After mentioning in “The Exorcist” that Father Merrin had performed an exorcism on a child that nearly killed him, director Renny Harlin decided to tell that story in 2004 with “Exorcist: The Beginning.”
Since it has been 31 years when Linda Blair scared audiences out of the theater, and 19 years since the only good sequel in the series, you wouldn’t have thought that there would be another one in the series. However, nowadays directors always decide on whether to make a prequel or remake a film. Well, after “The Exorcist” was released in 2000 with a version called “The Version You Haven’t Seen,” Warner Brothers (WB) decided to make a prequel. Originally this prequel was supposed to be released in 2002, but was delayed to summer of 2003. By that time, the film still wasn’t done, so WB booted Paul Schraeder off and hired a Finnish guy to finish the film. Then, Renny Harlin came into the picture to finish this movie. Basically, Harlin re-shot some parts, edited it all together, and came out with a movie that was doomed from the start. However, I don’t think that Harlin is the one to blame for the flaws, but screenwriter Alexi Hawley is the reason for the film being bad.
Hawley didn’t have a film credit to his name, so he was tapped for the job. What does he do in this film? Basically, he thinks the gorier, the merrier. The franchise up until this film was all about one character’s spirit and delving into it. However, the filmmakers made this film an all out gore fest. All of the flesh gouging moments aren’t really so bad, but sometimes they do go a little too far. It’s kind of like how Tim Burton treated “Batman Returns,” with the superfluous disgusting scenes. This movie just draws the fans of the original film but tries to keep it up to date. It does so with scenes like a kid whispering another character’s prophecy creepily and a woman entering a shower all alone with her later looking around to see if someone else is in her home. “Exorcist: The Beginning” is both clichéd and awful to watch.
Like I had said in my review of “Exorcist II: The Heretic,” I don’t want to think that film had been made, but this film would be quite well off. Still, that doesn’t save this film from being a giant mess. In the first film, Father Merrin found the statue of Pazuzu in Iraq. How did the statue get to Kenya in this one? Is there a similar statue of Pazuzu in Kenya? Like all bad films, they decided not to explain.
The good points of this film are Stellan Skarsgard as Father Merrin. Skarsgard does a fairly well job picking up a role that Max von Sydow made so memorable. Max von Sydow gave Skarsgard a lot to work with in this role, but Skarsgard has the viewers look at him the entire time he is on screen and you can easily feel for this character. Bill Beyrer stated that, “Merrin only book ended the original.” What he means by this is that we don’t really get to see Father Merrin do so much, but in this film we get to see him in action, and this is his film. The rest of the cast in this film is a little forgettable. Izabella Scorupco, who plays Sarah the Doctor, works well with Skarsgard which really makes the film’s climax watchable. These two won’t get dishonor from working on this film, but I do give them credit that I at least made it through this film by watching them.
I do miss how the first one had me scared completely, which I did feel in the third film, but not to the same extent. Though there were some scenes in this film that did scare me, despite the number of “jumps” in here. The rest is just your usual horror movie clichés. This prequel to the series is not a bonus or a flaw, but a film that is inadequately suitable. Lacking or not, it’s a little scary, which is acceptable compared to a lot of the horror flicks released nowadays.
If you want this film to trigger some nostalgic memories of the first one, you might get what you asked for. You will be scared; you will see the good versus evil/God versus Satan duel. For those of you who haven’t seen “The Exorcist,” then you can enjoy this with your bag of popcorn. Make sure to drop this back into your mailbox to return to Netflix. All of the ads from this film are half-taken material from the original, so if they interest you, then that’s the more reason to check it out. I still do not like this film so much.
Final thoughts: Bill Beyrer said this film is scary, boring, chilling, confusing, blood curdling, and disgusting. I would have to agree with him. You’ll either like this film or hate it, but it’s like a coin toss. I personally was not a fan of this one, so I’ll have to give it a 2.
Basically, after a traumatizing moment Father Merrin experienced in World War II, he lost his faith. He then moves to Egypt as an archeologist, but gets assigned for a task in Kenya to find an old church and find an ancient artifact. When you see it, you’ll think it looks similar to the rock that Father Merrin dug up in the first film. After discovering that church, stuff happens with Nazis, Hyenas, and Maggot Babies to name a few. As a result, it leads him down a path of total recovery and the honest path towards his true calling. Sound like an interesting film to you? Well, I don’t like it.
Whether you want to believe it or not, they actually made another prequel to this film but with a whole different story. How is that film compared to this one? Find out tomorrow on the finale to my review on “The Exorcist Series.”
No comments:
Post a Comment