely bad CGI work of a huge landscape. These kind of schlocky effects periodically turn up and are laughed off screen every time they appeared; a scene involving CGI-ed jackals is particularly bad. The ensuing story is choppy and disjointed, building up a series of portentous moments and religious iconography and then backing away from them. There's also a lot of bad taste stuff involving plague victims, a stillborn birth and colonial racism.
As the sort-of youthful Father Merrin, Stellan Skarsgard is a bit of a mixed bag. He's suitably tough, but his icy exterior never cracks for an instant, meaning it's difficult to feel any sympathy for him. He's supported by a bland James D'Arcy, a pretty-but-wasted Izabella Scorupco and two cameos from Ben Cross (a neat bit of casting, seeing as he himself played an exorcist in THE UNHOLY) and David Bradley. More fun is Alan Ford (SNATCH) as a delightfully scuzzy deadbeat.
Finally, after a lot of spectacle and not a great deal of sense, the film plays its true hand in the last twenty minutes. Here it becomes a full blown EXORCIST copy, complete with an extended and dramatic showdown between good and evil and not bad makeup effects. In actual fact I didn't mind the ending, it may be cheesy but at least there's stuff going on. I wish, thought, that it hadn't taken so long to get there – it's one of those films which is all build up and little actual climax. This isn't a particularly great film, but it isn't particularly bad either; just kind of so-so.
The film sets off on a poor footing with some extremely bad CGI work of a huge landscape. These kind of schlocky effects periodically turn up and are laughed off screen every time they appeared; a scene involving CGI-ed jackals is particularly bad. The ensuing story is choppy and disjointed, building up a series of portentous moments and religious iconography and then backing away from them. There's also a lot of bad taste stuff involving plague victims, a stillborn birth and colonial racism.
As the sort-of youthful Father Merrin, Stellan Skarsgard is a bit of a mixed bag. He's suitably tough, but his icy exterior never cracks for an instant, meaning it's difficult to feel any sympathy for him. He's supported by a bland James D'Arcy, a pretty-but-wasted Izabella Scorupco and two cameos from Ben Cross (a neat bit of casting, seeing as he himself played an exorcist in THE UNHOLY) and David Bradley. More fun is Alan Ford (SNATCH) as a delightfully scuzzy deadbeat.
Finally, after a lot of spectacle and not a great deal of sense, the film plays its true hand in the last twenty minutes. Here it becomes a full blown EXORCIST copy, complete with an extended and dramatic showdown between good and evil and not bad makeup effects. In actual fact I didn't mind the ending, it may be cheesy but at least there's stuff going on. I wish, thought, that it hadn't taken so long to get there – it's one of those films which is all build up and little actual climax. This isn't a particularly great film, but it isn't particularly bad either; just kind of so-so.
Typical Hollywood horror garbage, only worse
squeezebox21 March 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I had at least expected EXORCIST - THE BEGINNING to be somewhat faithful to the original movie. The CGI-created camera swoop over the opening massacre dashed that hope. The gritty realism of THE EXORCIST is absent here. What we have is yet another special effects-laden spectacle along the lines of THE MUMMY, much darker, but no less stupid.
Renny Harlin proves once again he was born to direct beer commercials. He seems to have no concept of camera movement, editing, timing, pacing or much of anything. It's like giving a first year film student $50 million and saying "make this into a movie." He tries to impress, and fails. His camera moves for no reason, he cuts to close-ups at inappropriate moments, ends scenes prematurely, and guides the actors to deliver more bad performances then any one movie should have to bear.
There is one genuinely unsettling moment, when a mother gives birth to a rotten fetus covered in maggots, but pretty much all the other "scares" and attempts at tension or suspense fall flat. There are the usual cheap shots, such as loud bursts of music and slamming doors, and some second rate CGI sequences that look like rejected effects from THE HULK. Kind of hard to be horrified by the sight of a little boy being ripped to pieces by hyenas when the scene looks like it belongs in a video game.
The screenplay is needlessly convoluted, perhaps to cover up the fact that the writer can't write dialog to save his life. Throw in a few battle scenes and a sand storm and maybe no one will notice how much the story sucks. Characters are introduced into the story for next to no reason. The female doctor serves little purpose other than to look pretty and take a three second long shower. She does play an "important" role in the finale, but only through a ridiculous and pointless contrivance which reeks of hack work. The British officer who sends Merrin on his quest in the beginning shows up again so he can kill himself after his butterfly collection comes to life. Oooooo, scary.
EXORCIST - THE BEGINNING makes EXORCIST II: THE HERETIC seem not so bad. I am not sure where the writers of this drivel got the idea that the character of Father Merrin ever lost his faith. It is repeatedly referenced in THE EXORCIST book and the movie EXORCIST II that Merrin exorcised a Syrian demon named Pazuzu from an African boy while he was working as a missionary in Africa; yet here, Merrin is an atheist and they seem to fighting Lucifer himself. I thought this was supposed to be an actual prequel to THE EXORCIST, but it seems more like an episode of THE ADVENTURES OF YOUNG FATHER MERRIN. This story was covered better and more intelligently in EXORCIST II, as flawed a movie as it may be.
This is definitely one to skip. I didn't have to worry about ruining the ending for you because I didn't make it that far. I don't remember the last time I gave up on a movie. This is one for the record.
EXORCIST - THE BEGINNING is the pits.
Renny Harlin proves once again he was born to direct beer commercials. He seems to have no concept of camera movement, editing, timing, pacing or much of anything. It's like giving a first year film student $50 million and saying "make this into a movie." He tries to impress, and fails. His camera moves for no reason, he cuts to close-ups at inappropriate moments, ends scenes prematurely, and guides the actors to deliver more bad performances then any one movie should have to bear.
There is one genuinely unsettling moment, when a mother gives birth to a rotten fetus covered in maggots, but pretty much all the other "scares" and attempts at tension or suspense fall flat. There are the usual cheap shots, such as loud bursts of music and slamming doors, and some second rate CGI sequences that look like rejected effects from THE HULK. Kind of hard to be horrified by the sight of a little boy being ripped to pieces by hyenas when the scene looks like it belongs in a video game.
The screenplay is needlessly convoluted, perhaps to cover up the fact that the writer can't write dialog to save his life. Throw in a few battle scenes and a sand storm and maybe no one will notice how much the story sucks. Characters are introduced into the story for next to no reason. The female doctor serves little purpose other than to look pretty and take a three second long shower. She does play an "important" role in the finale, but only through a ridiculous and pointless contrivance which reeks of hack work. The British officer who sends Merrin on his quest in the beginning shows up again so he can kill himself after his butterfly collection comes to life. Oooooo, scary.
EXORCIST - THE BEGINNING makes EXORCIST II: THE HERETIC seem not so bad. I am not sure where the writers of this drivel got the idea that the character of Father Merrin ever lost his faith. It is repeatedly referenced in THE EXORCIST book and the movie EXORCIST II that Merrin exorcised a Syrian demon named Pazuzu from an African boy while he was working as a missionary in Africa; yet here, Merrin is an atheist and they seem to fighting Lucifer himself. I thought this was supposed to be an actual prequel to THE EXORCIST, but it seems more like an episode of THE ADVENTURES OF YOUNG FATHER MERRIN. This story was covered better and more intelligently in EXORCIST II, as flawed a movie as it may be.
