The Beginning is not as bad as some say
Added 10/14/2009
Well im not going to give a full review on it because most have already done that.However i will tell you as fan of Exorcist and Exorcist III,this one is not that bad.It's got a nice strong story that follows Lancaster Merrin (the priest from the original) and his first encounter with Pazuzu.I will tell you what it's missing.Unlike that piece of trash part II,it's missing it's signature music and a few more scares.Stellan Skaaarsgard does a fine job as Merrin and it is a good follow up to the first.In all fairness as much as i love the first i do believe Exorcist III LEGION is far superior than the original,this one and part ii.I know most wont agree but III to me stands well on it's own and not just a thrown together sequel.It has truly terrifying moments and incredible acting.Regardless,this one is definetely worth checking out i liked it.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Exorcise this "film" from your home
Added 6/24/2009
The first Exorcist set a standard for horror film that to this day remains unsurpassed - but that has not kept up and coming directors from trying to overthrow the omnipotent original. Three times now Hollywood has tried to deliver a film equal to or beyond the first, and they always fail. There is something so sinister and evil about the first movie that no one has yet to get a handle on. Exorcist: The Beginning is yet another failure.
Probably because the movie has computer animated jackals in it. Probably because it refers to Nazi atrocities (and we've been in a Nazi deluge for the past ten years, owing to Saving Prv. Ryan, et al.). Probably because it uses such cheap tricks to scare the audience (animals skulking around, doors blowing open without warning and scattering paper around, innocent looking children who prophesy death, things that jump out of nowhere for no reason).
One day a director will arise with the power to make a horror film that annihilates the original Exorcist. Until then, the faithful will just have to wait.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Get thee behind me, awful movie.
Added 4/24/2008
The original Exorcist scared the crap out of me, but this movie just bored me. Skarsgard is a pleasure to watch, as always, and the movie is competently filmed, but it is just terrible overall. The dialogue was ridiculous, the plot was stupid, the special effects were lame, and the horror was completely non-existent. I'm not going to devote one more thought to this very poor effort.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Lame attempt at horror
Added 2/27/2008
If you were finally looking for a worthy candidate to live up to the original 1973 movie then keep looking. This film is a lot more about cheap shots at startling people than actually bringing out the kind of scare and depth that the first movie gave us. While production values are high and the movie does achieve its goal at scaring its audience it's done at the expense of a good story. The sad thing is there was room to make this a truly engaging movie, but instead they took the low road. Sorry folks.
I got to admit it looks really nice. The settings and landscapes are striking and the imagery is sharp and top notch. Cinematography is beautiful and the props and costumes do give you the illusion of the 1940's timeline. Also the movie does accomplish its goal in the scare department. Sounds effects, music, lighting... they all lend themselves into making this movie a high caliber production... at least on the outside. While all these factors make the movie look good and the first part of the script does set the stage for something very intriguing once you get past all that things start falling apart.
For one the scares they focus on are nothing more than cheap shots. There is no eerie kind of scary here. More like the sneaking up behind someone and saying "Boo!" kind. I can't count how many times you see the film try and startle the audience instead of actually frightening them. It's all careful use of sound effects and a music score to queue the "Boo!" along with plenty of false alarms. It got old. The cheap shots are also evident on the script itself. You would spend a focused amount of time on someone or something just to have that startled scare at the end. Forget plot development. Most of the movie is just trying to catch you off guard to scare you once again.
The film tries to be interesting but it spends too much time trying to freak you out to actually go anywhere. Ultimately it makes for a lot of senseless actions and events that can't even be explained with the ultra-lame plot twist that, just like the rest of the events, doesn't make sense when you think about it. In other words the story is convoluted, trite and has no method to its madness.
I guess if you like to be scared and don't care how they do it AND don't care if the story behind it is well executed then here you go. I can't help but feel they had a good thing started here and decide to instead mess it all up other than develop a truly engaging (and ultimately scary) movie. The first Exorcist movie is still the best and everything else that has followed only pales in comparison.. including this pretty on the outside and mediocre on the inside prequel.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
The Face of Cinematic Evil
Added 11/5/2007
"The demon is a liar," Father Merrin warns us in the original Exorcist. "He will lie to confuse us. But he will also mix lies with the truth to attack us." Unfortunately, the same is true about certain Hollywood producers and directors. Case in point: Exorcist: The Beginning, directed by Renny Harlin.
It seems the best that can be said about this film by those who prefer it over Paul Schrader's more intellectually honest rendering of the Father Merrin story is that there is better "continuity." This fallacious continuity seems to consist of bringing back the statuette of Pazuzu, the Muslim metalworkers pounding away in Cairo, the suddenly arrested clock as Merrin pours over sketches of Pazuzu, and a puke-faced possession absurdly and ineptly reminiscent of Linda Blair's performance in the original. But these examples of "continuity" only demonstrate a lack of creativity and artistic credibility on the part of Harlin. The movie as a whole is a cinematic train-wreck.
