Exorcist: The Beginning Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
A new chapter of evil
God is not here.
Father Lankester Merrin thinks that he has glimpsed the face of Evil. In the years following World War II, Merrin is relentlessly haunted by memories of the unspeakable brutality perpetrated against the innocent people of his parish during the War. In the wake of all the horror he has seen, both his faith in his fellow man and his faith in the Almighty have deserted him, and he can no longer honestly call himself a man of God. Merrin has traveled far from his native Holland in a desperate attempt to try to forget and escape all the evil that he had witnessed there. While currently in Cairo, Egypt, he is approached by a collector of rare antiquities and asked to participate in a British archeological excavation in the remote Turkana region of Kenya. They have unearthed something extraordinary and unusual...a Christian Byzantine church dating from the 5th century, long before Christianity arrived in East Africa, and in inexplicably perfect condition--like it had been buried immediately after it was completed. The collector wants Merrin, an Oxford-educated archeologist, to find an ancient relic hidden within the church before the British do. Interested, Merrin agrees to take the job. But beneath the church, something much older and malevolent sleeps, waiting to be awoken. When the archeologists start excavating, strange things begin occuring, and the local Turkana tribesmen who were hired to work refuse to enter the site. Things only get worse and worse, ultimately resulting in madness and death. Merrin watches helplessly as the atrocities of war are repeated against another innocent village--atrocities he had hoped and prayed never to see again. The blood of innocents flows freely on the East African plain, but the horror has only just begun. In the place where Evil was born, Merrin will finally see its true face.
| Izabella Scorupco | Sarah |
| Stellan Skarsgård | Father Merrin |
| James D'Arcy | Father Francis |
| Remy Sweeney | Joseph |
| Julian Wadham | Major Granville |
| Andrew French | Chuma |
| Ralph Brown | Sergeant Major |
| Ben Cross | Semelier |
| David Bradley | Father Gionetti |
| Alan Ford | Jeffries |
| Antonie Kamerling | Lieutenant Kessel |
| Eddie Osei | Emekwi |
| Israel Aduramo | Jomo |
| Patrick O'Kane | Bession |
| James Bellamy | James |
| Renny Harlin |
5.10 out of 10 (6032 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Had its moments - but overall disappointing
posted on 14 Aug 2009I understand that this film had three different directors - its shows. The film had some definite moments but then dragged out everywhere else. The general storyline was good - but somehow it kept getting lost in the script and direction.I am a fan of Izabella Scorupco and was looking forward to seeing her in another film. I was very impressed with performance in GOLDENEYE. Her later films were less entertaining, but she always managed to shine. While her performance was adequate here, it reminds me of the saying that "a cook is only as good as his ingredients." I guess that a good actor can only be as good as the quality of the script that they are handed.I believe that Iza's role was added in by Harlin during his reshoot. I believe that she had a baby in December 2003, which meant that working in a film during that short amount of time is a credit to her endurance and reliability.I liked the film for it general storyline. It also reminds me that when evil is trying to misdirect or seduce someone, it may not come in a form that is ugly or frightening ... it may come in a form that is alluring and seductive - like that of a beautiful woman.