This is definitely one to skip. I didn't have to worry about ruining the ending for you because I didn't make it that far. I don't remember the last time I gave up on a movie. This is one for the record.
EXORCIST - THE BEGINNING is the pits.
A very scary movie for 2004
lockwood-107 August 2006
I have read many of the comments concerning this movie and find that I tend to feel that this movie should not be judged in relation to the first. This movie stands out on its own by reviewing Father Merrin's life long before his fateful encounter with Regan years later. My son Nathan and daughter Ryann both found this too scary for them and felt it was far more scarier than the first. I saw it to be more historical and would judge it on that content. Yes, people are right in their comments about all the gore and vileness, but I saw that in the first movie in 1973 when it came out. I'm going to venture to say that people are turned off by this movie simply because it in no way resembles the original. This is the part where a director steps back and quits trying to leech off the first success. Give him some credit about trying to diversify this movie for the audience. Don't go in with any type of preconceived notion about the original or you will be disappointed like the rest in these comments. It is a good movie and well worth seeing. Mark Lockwood, Lubbock Tx...
You have to be kidding me?
jreiles6 November 2004
Words cannot describe the atrosity I just bared witness to. This movie was absolutely horrible. Every single time there seemed to be a little tension building it amounted to nothing but crap. And the good/evil duel between Merrin and the demon at the end had to be the most comical piece of filming in movie history. It looked almost identical to a Neo vs Agent Smith showdown from The Matrix. LoL every time the demon would fly towards Merrin he would counterattack with a prayer or holy water and the demon woman would go flying like 50 feet against the other side of the wall. Oh the humanity. Hopefully the other version will be watchable. This one was definitely the funniest of the year.
Could have been so much worse.
BA_Harrison13 September 2012
Hollywood sure chews 'em up and spits 'em out: one minute, director Paul Schrader is working on a long-awaited prequel to The Exorcist; the next, he's been replaced by Renny Harlin, one-time director of mega-budget action films starring the likes of Stallone and Willis, now reduced to the task of salvaging other people's failed projects (the result of having had one too many expensive box office disasters of his own).
However, despite the film's troubled history, Harlin has managed to turn out a fairly reasonable time-waster. The story is pretty unremarkable, detailing Father Merrin's struggle with his faith and his first encounter with the demon Pazazu in Africa—but the stylish direction, wonderful cinematography, decent gore (gotta love those snapping limbs!), and a strong central performance from Stellan Skarsgård as the emotionally scarred Merrin give viewers plenty to appreciate.
Some of the CGI could have been better—I wasn't very convinced by the hyenas or the insects—and Isabella Scorupco's shower scene is woefully short, but these are minor quibbles for a film that had the potential to be absolutely horrendous.
However, despite the film's troubled history, Harlin has managed to turn out a fairly reasonable time-waster. The story is pretty unremarkable, detailing Father Merrin's struggle with his faith and his first encounter with the demon Pazazu in Africa—but the stylish direction, wonderful cinematography, decent gore (gotta love those snapping limbs!), and a strong central performance from Stellan Skarsgård as the emotionally scarred Merrin give viewers plenty to appreciate.
Some of the CGI could have been better—I wasn't very convinced by the hyenas or the insects—and Isabella Scorupco's shower scene is woefully short, but these are minor quibbles for a film that had the potential to be absolutely horrendous.
Not scary enough and way too slow
SnoopyStyle11 January 2014
In 1949, the British army has stumbled onto a buried Byzantium church in Kenya. The church's date is too early and shouldn't exist. Merrin (Stellan Skarsgård) is a former priest who suffered a traumatic war experience. He's called in to help with the archaeological dig. Father Francis (James D'Arcy) is sent in by the Vatican, and Sarah (Izabella Scorupco) is also trying to escape the horrors of WWII.
This is simply not a scary movie. That's the biggest and really the only measuring stick for a horror movie. At almost 2 hours, it's way too long. The pace is way too slow. The look of the production seems smaller than what the budget would indicate.
The feel of the movie hearkens back to the 70s, and not in good way. Horror movies have moved on, but this one still believes that flies are scary. The CGI is not the best. The blood and guts are acceptable. The baby with maggots looks creepy. But other times, the movie holds back too much. The coyote attack should have been scary, but it's never given a chance. It's just not good enough for today's audience.
This is simply not a scary movie. That's the biggest and really the only measuring stick for a horror movie. At almost 2 hours, it's way too long. The pace is way too slow. The look of the production seems smaller than what the budget would indicate.
The feel of the movie hearkens back to the 70s, and not in good way. Horror movies have moved on, but this one still believes that flies are scary. The CGI is not the best. The blood and guts are acceptable. The baby with maggots looks creepy. But other times, the movie holds back too much. The coyote attack should have been scary, but it's never given a chance. It's just not good enough for today's audience.
The Beginning over Dominion? Definitely
orven8426 May 2006
First, let me say that I didn't know Dominion existed until I discovered it going through the program guide. I started watching and man was I confused! I though that there was ANOTHER prequel that I didn't know about, until I continued to watch. Dominion seemed to me like a movie made out of pieces of film on the floor of the editing room. Clara Bellar's acting was awful in my opinion. I was completely distracted by her performance as well as several others.
While not a true horror movie, I really enjoyed The Beginning. I've watched it many times and found it very suspenseful. It kept my attention. I enjoyed the actors and the story. I've watched it over ten times and the scenes where Father M had to choose those to die? Chilling. Who wouldn't lose faith? The boy being torn apart? There were some good scenes.
Peace
While not a true horror movie, I really enjoyed The Beginning. I've watched it many times and found it very suspenseful. It kept my attention. I enjoyed the actors and the story. I've watched it over ten times and the scenes where Father M had to choose those to die? Chilling. Who wouldn't lose faith? The boy being torn apart? There were some good scenes.
Peace
Horror movie, but nothing more
unbrokenmetal1 June 2006
I watched Schrader's "Dominion" in the morning and Harlin's "Beginning" in the afternoon, hoping that watching them back to back would make a comparison easier than for most people who waited a year until the deleted version by Schrader was finally released. Renny Harlin used only a few minutes from the already existing footage, so "Beginning" really became a new movie. But unfortunately, the whole effort of re-shooting didn't make the movie better.
In Harlin's "remake", we get a smart young priest, straight from the Vatican (James D'Arcy) who has received all the information about the buried church in advance. In "Dominion", Gabriel Mann played an innocent priest who does not expect anything terrible, he just wants to start a school in the middle of Africa. The latter was the better screenplay idea in my opinion, because D'Arcy is such a cool "professional" that we don't really care about him, whereas Mann was a character the audience loves for his human feelings. Also there is more mystery in "Domionion" whereas "Beginning" once explained the whole background, and that was it - too easy.
"Beginning" has a lot more gory effects, swarms of ugly insects and its demon uses obscenities in same way Linda Blair did in the original "Exorcist" movie. This will probably entertain people who just want a horror movie and nothing else. Mind you, "Beginning" also has good photography, a few unforgettable moments like the battlefield at the beginning and good actors! But the release of the original version "Dominion" proved that the story has had more potential, Schrader worked more careful with the characters and their relationships and gave more food for thought. I voted 6/10 for "Beginning" and 8/10 for "Dominion".
