O Exorcista: O Início

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.

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.

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!

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.

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...