Better than it should be
posted on 08 Aug 2009"Exorcist: The Beginning" really isn't that bad in the series.**SPOILERS**Working in Egypt in 1949 as an archaeologist, Father Merrin, (Stellan Skarsgard) is asked to find a rare artifact in a dig. When the Vatican hear of this, they offer him another assignment instead: a ruined church found buried in Egypt. Accompanied to the site by Sarah, (Izabella Scorupo) Father Francis, (James D'Arcy) they find the church, but Merrin quickly finds that it is much older than it should be. Almost immediately afterwards, strange events begin plaguing the campsite, Merrin is convinced supernatural forces are at work. As the hauntings around the camp continue, they begin to believe that Merrin maybe right.The Good News: I was actually rather impressed with this one. While by no means a great film, it isn't that bad either. This is certainly a gorier film, and is actually quite bloody. Most of this is in the final battle, which delivers some nice gruesome gore in decapitations, stabbings, slicing, and much more, as well as periodically happenings as well. It's most gruesome scene is that of a chilling animal mauling. The jump that precedes it is quite classic, and is totally unexpected. The film has a great many scenes that features the goings-on at the campsite, which are the best scenes in the movie. Many of them are quite creepy, and while not exactly original, they get the job done of getting the viewer creped out. A lot of them could be seen coming, but it's the overall package that works, as all of the events coming together that do the job. All of the happenings do a great job of building an atmosphere of evil. It's a nice look for the film, that it has this and still manages to pull off some nifty gore effects when needed to.The Bad News: This film just doesn't make any sense. It's all implications in here, as nothing is really explained as a matter-of-fact. It's quite aggravating when things get out of control and nobody tells why. It's the main reason against the film, but it isn't the only one. The fact that it's ending is so closely inspired by the first one that it's amazing no one was sued. He may have wanted to homage the first one, but this one goes all the way to out-and-out plagiarism. Mainly, these are it. The rest of what everyone didn't really like about this one never really bothered me all that much.The Final Verdict: Don't ask for too much understanding of the plot here and you should be fine. It certainly isn't the greatest horror movie ever, but it wasn't trying to either. It was just a little fun flick that centered around demonic possession, and it's not a total waste. Give it a shot, it isn't that bad.Rated R: Intense demonic themes, Graphic Violence, Brief Nudity and some language
A poor prequel which doesn't pay anything to the original
posted on 29 Jul 2009Having read all the backstory to this movie I was really quite curious to see how the second attempt, but first release, had done, especially before the firs movie was released...second! So just to fill you in, if you didn't already know. Paul Schrader of Taxi Driver fame completed the movie and screened it to the Studio idiots Executives. They didn't like it, with a vengeance. So they sacked him and hired Renny Harlin to remake it with more gore than psychological terror. So that is how I came to the movie, knowing this history and that the Harlin version had been subsequently panned by the critics.From the opening scene I was concerned, the huge swooping camera across the bloody battlefield had me thinking of action movies straight away, and that had been one of my concerns as soon as I knew Harlin was the Director.However, to give Harlin his dues, he managed to pull back from that and take the movie down a few paces, holding back with any blood and gore scenes we were expecting. He kept the pace slower and the Merrin character more introspective, building him and revealing his past slowly. Of course he was more than ably assisted by both actors Stellan Skarsgård and Izabella Scorupco.Still I felt that we were slipping over the glossy side of the story and a lot of the little touches that were so apparent in the original movie were either too much or too little here. Harlin couldn't quite grasp the subtlety that the story required.The scene that is supposed to show the torture that Merrin foes through to fall from the priesthood is lost. It turns him more into a callous and cold character and the scene doesn't hit the intended mark. That was pretty much the entire film for me, not quite hitting the mark. Moments were overcooked or underplayed and ultimately lost.The final battle between Merrin and the Demon comes down to a series of setups that ultimately seem contrived and give the impression that the Demon can do no more than slap and push. Not that scary.That said, the scenes are wonderfully lit and sets look very realistic. As for the actors, there is little doubt that both Skarsgård and Scorupco are the shining stars, and hugely overshadow everyone else in the movie.The DVD doesn't really do the movie any favours either. With a very short feature on the making of, which is really a few short conversations with a few of the cast and director.There's an audio commentary from Harlin which although interesting, fails to address the history of how the movie came to him, although to be fair that is probably the best thing to do in that circumstance. Just to ignore the history and talk about the movie as a separate entity.What does come through is that he only had a small and fixed budget with ten months to write a script and produce the movie, and that was with a fair amount of CGI. No small task, and if looked at with this knowledge then there's a certain amount of respect to be derived there.Finally the DVD comes shipped with the trailer that does appear to be from the Schrader version. Interestingly it does seem to carry more of the Exorcist feel with slow, creeping scenes, reversed speech and alike.Overall this version is worth a rental to see, and I'm sure it's going to be interesting to see it pitched against the Schrader original prequel.