In Harlin's "remake", we get a smart young priest, straight from the Vatican (James D'Arcy) who has received all the information about the buried church in advance. In "Dominion", Gabriel Mann played an innocent priest who does not expect anything terrible, he just wants to start a school in the middle of Africa. The latter was the better screenplay idea in my opinion, because D'Arcy is such a cool "professional" that we don't really care about him, whereas Mann was a character the audience loves for his human feelings. Also there is more mystery in "Domionion" whereas "Beginning" once explained the whole background, and that was it - too easy.
"Beginning" has a lot more gory effects, swarms of ugly insects and its demon uses obscenities in same way Linda Blair did in the original "Exorcist" movie. This will probably entertain people who just want a horror movie and nothing else. Mind you, "Beginning" also has good photography, a few unforgettable moments like the battlefield at the beginning and good actors! But the release of the original version "Dominion" proved that the story has had more potential, Schrader worked more careful with the characters and their relationships and gave more food for thought. I voted 6/10 for "Beginning" and 8/10 for "Dominion".
Good Idea but Dull Execution
christian12313 March 2005
Exorcist: The Beginning is better then the second one but its worse then the third and does not come close of approaching the original. Long before Father Merrin tried to drive the devil out of Linda Blair in The Exorcist, the two had a previous encounter in Africa just after World War 2. Exorcist: The Beginning is a prequel that shows this early battle with actor Stellan Skarsgård playing the young preacher. The plot sounds interesting and it had potential to be really scary. However, this film has gone through a lot of rewrites and re-shoots and it shows as this movie is kind of a mess. It starts off slow and then it starts to pick up but the ending is kind of disappointing. The special effects look really bad and cheesy. Also some of the "intense" scenes just generate laughs. There were some scary moments but nothing special or really original. It was kind of predictable because there aren't that many characters. There are a lot of flashbacks scenes of children being killed though which is sad and kind of offensive. Renny Harlin did a decent job but he didn't exactly try anything new and it all seems similar to the first movie. The film runs for 113 minutes and that makes the film really boring and the pacing slow. The acting is okay, which is amazing considering its a horror movie. I had never heard of Stellan Skarsgård before watching this film and he isn't that bad. Also the setting is very creepy and they did a good job on that. Rating 4/10 a few scares and {if its the last one} a sad way to close out a franchise that should have never extended past the original.
Blasphemous
LanceBrave22 March 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Making a prequel to "The Exorcist" is an interesting idea. Though briefly touched upon in "Exorcist II: The Heretic," a movie most would ignore anyway, the full details of Father Merrin's first encounter with the demon all that time ago in African had never been elaborated upon. Prequels were still hot business in 2005, as well, before that cycle turned to the current reboot cycle where in now. Of course now, we all know what a massive mess the production of "Exorcist: The Beginning" was. The original director died before production started, the version shot by Paul Schrader was discarded by Morgan Creek for being too noncommercial and too bloodless, and Renny Harlin was brought in to shoot an entirely different movie. Neither version was critically or financially successful, making the whole ordeal look like a totally wasted endeavor. Of the two, "The Beginning" has always been considered the worst, which is why I've avoided it until now.
After witnessing Nazi atrocities in World War II, Father Merrin lost his faith and abandoned the cloth. Instead, he turns to archeology as a career. He is sent to Africa to find further information about a casting of a Sumerian demon. There, he discovers an ancient Christian church, buried underground and left in perfect condition. The church is full of blasphemous desecration. Soon, strange events begin to happen in the village around the church. A boy acts strangely, seemingly under the sway of something. Tension rises between the African natives and the British army, leading to war. Merrin soon realizes the devil is responsible and must regain his faith to fight back the demon.
There's many things I dislike about "Exoricst: The Beginning" but I'll start with the nonsensical plot. The movie breaks continuity with "Exoricst II: The Heretic" wildly, which is not surprising. However, that the movie dispenses entirely with established lore is frustrating. Kokumo is not mentioned and Merrin does not perform an exorcism on a little boy. The plot revolving around the abandoned church goes wildly awry. It is revealed that a massacre occurred in this spot years ago and that the Catholic Church believes this to be the spot where Satan fell from heaven. As a result of this, everyone around the church goes violently insane. Eventually, the English soldiers and the native Africans get into a bloody battle together as a result of this, with plenty of suicides. None of this has much to do with the mythology of "The Exorcist." The plot is mostly a collection of unrelated gory sequence, the faithless Father Merrin and the boy he believes to be possessed wandering around the edges of the story.
"Exorcist: The Beginning" is also an awful horror movie. The movie indulges in all the worst excesses of modern studio horror. The film is packed full of obnoxious jump scares, loud noises or musical stings or sudden appearances screaming at the audience all the time. Morgan Creek reportedly refilmed the movie because they wanted more gore in it. Director Renny Harlin, he of "Die Hard 2" fame, gave them just that. The movie is loaded with sickening violence. A psychic force breaks men's fingers and arms, the bone stabbing through the flesh. A body is found with a huge chunk of meat taken out of the middle. Another dangles from his entrails. The movie is loaded with CGI head shots. I can't even enjoy this stuff from the perspective of a gorehound, partially because of the crappy CGI but mostly because the violence so nihilistic and thoughtless in its use. Speaking of crappy special effects, what about those CGI hyenas? Who thought that was a good idea? In its last half-hour, "Exorcist: The Beginning" remembers that it's a prequel to "The Exorcist." In a cheap plot twist, the character we've been led to believe is possessed is not. Instead, a character that has shown no previous symptoms is revealed to be possessed. Set inside the abandoned church, what follows is a melodramatic battle between Merrin and the demon. The possessed person gains the same sickly skin, scars, and voice as Linda Blair did back in 1973. Using modern special effects, the possessed bends their body at painful angles, screams limp profanity, and slithers around on the wall. Merrin regains his faith spontaneously, his character arc coming to a blunt resolution. Because this movie was made by idiots, Merrin exerting the power of God over the demon is shown literally by waves of "power" blasting and twisting the demon's body.
Despite being an otherwise terrible movie, "Exorcist: The Beginning" does have a pretty good cast. One of the few reoccurring faces between both versions is Stellen Skarsgaard as Merrin. The flashbacks to the war, the event that made the priest loose his faith, are melodramatically presented and cut into the present story in inelegant ways. Skarsgaard does his best though, doing professional work with the material he's given. I also like Izabella Scorupco, who has chemistry with Skarsgaard. The conversations between the two actors, and the slow way her history is revealed, are the only times the movie begins to feel like a real film.
"The Exorcist" was a horror film for adults, struggling with serious and complex issues. "Exorcist: The Beginning" is a horror film for stupid teenagers, full of senseless gore and a thoughtless story. It's so dumb that it actually ends with a sequel hook, Merrin now dressed as a priest and walking off like a superhero. That one of the best horror films of all time is associated with this massive piece of tripe is an insult to every living creature on the planet.