This prequel opens up with an ancient battlefield laid strewn with the bodies of Byzantine Christian soldiers. We are then treated to a CGI'ed pan of thousands of inverted crucifixions across the entire landscape. Notwithstanding the complete absence of any visible woods from which these crosses could conceivably be constructed, the scene inherently precludes many of the other premises of this film. If a force of thousands of well-trained, well-equipped soldiers is so easily eviscerated by Satan, then how much more chance can a highly-trained, highly-skilled group of masons and artisans have of constructing the ornate Church of St. Michael to contain him?
Beyond this and many other problems with the story is the glaring failure of Harlin to explore the relationship between Father Merrin and Father Francis (as Schrader aptly does in Dominion with an inversed representation of the relationship between Father Merrin and Father Karras from the first Exorcist). More than being a mere horror film, The Exorcist explored the journey of faith lost and faith restored as much as it did the triumph of good over evil. Harlan's film misses the opportunity to portray this and hence does NOT provide key thematic continuity. By the film's end, Father Merrin may have redonned his clerical garb and eschewed the financial motivation for his assignment, but the way the film moves so haphazardly, its clear that this is more of a gratuitous afterthought.
What else are we provided as evidence of either a severely retarded cinematic vision, the suffocating commercialism of the film industry, or both? There is Jefferies, our quintessential white devil; obnoxious, racist, sexist, as physically repulsive as he is in his personal comportment. A nice touch of "political correctness" apparently not sufficed by the belligerence of the British detachment sent to thwart the Turkana from uprising. Frankly, his presence in the story defies justification. Then, there is the way the role of the Turkana and its Chief Sebituana is fairly well ignored. They are reduced to one-dimensional "spear-chuckers." Then, there is the ridiculous over-use of animated hyenas and crows throughout the film. The absurdly melodramatic suicide of Monsieur Bession, whom we find out later is incredibly the husband of Sarah Novak, the Holocaust-suriving Jewish doctor in Derati. And Sarah's own possession and exorcism so heavily drawing upon the Linda Blair experience that you begin to feel like you're watching Rocky II with its ridiculous regurgitation of its respective original.
Many fans of the first Exorcist believe that, despite its flaws, Harlin's creation is a necessary companion to Schrader's. Why? Because Harlin "fills in" alot of the "blanks" of the Schrader film. But this presumes that the blanks really exist to begin with or that any person of reasonable intelligence could not fill them in for themselves without having to endure an erratically paced and gratuitously grossed-out fiasco such as this.
Beyond these problems is the script itself. Much of the dialogue -- especially between Merrin and Semelier, and Francis and Merrin (after Merrin discovers the false graves) -- is forced and contrived. It serves more to instruct us of the facts rather than to tell a story; a critical difference between bad writing and good.
Of all involved in the creation of The Beginning, I truly feel sorry for Stellan Skarsgard. Stellan, who plays Father Merrin in both versions, is a highly talented actor. It is unfortunate that this version was released in theatres instead of Paul Schrader's. Only in Dominion are Stellan's skills and talent truly cultivated with a superior story, script, and direction.
Those looking for the proper heir to the Blatty-Friedkin legacy should turn to Paul Schrader's Dominion. Dominion may have its minor flaws but the story is as coherent as it is intelligent. Exorcist: The Beginning should be exorcized from the cinematic body and expunged from memory. Amen.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
The Beginning is not as bad as some say
Added 10/14/2009
Well im not going to give a full review on it because most have already done that.However i will tell you as fan of Exorcist and Exorcist III,this one is not that bad.It's got a nice strong story that follows Lancaster Merrin (the priest from the original) and his first encounter with Pazuzu.I will tell you what it's missing.Unlike that piece of trash part II,it's missing it's signature music and a few more scares.Stellan Skaaarsgard does a fine job as Merrin and it is a good follow up to the first.In all fairness as much as i love the first i do believe Exorcist III LEGION is far superior than the original,this one and part ii.I know most wont agree but III to me stands well on it's own and not just a thrown together sequel.It has truly terrifying moments and incredible acting.Regardless,this one is definetely worth checking out i liked it.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Exorcise this "film" from your home
Added 6/24/2009
The first Exorcist set a standard for horror film that to this day remains unsurpassed - but that has not kept up and coming directors from trying to overthrow the omnipotent original. Three times now Hollywood has tried to deliver a film equal to or beyond the first, and they always fail. There is something so sinister and evil about the first movie that no one has yet to get a handle on. Exorcist: The Beginning is yet another failure.
Probably because the movie has computer animated jackals in it. Probably because it refers to Nazi atrocities (and we've been in a Nazi deluge for the past ten years, owing to Saving Prv. Ryan, et al.). Probably because it uses such cheap tricks to scare the audience (animals skulking around, doors blowing open without warning and scattering paper around, innocent looking children who prophesy death, things that jump out of nowhere for no reason).
One day a director will arise with the power to make a horror film that annihilates the original Exorcist. Until then, the faithful will just have to wait.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Get thee behind me, awful movie.
Added 4/24/2008
The original Exorcist scared the crap out of me, but this movie just bored me. Skarsgard is a pleasure to watch, as always, and the movie is competently filmed, but it is just terrible overall. The dialogue was ridiculous, the plot was stupid, the special effects were lame, and the horror was completely non-existent. I'm not going to devote one more thought to this very poor effort.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