Exorcist: The Beginning
posted on 21 Jul 2009This review will be slightly more difficult to write than usual, as I have to admit that I have never seen the original Exorcist (1973), which is going to make a comparison between these two films rather difficult. However, I understood what was going on in The Beginning, so perhaps no prior knowledge of The Exorcist is necessary when going to see this film. Exorcist: The Beginning takes place in East Africa in the late 1940s, where a Christian church has been discovered buried in the desert. Ex-Father Merrin (Stellan Skarsgård), now an archaeologist, is hired to go to the church to find an ancient pagan relic which is supposedly buried there. Of course, everything goes rather pear-shaped, people (and animals) start acting very strangely, and it turns out that there's a demon (Pazuzu, the same demon in the original) that starts possessing people. This film is actually the third time it has been filmed; twice under the first director, and when studio bosses didn't like it they fired him and gave the new director, Renny Harlin, 10 months to re-write, shoot and edit a new film. And to be honest, it shows through – there are scenes which are either a bit rushed, and others which don't really feel wholly relevant. Coupled with dodgy CGI this makes for a rather limp film.The main problem is the fact that the film fails to build up any real tension. It is instead filled with too many cheap shocks – usually involving animals – and this makes the film feel less like a true horror film. Cheap shocks are all very well occasionally, but the audience needs to feel the fear characters in the film feel, using the atmosphere and music of the film to create that effect. Instead, the audience was left being able to predict when the next "scare" was coming so that when it did come, it was neither truly surprising nor shocking. It meant, unfortunately, that the experience of watching the film actually became quite boring. It's not all bad, though. The film does start to build up momentum towards the end, with the exorcism itself quite gripping, and visually it is suitably dark, with blood-soaked walls, dark corners and eerie shadows all present and correct. Mention must also go to Stellan Skarsgård, who is excellent as the priest who has lost his faith, and must find it again through exorcising the demon; he brings much needed charisma to an otherwise hollow film, and without him this film would have easily lost a point or two.Rated: 6/10More reviews at: http://www.thelazylounge.net
Great Prequel
posted on 11 Jul 2009I never really found The Exorcist very scary, really. It was more a thriller in my mind - perhaps because I'm not catholic or religious. However, I did find Exorcist: The Beginning much creepier and a lot more gory. I really enjoyed getting the info on a lot of the details that were never revealed in The Exorcist, namely Father Merrin's history. I had always wondered what was up with that little stone "thing" Merrin had in the beginning of the movie.I did feel this could've been a much scarier film but all in all very entertaining. A good twist or two as well. For those fans of The Exorcist I'm sure you'll enjoy the prequel if for nothing else than the background of the exorcist.
Never believe the critics
posted on 11 Jul 2009If I had seen avoided this movie based on critics ratings, I would have sure missed a good movie.If you are looking for some soul searching or diving experience, this movie is not for you. But if you are looking for a good thriller, and a good way to spend your weekend evening, this movie is for you.I had seen the original Exorcist when it was re-released in 2001, and did not find it scary. I felt it was too overblown. Now that I did not have high expectations from the prequel, I enjoyed the movie.Agreed, that the technical portion leaves much to be desired. The settings do not look real, and look more like cardboard cutouts, the horror effects are only limited to violent shaking and blood-gore, but it is much better than psychological thrillers like Mulholland Drive or THe Unbreakable, where you tear out your hair in frustration, waiting for action to happen.After being terribly disappointed by movies like "The Eternal Sunshine of Spotless Mind" and "Being John Malkovich", I hardly care what critics has to say. If I enjoy the movie, it is worth it.
Well, the studio wanted gore, so ...
posted on 07 Jul 2009It's always sad when the studio has the biggest part in the making of a movie, this is prime example of what happens then. I'd rather don't put the blame on Harlin totally, like so many of you want to, but I would point my finger more at the studio. Like one critic elsewhere said, this is what happens when you do a whole movie as a re-shoot.When this project was first given the green light John Frankenheimer was supposed to direct it, but sadly he passed away so in comes Paul Schrader. When the first rough cut was done the studio deemed it unfit to hit the theaters, simply because it was not boring and didn't include enough gore. So the studio kicks Schrader out and get's Harlin in to do "re-shoots" and somewhere along the way these re-shoots turn into re-shooting the whole movie ! with the studio wanting more and more gore and violence.I can only say that this movie is rather good given the circumstances, when a director has a) a script he is not familiar with, b) a crew he is not familiar with, c) extremely short time to do this movie, d) the budget is not what is needed for a "fx" movie, e) ... so the extremely sucky cgi, and f) the studio breathing on his neck calling almost every shot. It could have been even worse than it is.I am not a horror fan as such, but have seen quite anyway, this movie is comparable to Exorcist 2 & 3 easily, even better at times, so if you happen to like gore, I'm sure it's right up your alley.