After witnessing Nazi atrocities in World War II, Father Merrin lost his faith and abandoned the cloth. Instead, he turns to archeology as a career. He is sent to Africa to find further information about a casting of a Sumerian demon. There, he discovers an ancient Christian church, buried underground and left in perfect condition. The church is full of blasphemous desecration. Soon, strange events begin to happen in the village around the church. A boy acts strangely, seemingly under the sway of something. Tension rises between the African natives and the British army, leading to war. Merrin soon realizes the devil is responsible and must regain his faith to fight back the demon.
There's many things I dislike about "Exoricst: The Beginning" but I'll start with the nonsensical plot. The movie breaks continuity with "Exoricst II: The Heretic" wildly, which is not surprising. However, that the movie dispenses entirely with established lore is frustrating. Kokumo is not mentioned and Merrin does not perform an exorcism on a little boy. The plot revolving around the abandoned church goes wildly awry. It is revealed that a massacre occurred in this spot years ago and that the Catholic Church believes this to be the spot where Satan fell from heaven. As a result of this, everyone around the church goes violently insane. Eventually, the English soldiers and the native Africans get into a bloody battle together as a result of this, with plenty of suicides. None of this has much to do with the mythology of "The Exorcist." The plot is mostly a collection of unrelated gory sequence, the faithless Father Merrin and the boy he believes to be possessed wandering around the edges of the story.
"Exorcist: The Beginning" is also an awful horror movie. The movie indulges in all the worst excesses of modern studio horror. The film is packed full of obnoxious jump scares, loud noises or musical stings or sudden appearances screaming at the audience all the time. Morgan Creek reportedly refilmed the movie because they wanted more gore in it. Director Renny Harlin, he of "Die Hard 2" fame, gave them just that. The movie is loaded with sickening violence. A psychic force breaks men's fingers and arms, the bone stabbing through the flesh. A body is found with a huge chunk of meat taken out of the middle. Another dangles from his entrails. The movie is loaded with CGI head shots. I can't even enjoy this stuff from the perspective of a gorehound, partially because of the crappy CGI but mostly because the violence so nihilistic and thoughtless in its use. Speaking of crappy special effects, what about those CGI hyenas? Who thought that was a good idea? In its last half-hour, "Exorcist: The Beginning" remembers that it's a prequel to "The Exorcist." In a cheap plot twist, the character we've been led to believe is possessed is not. Instead, a character that has shown no previous symptoms is revealed to be possessed. Set inside the abandoned church, what follows is a melodramatic battle between Merrin and the demon. The possessed person gains the same sickly skin, scars, and voice as Linda Blair did back in 1973. Using modern special effects, the possessed bends their body at painful angles, screams limp profanity, and slithers around on the wall. Merrin regains his faith spontaneously, his character arc coming to a blunt resolution. Because this movie was made by idiots, Merrin exerting the power of God over the demon is shown literally by waves of "power" blasting and twisting the demon's body.
Despite being an otherwise terrible movie, "Exorcist: The Beginning" does have a pretty good cast. One of the few reoccurring faces between both versions is Stellen Skarsgaard as Merrin. The flashbacks to the war, the event that made the priest loose his faith, are melodramatically presented and cut into the present story in inelegant ways. Skarsgaard does his best though, doing professional work with the material he's given. I also like Izabella Scorupco, who has chemistry with Skarsgaard. The conversations between the two actors, and the slow way her history is revealed, are the only times the movie begins to feel like a real film.
"The Exorcist" was a horror film for adults, struggling with serious and complex issues. "Exorcist: The Beginning" is a horror film for stupid teenagers, full of senseless gore and a thoughtless story. It's so dumb that it actually ends with a sequel hook, Merrin now dressed as a priest and walking off like a superhero. That one of the best horror films of all time is associated with this massive piece of tripe is an insult to every living creature on the planet.
Oh it's not all as bad as that...
SpookyT29 August 2004
Warning: Spoilers
I have certainly seen much better films in my life, but Exorcist: The Beginning was not THAT bad. I have two major criticisms of the movie and one minor one.
Major Criticisms:
1. I concede to those to have posted before... the CGI was awful and way overused... even in the opening scene much of the background and even some of the foreground is cgi... so much so that until you see live actors milling about in the marketplace, it could have been the start of an animated movie.
2. There are critical points left out. Characters do things and say things that there is no logical reason for them to do or say. I actually read the book (I assume that was adapted from the screenplay?) and I felt much more in the know than I would have been just seeing the movie.
Minor Criticism:
Again this is from my having read the little book. *** Possible Spoiler***
Jeffries' face... it was not nearly bad enough in the beginning to elicit the kind of responses it got. In the book it makes it as though his ENTIRE face is covered in these boils to the point of him being horribly disfigured. I know this is nit picky but the guy just wasn't so incredibly repulsive at first to warrant Merrins look of disgust.
End Spoilers
Anyway I really enjoyed the movie overall. I felt entertained and to me that is what a movie is all about. I get a little amused when people don't allow themselves to even enjoy a movie because they become so bogged down in the minutia of continuity from a movie that is decades old. I appreciate their fervor and dedication to the artistic level of the original film... but damn have a little fun.
Major Criticisms:
1. I concede to those to have posted before... the CGI was awful and way overused... even in the opening scene much of the background and even some of the foreground is cgi... so much so that until you see live actors milling about in the marketplace, it could have been the start of an animated movie.
2. There are critical points left out. Characters do things and say things that there is no logical reason for them to do or say. I actually read the book (I assume that was adapted from the screenplay?) and I felt much more in the know than I would have been just seeing the movie.
Minor Criticism:
Again this is from my having read the little book. *** Possible Spoiler***
Jeffries' face... it was not nearly bad enough in the beginning to elicit the kind of responses it got. In the book it makes it as though his ENTIRE face is covered in these boils to the point of him being horribly disfigured. I know this is nit picky but the guy just wasn't so incredibly repulsive at first to warrant Merrins look of disgust.
End Spoilers
Anyway I really enjoyed the movie overall. I felt entertained and to me that is what a movie is all about. I get a little amused when people don't allow themselves to even enjoy a movie because they become so bogged down in the minutia of continuity from a movie that is decades old. I appreciate their fervor and dedication to the artistic level of the original film... but damn have a little fun.
Better than a sleeping pill
axellaj20 March 2005
"The Exorcist", it its day, was truly shocking. Nothing like it had ever been seen before.
I watched the original recently with a friend. It's a well-crafted film, based on a great story. So, with that in mind, when this DVD 'prequel' popped up in the local video store, we rented it.
About half-an-hour into this film, we were still waiting for it to happen...
The central character is a former priest who was allegedly traumatised enough to have lost his faith. He comes across more as a somnambulist, than anything else.
At one stage, I did feel a little sympathy for the priest. This was due only to the war-time flashbacks, but they were repeated too much and lost their impact. It was very difficult to become involved with the characters, or care much about them.
I had a bit of a laugh when the ex-priest was outdoors talking to an army officer in sunny Africa, with vapor coming from their mouths (as it does in cold weather). They must've been freezing, dressed in hot-weather clothing in chilly Italy (where the film was actually shot).
