Exorcist: The Beginning makes the mistake of confusing loud noises, grotesque images, obscene violence, and buckets of blood for frights.
Tools:
Send to a friend »
Warner Bros. continue to bill the original, 1973 "Exorcist" as "the scariest movie of all time." Well, it has been called that, but whether you agree with the sentiment is neither here nor there; it is a good movie. Then came 1977's "Exorcist II: The Heretic," which was one of the worst films of all time. But at least it starred Richard Burton and his magnificent voice. After that came the merely mediocre "Exorcist III: Legion" in 1990 with George C. Scott. And in 2004 it's "Exorcist: The Beginning." No numbers or numerals. This one is a prequel, and presumably the studio didn't want to confuse audiences any more than necessary. The movie can do that all by itself. "The Beginning" replaces Burton's voice and Scott's attitude with a boatload of blood. I can't say it's an improvement.
The screenplay for the first "Exorcist" was written by William Peter Blatty, based on his novel of the same name, and directed by William Friedkin. "Exorcist II" used Blatty's characters, but other than that neither he nor Friedkin had anything to do with it; John Boorman directed it, much to his regret. "Exorcist III" saw the return of Blatty, who not only wrote the screenplay but directed it himself. "Exorcist: The Beginning" eschews much mention of Blatty at all, except as creator of the characters, and Renny Harlin ("Die Hard 2," "Cliffhanger," "Cutthroat Island") took over as director.
But it still isn't as simple as that. No, because Harlin was the second director of "Exorcist: The Beginning." Not the second-unit director; the second full-time director. The first director was Paul Schrader, who actually completed shooting the whole thing before it was thrown out by the production company for not being gory enough. So Harlin was brought in and the entire movie was reshot, or at least 90% of it. It's estimated that Schrader's version cost the company about $30,000,000 and Harlin's version about $50,000,000. Can you imagine that? $80,000,000 plus the costs of advertising and distribution would put the movie's total costs well over the $100,000,000 mark. Even bringing in a respectable $40,000,000 at the box office, as it did, the film must have lost the studio a fortune. Maybe they'll sell a lot of DVDs. (I've read that video sales account for over fifty percent of a movie's income, so maybe this thing could still break even. But I wouldn't count on it.)
Anyway, let's start with the movie's fundamental problem; namely, it's not scary. Yep, the studio spent probably more than $100,000,000 to make a scary movie that wasn't scary. Well, we all make mistakes. "Exorcist: The Beginning" makes the mistake of confusing loud noises, grotesque images, obscene violence, and buckets of blood for frights. These things aren't frightening. They're revolting. Turning one's head in disgust is not the same thing as being terrified. The movie builds little or no suspense and creates only minimal tension in a couple of scenes. Compared to its illustrious progenitor, the 1973 "Exorcist," it fails on almost all counts, despite its attempt to emulate the style of the original and to establish a continuity between the two.
The new movie's story line relates how Father Lankester Merrin (Stellan Skarsgard) back in 1949 came to be the Catholic Church's ace exorcist. Thus, the word "Beginning" in the title refers to Merrin's beginning as an exorcist, not to the beginning of exorcism in general. Just so we have that straight. I mean, exorcisms have been around for thousands of years. I'm boring you, I know. Think what the film will do.
So "Exorcist: The Beginning" shows us the exploits of a relatively young Father Merrin in 1949 some twenty-four years before the original "Exorcist" movie takes place. However, Stellan Skarsgard is in real life about ten years older (54) than Max von Sydow was (44) when Sydow played a supposedly older Father Merrin. I like Skarsgard, mind you; he's a fine actor. But I wonder why the filmmakers didn't consider casting someone who looked more obviously younger than Sydow? Didn't anybody at the studio think that at least a few viewers, particularly fans of the original movie, would notice that the priest in 1973 looks younger than the same character almost a quarter of a century earlier?
OK, it's Egypt, 1949, and Merrin has given up the priesthood. Having lived through the real horrors of World War II, he's lost his faith and become a full-time archaeologist instead. At the time of the story, he's been asked to investigate a mysterious dig to the far south, a Christian church buried in the sands. Merrin is told the church dates from "circa 5 A.D." Say what? 5 A.D.? Well, the guy means the fifth century A.D., as we quickly learn, but for a moment it's disconcerting to think of a Christian church having been built when Christ was hypothetically five years old. It's another of those niggling distractions that plague a misbegotten script.
As the plot goes on, Merrin discovers that the church was erected over a pagan temple, which was built on the very spot where Lucifer fell to Earth after the war in heaven. Apparently, the fallen angel has been imprisoned there ever since, until people come by occasionally and loose him on the world. Merrin is asked to recover a small, probably Samarian, artifact from the church, an artifact he finds but which then winds up playing virtually no part in the story. I still have no idea what that was all about. Merrin goes on to do his best work in the old church alone in the dead of night with only a lantern to see by. Go figure.
Average user rating (1-5):
Not yet rated.
Not yet rated.