Let's keep this to the point
posted on 05 Jul 2009As somebody who grew up with nightmare of Linda Blair, I am happy to say that I've found have a cure. ETB!While Herretic was wholly unwatchable it still had those creepy scenes with Linda that still freaked me out and just the thought of her in that ghastly makeup is enough to keep me awake at night. This film however, was able to entertain me for awhile before putting me down to a nice sleep. For that, i can never hate this film. It has "exorcised" my Linda Blair nightmare by offering a by the numbers spooky lullabye that will forever rank up there with Jason X for Most calming chiller. While it didn't have all the laughs that the Jason series has, this did not hurt the film in my eyes. In fact, it helped me slip into my slumber with the all the ease of warm milk. I enjoyed seeing Stellan take on the Devil (and the SS Briefly) as Father Merrin, as did I like the careful plotting by Mr. Harlin whose lack of attention to detail and plot made this film so much easier to ignore. All in all, if you're like me and want to get over the anxiety caused by Freidkin's original, but can't sith through Heretic, this is the film for you.AD
An example of why it's probably best not to dance with the devil ensues.
posted on 27 Jun 2009Folks, last time I checked (which was about 10 minutes ago), this isn't exactly a prequel to The Princess Bride. This is a prequel to a movie that involved a demon-possessed girl who spewed more vomit than Robert Downey Jr. on a 24-hour alcohol/cocaine binge and whose head did a 360 faster than Billy Joel's car plowing into a neighbor's house. Still not sure how that didn't snap her neck, but I digress.This is one twisted, creepy, make-you-turn-away movie. I'm warning you right now, if you can't take graphic and disturbing images, then this isn't for you. Listen up: a guy cuts his own throat, a little boy is mauled by hyenas, a little girl is shot in the head, a still-born baby is covered with maggots, Michael Moore is shown without a shirt on, getting' the picture yet? We're talking disturbing, violent images.As you can probably surmise, unless reading comprehension's got you down, there is quite a bit of gore. But thankfully, that's not where all the scares come from. I thought some of the creepiest moments in the movie came from what I like to call "snapshots." Little things that happen quickly, and you have to be paying attention to catch 'em - a shadow flys by the top of the camera, a face materializes in the dark but then vanishes, Fran Drescher's laugh emanates from the back right speaker, small details of that nature that are very subtle but really add a lot to the atmosphere.And the dark atmosphere is a big part of this movie. Now I don't scare easily, so for me I'd say the movie is more creepy and tense than it is scary. Not once did I have to run to the bathroom and change into the extra pair of boxer briefs that I brought with me. I guess I'm just at the point where a woman walking down a dark corridor with a candle doesn't frighten me that much. Unless that woman is Rosie O'Donnell and she's not wearing any makeup and that light is shining her face big and bright on the screen. Then I'm running for the hills. Scenes like that provide plenty of tension, and I might be coaxed into jumping a couple of times, but it's not the kind of stuff that has me whimpering like the president of the chess club on prom night.On the down side, some of the CGI is a little unpolished. For a minute I thought it weird that Joan Rivers had a cameo in the movie. I was quite perturbed until I realized it was just a fake-looking hyena. The scene with the demon-possessed human crawling backwards on the cave wall was pretty cool though.I also thought the story could've been fleshed out a little more. The setup is great, although not overly original, and the movie tensely pulled me along, forcing me to constantly wonder what the purpose of the church was. Plus, I really like the whole idea of "this is the area where Lucifer fell." But then the story just leveled out and never really advanced from there. The demon possession doesn't truly come into play until the last act, and it would've been nice if in the midst of all his taunting, the demon had taken the time to make reference to the war in Heaven. Maybe say a few things to make himself seem really ruthless and cold-blooded. Instead, the demon busts out the one-liners as if