More than an hour into the film, we paused to get a snack from the kitchen. When we came back, we accidentally hit the 'stop' button twice, taking us back to the beginning. We decided it wasn't worth skipping forward to see the end.
I cannot remember when I've watched a film for more than an hour, and just gave up on it! In fact, I think that was a first for me.
Renny Harlin does not have Bill Friedkin's deft touch for this kind of film, and should stick to action and swashbuckling movies.
I'd give this film a wide berth, unless you're an incurable insomniac and really need something to help you sleep.
I watched the original recently with a friend. It's a well-crafted film, based on a great story. So, with that in mind, when this DVD 'prequel' popped up in the local video store, we rented it.
About half-an-hour into this film, we were still waiting for it to happen...
The central character is a former priest who was allegedly traumatised enough to have lost his faith. He comes across more as a somnambulist, than anything else.
At one stage, I did feel a little sympathy for the priest. This was due only to the war-time flashbacks, but they were repeated too much and lost their impact. It was very difficult to become involved with the characters, or care much about them.
I had a bit of a laugh when the ex-priest was outdoors talking to an army officer in sunny Africa, with vapor coming from their mouths (as it does in cold weather). They must've been freezing, dressed in hot-weather clothing in chilly Italy (where the film was actually shot).
More than an hour into the film, we paused to get a snack from the kitchen. When we came back, we accidentally hit the 'stop' button twice, taking us back to the beginning. We decided it wasn't worth skipping forward to see the end.
I cannot remember when I've watched a film for more than an hour, and just gave up on it! In fact, I think that was a first for me.
Renny Harlin does not have Bill Friedkin's deft touch for this kind of film, and should stick to action and swashbuckling movies.
I'd give this film a wide berth, unless you're an incurable insomniac and really need something to help you sleep.
Laughable!!!
kaliban18520 August 2004
You know you are in trouble when people in the audience start laughing during a HORROR film.
This movie is horrible. It is full of clichés and horrible acting. Nobody is really afraid in the film despite all the horrible things that are happening. A boy gets torn apart by wild, over-sized, strange, possessed hyenas and no one seems to be bothered by it. Of course there are several moments when unexpected winds blow open shutters.
Mr./ Father Merrin does not seem to be afraid of anything. He goes into scary, dark, crow infested, hidden, demonic, churches at night time. He digs up graves during the middle of the night despite hyenas circling him. Then, after a movie filled with super natural events, he finally becomes SUPER priest.
It is a shame that his movie is so bad. I want to cry.
This movie is horrible. It is full of clichés and horrible acting. Nobody is really afraid in the film despite all the horrible things that are happening. A boy gets torn apart by wild, over-sized, strange, possessed hyenas and no one seems to be bothered by it. Of course there are several moments when unexpected winds blow open shutters.
Mr./ Father Merrin does not seem to be afraid of anything. He goes into scary, dark, crow infested, hidden, demonic, churches at night time. He digs up graves during the middle of the night despite hyenas circling him. Then, after a movie filled with super natural events, he finally becomes SUPER priest.
It is a shame that his movie is so bad. I want to cry.
Way ahead of my expectations
mjw23052 January 2007
In this prequel to the classic horror 'The Exorcist' we meet Father Merrin during a phase of his life where he has lost his faith. Stellan Skarsgard plays this role excellently and is easy to relate to the character we know from the original film, when he joins a British excavation in Kenya where a Christian church has been unearthed. Beneath the church lies the dormant horror that Father Merrin seems destined to meet.
The direction is stylish, the cast are very strong, especially Skarguard, D'Arcy and Scorupco; and the film delivers background story and horror far more convincingly than i ever believed it would.
7/10
The direction is stylish, the cast are very strong, especially Skarguard, D'Arcy and Scorupco; and the film delivers background story and horror far more convincingly than i ever believed it would.
7/10
Demonic dementia...
moonspinner5515 April 2007
With all that talk in 1973's "The Exorcist" about Father Merrin's previous encounter with demonic possession in Africa, it certainly wasn't going to be forgotten by the folks at Warner Bros. there was a potential thriller there. John Boorman covered some of that ground in flashbacks for "Exorcist II: The Heretic" in 1977, but this full-blown prequel should satisfy die-hard "Exorcist" fans, if nobody else. In post-WWII Egypt, Merrin has turned his back on the church and become an archaeologist; during an expedition in Kenya, he encounters demonic hyenas, a possessed child, ritualistic murders, and lots of flies. Working from a paper-thin script (which cobbles together images copied from the original "Exorcist", along with several other horror films), director Renny Harlin is reverent to the classic predecessor without knowing how to give his picture any personality of its own. Dark and dour, and weighed down further with perpetually glum and exhausted Stellan Skarsgård as Merrin, the film's incidental pleasures are purely unintentional. The director of cinematography goes positively bonkers with his close-ups of liquor and water glasses, and Harlin himself stoops to the lowest form of thriller clichés with fake scares, dream scenes, oozing sores, doors opening and closing by themselves, upside-down crucifixes...everything but the real "Exorcist"'s panache. *1/2 from ****
"You just want to stick your rotten c*ck up her juicy ar*e." Much better than I expected, hell I rather liked it.
poolandrews6 January 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Exorcist: The Beginning starts in Cairo during 1949 as Father Lankester Merrin (Stellan Skarsgard) is approached by a man named Semelier (Ben Cross) who ask's Merrin to join a dig in Kenya in which a buried Church has been found that dates to 100's of years before Christianity ever reached the continent. Interested Merrin agrees, under the supervision of the British Army the Church is totally excavated, the native tribe the Turkana are afraid of the Church & warn of great evil. Once inside Merrin discovers that it was once used for evil sacrifice & that terrifying demonic forces have been unleashed, demonic forces that Merrin has to use his faith to conquer...
Originally set to be directed by John Frankenheimer who stepped down just before he died & then Paul Shrader was hired & finished the film, however Morgan Creek the production company fired him after not liking his version at all & hired Renny Harlin to turn in a much more audience friendly supernatural horror thriller with copious amounts of blood & gore which Shrader's version apparently lacked. About 10% of Shrader's original cut made it into this & I have never seen Shrader's version which has been released separately as Dominion: Prequel to the Exorcist (2005) so I don't know how that turned out but I have to say I enjoyed Exorcist: The Beginning much, much more than I expected & I'd even go as far as to say it's a damned fine horror film in it's own right. The script by Alexi Hawley is actually a fairly engrossing & deep supernatural horror thriller that delivers some good shock's, gore & chill's. The story is surprisingly intelligent, don't get me wrong as you don't need a degree in rocket science to follow or understand it but as far as Hollywood horror films go there's a good story which works on several levels with good character's, good dialogue & a tight taught plot. It's obviously more expansive than the original & goes into the origins of the demonic force, it works very well on it's own & when viewed as part of the Exorcist series which lets face it is hit & miss anyway. A really good film, better than I expected & the executives at Morgan Creek made the right call giving both Shrader's & his boring version the boot.
Director Harlin does a good job & the film looks very slick & has plenty of atmosphere. The film looks great with nice locations, great sets with the old Church in particular looking good & the CGI computer effects are also very good. There's some really good gore here as well, from bones sticking out of people's skin, horribly mutilated bodies strung up with birds pecking it's eye out, people shooting themselves through the head, a gory battle sequence, slashed throats, a still-born baby covered in maggots & more. There's a nice creepy feel to the film as well, there is a definite supernatural feel to it & a cool ending as Merrin comes up against the demon who has possessed someone.
According to the IMDb Harlin's version cost around $50,000,000 & it certainly looks impressive, it's well made with good scope & scale. Shot on location in Morocco & in Italy. There's a good cast here & the acting is good from all involved so I have no complaints on that front. Alan Ford perhaps better known as Brick Top from the brilliant Snatch (2000) puts in a good shift.
Exorcist: The Beginning is a much better film than I expected & for me it has become one of the better big budget Hollywood horror flicks of the past few years as far as I'm concerned. I really liked it which pleasantly surprised me considering it's production problems. This is a prequel to The Exorcist (1973) which was followed by the dire Exorcist II: The Heretic (1977) & the distinctly average The Exorcist III (1990).
Originally set to be directed by John Frankenheimer who stepped down just before he died & then Paul Shrader was hired & finished the film, however Morgan Creek the production company fired him after not liking his version at all & hired Renny Harlin to turn in a much more audience friendly supernatural horror thriller with copious amounts of blood & gore which Shrader's version apparently lacked. About 10% of Shrader's original cut made it into this & I have never seen Shrader's version which has been released separately as Dominion: Prequel to the Exorcist (2005) so I don't know how that turned out but I have to say I enjoyed Exorcist: The Beginning much, much more than I expected & I'd even go as far as to say it's a damned fine horror film in it's own right. The script by Alexi Hawley is actually a fairly engrossing & deep supernatural horror thriller that delivers some good shock's, gore & chill's. The story is surprisingly intelligent, don't get me wrong as you don't need a degree in rocket science to follow or understand it but as far as Hollywood horror films go there's a good story which works on several levels with good character's, good dialogue & a tight taught plot. It's obviously more expansive than the original & goes into the origins of the demonic force, it works very well on it's own & when viewed as part of the Exorcist series which lets face it is hit & miss anyway. A really good film, better than I expected & the executives at Morgan Creek made the right call giving both Shrader's & his boring version the boot.
Director Harlin does a good job & the film looks very slick & has plenty of atmosphere. The film looks great with nice locations, great sets with the old Church in particular looking good & the CGI computer effects are also very good. There's some really good gore here as well, from bones sticking out of people's skin, horribly mutilated bodies strung up with birds pecking it's eye out, people shooting themselves through the head, a gory battle sequence, slashed throats, a still-born baby covered in maggots & more. There's a nice creepy feel to the film as well, there is a definite supernatural feel to it & a cool ending as Merrin comes up against the demon who has possessed someone.
According to the IMDb Harlin's version cost around $50,000,000 & it certainly looks impressive, it's well made with good scope & scale. Shot on location in Morocco & in Italy. There's a good cast here & the acting is good from all involved so I have no complaints on that front. Alan Ford perhaps better known as Brick Top from the brilliant Snatch (2000) puts in a good shift.
Exorcist: The Beginning is a much better film than I expected & for me it has become one of the better big budget Hollywood horror flicks of the past few years as far as I'm concerned. I really liked it which pleasantly surprised me considering it's production problems. This is a prequel to The Exorcist (1973) which was followed by the dire Exorcist II: The Heretic (1977) & the distinctly average The Exorcist III (1990).
Shameful!
melmartins20 August 2004
I had tempered expectations for this film when I saw the first showing today. What a let down. The Producers of "Exorcist: The Beginning" should be ashamed of themselves. Renny Harlin does not have a clue as to the elements that made the original Exorcist" terrifying. Stifled one dimensional character's with the occasional gore shock, made this film about as annoying as a vagrant vomiting in the rose bush in your front yard. I hate writing reviews, however I felt compelled to warn people to save their hard earned cash on this piece of trash. The producers should be flogged and Harlin, should find his next job directing the news for the weather channel.
A somewhat "difficult" film, but extremely good
BrandtSponseller3 March 2005
After a prologue showing a priest walking through the results of an astonishing massacre, we meet a young Father Merrin (Stellan Skarsgard) not long after he's abandoned his faith and is considering himself an archaeologist rather than a priest. Merrin is asked in his new capacity to travel to British East Africa, where a Christian church has been discovered 1500 years older than any church in the area should be. He's specifically asked to find a particular relic/statue--of Pazuzu, the infamous demon from the Exorcist films. The bulk of Exorcist: The Beginning has Merrick in what has come to be known as Kenya, exploring the bizarre occurrences surrounding the town where the church is located, the other European residents, the natives, and of course the church itself.
Series note: Since this is well set up as a prequel, I recommend watching Exorcist: The Beginning as the first film in the series. There is no need to watch any of the other Exorcist films before you see this one.
This film is getting knocked a lot, but I can't help thinking that much of it might stem from the fact that Morgan Creek initially had Paul Schrader shoot the film, then canned the result when he turned in his cut. It was said that they believed Schrader's version wasn't "visceral" enough. So they hired Renny Harlin to direct and had a completely new script written, although one still based on novelist Caleb Carr's initial treatment, which he wrote after finding an older script that had been languishing in Morgan Creek's vaults, or "tomb", as he calls it (Carr has been employed as a "script polisher" for Morgan Creek). In any event, I agree that Morgan Creek's actions were loathsome, especially their eventual decision to not include Schrader's version on the same DVD as Harlin's (initially they had promised this, but it seems that they have some other scheme in mind for trying to recoup some of the money sunk into the fiasco). But I don't agree that Morgan Creek's actions make Harlin's film bad by association. It isn't. In fact, this is an excellent film that comes just short of being a 10 out of 10.
Harlin's effort certainly is visceral--wonderfully so. He lets us know this from the first frames by showing us the haggard priest's face overbaked by desert sun and wind and then pulling back to a wider shot showing the massacred bodies. The film has an incredible visual style. The gorier aspects are extremely well done--always servicing the story and having maximum impact. The special effects are often subtle and for my money, the sparse use of cgi (most noticeably with the hyenas) is handled brilliantly.
The current trend towards monochromatic cinematography is strongly present, but rather than overused blues, Harlin has cinematographer Vittorio Storaro embed us in browns/sepia tones and grays with many scenes having very deep shadows. Harlin has said that he was aiming for the look at the end of Apocalypse Now (1979), when Captain Willard (Martin Sheen) finally encounters Colonel Kurtz (Marlon Brando) in Kurtz' compound. It was probably no accident then that Storaro was chosen, as he was also the cinematographer on that Francis Ford Coppola masterpiece. Amusingly, Harlin and Storaro reference Apocalypse Now many times during Exorcist: The Beginning. For example, we get shots looking at Father Merrin from above a ceiling fan. One sequence is even constructed similarly to the opening scene of Apocalypse Now and ends with Father Merrin breaking a mirror.