he's auditioning for a stand-up act on Letterman. You know when half the audience is inexplicably clapping and cheering DEMONIC TAUNTING that something has gone dreadfully wrong.Ah well, it's all minor stuff. This isn't the smartest horror movie in the world, but it's a crowd pleaser, and if all you want is to kill some time with a few good scares, then it delivers.Word of advice: if at all possible, I recommend seeing this movie in as empty a theater as possible. Maybe wait a couple of weeks after the release or grab some friends and catch a midnight showing in a safe location. The theater was packed when I saw it, and it really took away from the experience.People were laughing and talking during really dark, tense scenes, and one dude behind us snored the entire time. I had to restrain myself from breaking out some jiujitsu. Plus, whenever something scary would happen half the audience would scream and then laugh hysterically for the next couple of minutes. It was very distracting. This is just one of those movies where it's best to watch it with a handful of friends in a nice, quiet setting. In other words, find a screen showing Catwoman and ask the manager if he'll switch reels for you. THE GIST:If you're easily repulsed, then avoid it. But if you're really in need of a horror fix, then Exorcist: The Beginning should satisfy. Guys, this is the perfect movie to take your gal to, especially if she's a little skittish. She'll be grabbing your arm as if it's Johnny Betts' arm, but I'm afraid she'll be able to easily tell the difference. Don't take it personally though.
Too brutal, no substance
posted on 25 Jun 2009What do you do when you're stuck with making the third sequel to a long-ago horror classic, and the two previous sequels have played out every possible angle? Why, you make everything as gory and bloody and exploitative as possible, far exceeding all three previous films' violence and gore quotient. You also hire a hack director, in this case Renny Harlin, because any reputable director would either: A. refuse to make this, or B. never be able to top the original, anyhow. In THE EXORCIST, William Friedkin directed a masterpiece to which there should never have been a followup, simple as that. EXORCIST: THE BEGINNING should have been a straight-to-video release, for all the special effects and bloody killings and panoramic desert shots. Stellan Skarsgard is saddled with following in Max Van Sydow's considerable footsteps as a younger Father Merrin in this so-called prequel, and no one else in the cast is worthy of note. There's no Linda Blair or Ellen Burstyn or Jason Miller or J. Lee Cobb here to lend able support. So the whole thing falls on Skarsgard's shoulders, and as mush as I admire the actor, he simply isn't up to it. He spends most of the movie standing around, providing reaction shots to the various doings, which include an endless series of children and adults being shot in the head, some shown repeatedly. As we know, this is really the director's fault. Renny Harlin. How much worse can it get? A couple of scary moments don't make up for all the crap the rest of this film is loaded down with. Plotwise, we have a middle-age, spiritually fatigued Merrin involved in a post-WWII East African dig that unearths the very demon he is destined to meet up with again in a Georgetown townhouse many years later. The good versus evil battle fought here is, shall we say, less than auspicious.
Good scary fun
posted on 19 Jun 2009This is a good old fashion scary movie with all the good stuff---suspense, twists, blood
and gore. Who could ask for more? The CGI are nothing spectacular or innovative. However, when in the context of a well- paced, sometimes enthralling, plot, the special effects take on a life beyond their
technical perfection. If you pick this movie apart, you'll notice some plot holes and cheezy make-up and
maybe you won't like it. Get over yourself. Sit back, relax and get lost in the mood of
the piece and you'll have a good time.For the sake of comparison, I note that this film is easily much more scary and
suspenseful than the over-hyped "The Village." There is much more sense at the
conclusion of the film that the producer worked hard to make the content internally
consistent and coherent. It's much more exciting.I gave this movie an 8. It won't win any Oscars and doesn't deserve any.
But it's a
couple hours of good scary fun for those who enjoy the genre.
The Exorcist: 1949 Vintage
posted on 17 Jun 2009***SPOILERS*** Gory prequel to the original "Exorcist" that takes place some 24 years earlier in 1949. The former Father Merrin, Stellan Skarsgard, now going back to being an archaeologist is contacted my this mysterious Mr. Smelier, Ben Cross, in a Cairo café. Mr. Smelier want's him to go to British East Africe to find and ancient artifact of a pagan demon. Travling to Nirobi Kenya Merrin is told by the British Major Granville, Julian Wadham, who in charge of a dig,that a 1,500 year-old Christian church has been excavated in the area. The mysterious church had been built some 1,000 years before Christian missionaries ever converted that region in East Africa. We later learn from Father Francis, James D'Arcy, that a Christian church was indeed built there and for some reason then forgotten about. By orders of the Vatican all the records were kept secret until 1893 until someone, a hight official, in the Church of Rome found out about them and the church. An excavation was then organized the next year with a number of Catholic Preists to dig up the church with the help of the local natives, they all disappeared never to be seen or heard of again. The Vatican in order to cover up this strange event came up with the story that a plague hit that area and everyone ended up dying from it in order to keep other adventures and archaeologists away. Years later after the site was rediscovered by British troops there was no way to keep that awful secret from the public. What we find out from Father Francis is that the church was built to seal the place where it's believed that the Arcangle Lucifer fell to earth and where now the Devil dwells. Breaking into the church breaks open the seal that kept the Devil in check. Now he's out in the light to do the dirty work that he's been prevented to do for some 1,500 years, which would make events like WWI& WWII look like child-play in comparison. Decent but not great prequel with a lot of things not fully explained in the archeology dig in Kenya as well as a number suicides among the major players in the movie. The exorcism itself, which had us confused for a while to just who's possessed and who's to be exorcised, is far more graphic and almost as terrifying as the original in the 1973 Exorcist film. You have to "dig" real deep to connect the bloodbath that takes place aboveground between the British troops and the Turkana villagers where everyone ends up getting massacred; to the beginning of the movie when we see tens of thousands of dead soldiers in the same place some 1,500 years earlier. Lancaster Merrin who lost his faith in God and himself, because of the horrors that he lived through in WWII, regained it in the horrors of what he encountered in British East Africa and overcame them with the faith that he so long ago lost.
Mature, Well-Crafted, Brilliantly Acted
posted on 01 Jun 2009I have just seen this movie and spent some time surfing online reviews. Most of them seem to compare it, understandably enough, to the original and find it lacking on a variety of levels. I just don't agree. Exorcist: The Beginning grasped my interest from the opening scenes to the final frame. The lead actor, Stelan Skarsgard, so vividly and competently captured the character of Father Merrin (played originally by Sydow) that I was blown away -- it was like watching a young Sydow in every respect down to his voice. The story was a brilliant, masterful one that took the necessary time to create a rich, interwoven tapestry of characters and history, and kept me guessing at every turn. For outright horror, the movie requires a patient, adult attention span and ultimately pays off with one of the most disturbing, eye-covering climaxes deep beneath the African ground that I have ever seen. Congratulations to everyone behind this film, whereas you have not seemed to please the attention-deficient crowds that can not stand an intellectual tale or a horror film with literary substance, you have certainly done justice to those true fans of what made the original Exorcist such a classic.
Much better than I expected.
posted on 28 May 2009After sitting through a lot of garbage this summer (Avp being the biggest one of them all), I wasn't expecting too much from this franchised sequel. In fact the only thing that piqued my interest was that Morgan Creek had spent a ton of time and money getting this made, they seemingly cared so much that it was completely re-shot after Schrader left. My point. The film is very good. Real Kudos should go to Caleb Carr and Renny Harlin, this film compliments the original Exorcist very well, and still maintains its own story, depth and horror. I was relieved when I saw that the film was not simply a flashy rehash of a green vomit spewing kid on a bed. There is so much more that adds to the feel and tone, that I was really impressed.Is it scary? Short answer: Hell yes. Long answer: Yes BUT not in the same way the original was. Though the ending (I don't think I'm spoiling anything by saying there's an exorcism that takes place in the movie) is very scary, what really got me was all the build up, not just the jump out of your seat moments (there are quite a few) but also the slow dread that falls on you as you see the African camp fall apart. Some of the scares I saw coming, but there were many that I did not. One of which put a real twist on everything.What really shines in the movie is Merrin's own personal struggle to regain his faith, for that storyline alone it made the movie well worth the price of admission.