But Harlin references all of the Exorcist films to date as well. This helps integrate Exorcist: The Beginning into the mythos of the series, deepening the stylistic and subtextual ties. The bulk of The Beginning can be scene as an extension of the middle section of John Boorman's severely under-appreciated Exorcist II: The Heretic (1977). Although the details may have been changed, The Beginning's plot is very similar to Merrin's trek to Africa to explore a mysterious church in Boorman's film. The only thing lamentably missing is a reference to locusts, or the locust man. Harlin also gives us an excellent asylum scene and more subtle nurse references that are reminiscent of The Exorcist III (1990). And of course there are numerous references to the "big daddy", The Exorcist (1973). These range from admirable small details, such as the supernaturally halting pendulum, to major plot elements, such as Pazuzu and a possessed woman looking and sounding very similar to a pea soup-vomiting Regan (Linda Blair).
Although an artistic triumph, Harlin may have chosen a hurdled route in presenting a film that is often "difficult". He doesn't pander to shortened attention spans or a need for a clearly linear, simple plot line. The pacing of many scenes is not what most viewers would expect, but it's always right for the scene, at least in retrospect. The cast turns in complex performances, and Harlin requires that you pay rapt attention to visual cues--silence is often stretched while narrative is conveyed in a manner closer to a silent film. Part of Harlin's more studied approach may have been due to an attempt to bridge the style and language of film-making circa 1973 with modern sensibilities. Whatever the motivation, it works, but Exorcist: The Beginning isn't exactly a "popcorn film".
The most obvious themes and subtexts are those related to faith and the nature of evil, but Exorcist: The Beginning also has interesting things to say about European colonization and domination of non-European cultures and religious and other cultural appropriation/absorption of preexisting Others. The latter subtext is interestingly present in a very literal way in the church that is the focus of the film.
But the primary attraction is the emotionally dark face of Exorcist: The Beginning, and its comfortable place in a very unusual series of films. Don't let Hollywood's behind-the-scenes blunders dissuade you, this is a film that deserves to be watched and appreciated.
Series note: Since this is well set up as a prequel, I recommend watching Exorcist: The Beginning as the first film in the series. There is no need to watch any of the other Exorcist films before you see this one.
This film is getting knocked a lot, but I can't help thinking that much of it might stem from the fact that Morgan Creek initially had Paul Schrader shoot the film, then canned the result when he turned in his cut. It was said that they believed Schrader's version wasn't "visceral" enough. So they hired Renny Harlin to direct and had a completely new script written, although one still based on novelist Caleb Carr's initial treatment, which he wrote after finding an older script that had been languishing in Morgan Creek's vaults, or "tomb", as he calls it (Carr has been employed as a "script polisher" for Morgan Creek). In any event, I agree that Morgan Creek's actions were loathsome, especially their eventual decision to not include Schrader's version on the same DVD as Harlin's (initially they had promised this, but it seems that they have some other scheme in mind for trying to recoup some of the money sunk into the fiasco). But I don't agree that Morgan Creek's actions make Harlin's film bad by association. It isn't. In fact, this is an excellent film that comes just short of being a 10 out of 10.
Harlin's effort certainly is visceral--wonderfully so. He lets us know this from the first frames by showing us the haggard priest's face overbaked by desert sun and wind and then pulling back to a wider shot showing the massacred bodies. The film has an incredible visual style. The gorier aspects are extremely well done--always servicing the story and having maximum impact. The special effects are often subtle and for my money, the sparse use of cgi (most noticeably with the hyenas) is handled brilliantly.
The current trend towards monochromatic cinematography is strongly present, but rather than overused blues, Harlin has cinematographer Vittorio Storaro embed us in browns/sepia tones and grays with many scenes having very deep shadows. Harlin has said that he was aiming for the look at the end of Apocalypse Now (1979), when Captain Willard (Martin Sheen) finally encounters Colonel Kurtz (Marlon Brando) in Kurtz' compound. It was probably no accident then that Storaro was chosen, as he was also the cinematographer on that Francis Ford Coppola masterpiece. Amusingly, Harlin and Storaro reference Apocalypse Now many times during Exorcist: The Beginning. For example, we get shots looking at Father Merrin from above a ceiling fan. One sequence is even constructed similarly to the opening scene of Apocalypse Now and ends with Father Merrin breaking a mirror.
But Harlin references all of the Exorcist films to date as well. This helps integrate Exorcist: The Beginning into the mythos of the series, deepening the stylistic and subtextual ties. The bulk of The Beginning can be scene as an extension of the middle section of John Boorman's severely under-appreciated Exorcist II: The Heretic (1977). Although the details may have been changed, The Beginning's plot is very similar to Merrin's trek to Africa to explore a mysterious church in Boorman's film. The only thing lamentably missing is a reference to locusts, or the locust man. Harlin also gives us an excellent asylum scene and more subtle nurse references that are reminiscent of The Exorcist III (1990). And of course there are numerous references to the "big daddy", The Exorcist (1973). These range from admirable small details, such as the supernaturally halting pendulum, to major plot elements, such as Pazuzu and a possessed woman looking and sounding very similar to a pea soup-vomiting Regan (Linda Blair).
Although an artistic triumph, Harlin may have chosen a hurdled route in presenting a film that is often "difficult". He doesn't pander to shortened attention spans or a need for a clearly linear, simple plot line. The pacing of many scenes is not what most viewers would expect, but it's always right for the scene, at least in retrospect. The cast turns in complex performances, and Harlin requires that you pay rapt attention to visual cues--silence is often stretched while narrative is conveyed in a manner closer to a silent film. Part of Harlin's more studied approach may have been due to an attempt to bridge the style and language of film-making circa 1973 with modern sensibilities. Whatever the motivation, it works, but Exorcist: The Beginning isn't exactly a "popcorn film".
The most obvious themes and subtexts are those related to faith and the nature of evil, but Exorcist: The Beginning also has interesting things to say about European colonization and domination of non-European cultures and religious and other cultural appropriation/absorption of preexisting Others. The latter subtext is interestingly present in a very literal way in the church that is the focus of the film.
But the primary attraction is the emotionally dark face of Exorcist: The Beginning, and its comfortable place in a very unusual series of films. Don't let Hollywood's behind-the-scenes blunders dissuade you, this is a film that deserves to be watched and appreciated.
S10 Reviews: Exorcist: The Beginning (2004)
suspiria106 March 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Exorcist: The Beginning is a prequel to one of the best known horror films of the 20th Century. This time around Stellan Skaarsgard steps into the Father Merrin role that was originally played by another Swedish actor Max Von Sydow. Lancaster Merrin is a priest who lost his faith due to a horrific act that occurred during the war. He is now just simply an archaeologist investigating a strange discovery. In the African desert a church was uncovered. A 1,500 year old church that was so perfectly preserved that it appears to have been buried the moment it was finished. A sequence of events tests Merrin's limits as he uncovers the truth behind the evil at work. It covers the events referred to in the original film, Merrin's first exorcism and his meeting with Pazuzu.
I was skeptical at first due to the nasty problems that plagued the film (namely the original version was shot by Paul Schrader who was later tossed out by Warner and replaced by Renny Harlin, who dumped most of Schrader's version and re-shot a different script} and just the fact that it had hard shoes to film. But when I saw it in the theater I was pleasantly surprised to see a film with some excellent performances (Skaarsgard in particular) and several decent "boo" scenes and an overall satisfactory atmosphere and very strong sound effects track. A few minor quibbles aside, mostly due to CGI believability that don't detract too much from this decent scary movie.