Demonic dementia...
posted on 26 May 2009With 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 ****
The one that should have gone direct to DVD instead
posted on 26 May 2009The controversy of the Exorcist prequels is one of the most bizarre events in cinema history. As far as we know this is the first time that a studio fired a director after seeing their finished film, and hired a new director who brought in a new team of writers, but used some of the same cast and locations. Why? Because they thought Paul Schrader's version wasn't scary enough. I must say I agree that Dominion isn't particularly frightening, but unlike this film it's thoughtful, suspenseful, and makes a hell of a lot more sense than Renny Harlin's slick and gory, but mediocre and convoluted version.Pros: Pretty good performances. Gorgeous cinematography and locations. Plenty of blood and gore for gorehounds. A good, but unspectacular score. Some chilling moments. A powerful opening sequence.Cons: The biggest flaw is the story is muddled. You get the feeling the new script was written in a very short period of time. There's also a real lack of true scares. The film isn't dull, but the pacing does drag at times, especially in the middle. Some things, like the relationship between Merrin and the doctor, aren't fleshed out. People who've seen the original will recall that it was mentioned that Merrin's earlier exorcism was performed on a young African boy and lasted 3 months, but the one here is not like that. Continuity error? Or did Merrin perform a few exorcisms? Also, a couple of violent scenes involving children might turn most viewers off.Final thoughts: The second of the two filmed prequels was also the only one to get a theatrical release. Sure this version has eerie moments, but there are plenty of flaws to be found. Luckily for those not satisfied, Paul Schrader's version was released on DVD a year later. But that's another review.My rating: 2.5/5
a really good prequel
posted on 22 May 2009This is one of the good prequels that a lot of people would like due to the fact that it leaves everything that the original starts off. It is connected good to the original exorcist and the acting and make-up makes this movie even more better. A lot of scary and jumpy scenes and the sound effects are really impressive. Father Merrin has lost faith in religion and turns to archeology and finds the place where the devil has been casted to hell. Merrin doesn't believe in the facts until evil has taken over and people have turned against each other violently. This movie is by far the most scariest film in years and it is a really good start to an unbelievable movie made in 1973.
Not a bad Prequel
posted on 16 May 2009Ftaher Lankester Merrin thinks that he has glimpsed the face of evil. In the years following WWII, Merrin (Skarsgard) is relentlessly haunted by memories of the unspeakable brutality perpetrated against the innocent people of his parish. In the wake of all he has seen, both his faith in his fellow man and the Almighty have deserted him. He can no longer honestly call himself a man of God.Merrin has traveled far from his native Holland in a desperate attempt to escape the horrors that he witnessed there. While drifting through Cairo, he is approached by a collector of rare antiquities to join a British archaeological excavation in the remote Turkana region of Kenya. They have unearthed a Chritian Byzantine church in inexplicably pristine condition as if it had been buried on the day it had been completed. The collector wants Merrin, and Oxford-educated archaeologist, to find an ancient relic hidden within the church before the British discover it.But beneath the church, something much older sleeps, waiting to be awoken. madness descends upon the local villagers and the contingent of British soldiers sent to guard the excavation. Merrin watches helplessly as the atrocities of war are repeated against another innocent village, atrocities he had prayed never to see again. The blood of innocents flows freely on the East African plain, and the horror has only just begun.In the place where Evil was born, Merrin will finally see its true face.
Better than a sleeping pill
posted on 16 May 2009"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.
Worst movie ever
posted on 16 Aug 2009I just can't believe this movie have such a high rating here. This movie is such a joke, probably the worst i have ever seen, and i saw a lot of bad movies. The only reason i even watched the whole movie is that i was having a laugh at all the ridiculous and pathetic attempts to make something scary. Every time there was gonna be a "scare" you could hear the music building up the tension, and i sit there and wait for it and......boo? no, every time it ended up in a big laugh at the pathetic attempt to scare. I watched it almost half an hour ago and i still giggle about it. For a laugh this movie is OK but as a horror movie it just has to be the biggest failure....ever.I could go on wasting my time describing how pathetic this movie is, but it's just not worth any more of my time, i write this just to warn others not to waste their time on this joke for a movie. This movie don't even deserve the minimum of 1 star rating. It's up to you if you wanna see it or not, but be warned, nothing else you can do will be bigger waste of time.