I was skeptical at first due to the nasty problems that plagued the film (namely the original version was shot by Paul Schrader who was later tossed out by Warner and replaced by Renny Harlin, who dumped most of Schrader's version and re-shot a different script} and just the fact that it had hard shoes to film. But when I saw it in the theater I was pleasantly surprised to see a film with some excellent performances (Skaarsgard in particular) and several decent "boo" scenes and an overall satisfactory atmosphere and very strong sound effects track. A few minor quibbles aside, mostly due to CGI believability that don't detract too much from this decent scary movie.
Umm...yeah...slight spoiler.
Fedaykin_Sadako19 August 2004
Warning: Spoilers
Did anyone involved with the writing of this film ever....oh, I don't know...WATCH THE ORIGINAL? Or maybe, perhaps, READ THE BOOK?!
I'm a projectionist and watched the film last night to check the print for factory splices, bad reels, etc, and, as a fan of both the book and the film versions of The Exorcist, I was deeply disappointed with the absolute disregard paid to Blatty's work.
The CGI was substandard, the compositing left a lot to be desired...I mean, this felt as if it should have been released direct-to-video or - if it weren't for the gore added in post - it could have almost been a TV movie.
(How in the world did that guy get a leather impression of something that's buried deep inside the church, and has not been seen in a millennium and a half?)
And the ending. The ending is the worst part. I won't spoil it for those gluttons of punishment who are still going to see the movie, but it is the least thought out, most moronic ending ever...and it doesn't help that it goes against what was already written or shown about Merrin's work in Africa.
The always-incredible Stellan Skarsgard was perfect as Merrin...except, I was wondering where his accent went. I expected a thicker Swedish accent to match his countryman, Max Von Sydow, from the original.
It seemed as though most of the crew was really working hard for the film. Too many extreme close-ups with no emotion
Do yourself a favour...watch the original again. Avoid this drivel. Or, watch The Heretic again...by comparison, The Heretic is better (ignoring the flashy light hypnosis.) I don't know how Exorcist: The Beginning can get a vote tally of 7 point whatever when the movie hasn't even opened yet. The voters either work for Warner Bros or haven't seen the original film.
Ugh. So bad...
I'm a projectionist and watched the film last night to check the print for factory splices, bad reels, etc, and, as a fan of both the book and the film versions of The Exorcist, I was deeply disappointed with the absolute disregard paid to Blatty's work.
The CGI was substandard, the compositing left a lot to be desired...I mean, this felt as if it should have been released direct-to-video or - if it weren't for the gore added in post - it could have almost been a TV movie.
(How in the world did that guy get a leather impression of something that's buried deep inside the church, and has not been seen in a millennium and a half?)
And the ending. The ending is the worst part. I won't spoil it for those gluttons of punishment who are still going to see the movie, but it is the least thought out, most moronic ending ever...and it doesn't help that it goes against what was already written or shown about Merrin's work in Africa.
The always-incredible Stellan Skarsgard was perfect as Merrin...except, I was wondering where his accent went. I expected a thicker Swedish accent to match his countryman, Max Von Sydow, from the original.
It seemed as though most of the crew was really working hard for the film. Too many extreme close-ups with no emotion
Do yourself a favour...watch the original again. Avoid this drivel. Or, watch The Heretic again...by comparison, The Heretic is better (ignoring the flashy light hypnosis.) I don't know how Exorcist: The Beginning can get a vote tally of 7 point whatever when the movie hasn't even opened yet. The voters either work for Warner Bros or haven't seen the original film.
Ugh. So bad...
Who is Possessed?
tedg17 February 2005
You know, the very best film experiences are sometimes the ones that are the hardest work. If you don't work at this one, you'll be stuck at the John Carpenter level. But if you do...
Consider it this way. Some movies are made by fundamentalist Christians as part of their battle with the devil. These depict a battle with the devil, in fact the very same battle. Even though I'm an unbeliever, by my very act of watching, I become a weapon in that battle. Pretty terrifying if you think of it, especially if you believe in created realities (which you must when you watch movies).
It doesn't matter if these fundamentalist movies are bad, in fact it is better because you maintain your dual perspectives: in the movie and aware of watching it. And in any case, with Pat Robertson's billion dollar film school, these will get better. Indeed, many people thought Mel Gibson's film was competent.
Now to this movie. We have one film, the original "Exorcist." It is thirty years in our past and twenty-five years in the future of the main character. We know, but he doesn't. That's always in the background, that one layer of reality.
Then we have another film, the one Paul Schrader made using this same crew and sets. It is made from the perspective of the priest. It is cerebral, based on human needs and weaknesses. It is humanistly cinematic. We don't see that film, we only imagine it (which we can readily do since Schrader's imprint is heavy on Hollywood). Another reality.
And then we have the film the studio bosses remade. This one is made from the perspective of the devil. It is cinematic ally evil: lots of fetid maggots, implied Crowley-like perverted sex (only meekly implied), requisite Nazis, simpleminded natives (borderline in the racist stereotypes here), thickheaded Brits and scheming, lying priests. Each of these vie for control of the narrative.
So we have a struggle for narrative control within this one movie. We have the larger battle between the priest's movie (which we can only imagine) and the devil's movie (to which we give money and energy before it even starts). Us as a weapon in that battle as well.
I cannot image anything more horrifying. Doesn't matter if it is poorly done or not. This is real.
Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.
Consider it this way. Some movies are made by fundamentalist Christians as part of their battle with the devil. These depict a battle with the devil, in fact the very same battle. Even though I'm an unbeliever, by my very act of watching, I become a weapon in that battle. Pretty terrifying if you think of it, especially if you believe in created realities (which you must when you watch movies).
It doesn't matter if these fundamentalist movies are bad, in fact it is better because you maintain your dual perspectives: in the movie and aware of watching it. And in any case, with Pat Robertson's billion dollar film school, these will get better. Indeed, many people thought Mel Gibson's film was competent.
Now to this movie. We have one film, the original "Exorcist." It is thirty years in our past and twenty-five years in the future of the main character. We know, but he doesn't. That's always in the background, that one layer of reality.
Then we have another film, the one Paul Schrader made using this same crew and sets. It is made from the perspective of the priest. It is cerebral, based on human needs and weaknesses. It is humanistly cinematic. We don't see that film, we only imagine it (which we can readily do since Schrader's imprint is heavy on Hollywood). Another reality.
And then we have the film the studio bosses remade. This one is made from the perspective of the devil. It is cinematic ally evil: lots of fetid maggots, implied Crowley-like perverted sex (only meekly implied), requisite Nazis, simpleminded natives (borderline in the racist stereotypes here), thickheaded Brits and scheming, lying priests. Each of these vie for control of the narrative.
So we have a struggle for narrative control within this one movie. We have the larger battle between the priest's movie (which we can only imagine) and the devil's movie (to which we give money and energy before it even starts). Us as a weapon in that battle as well.
I cannot image anything more horrifying. Doesn't matter if it is poorly done or not. This is real.
Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
