Customer Reviews

Exorcist: The Beginning [VHS]

5 star:		(34)
4 star:		(32)
3 star:		(37)
2 star:		(26)
1 star:		(33)

 

 

Yes, you need to open your eyes and stop listening to these idiotic reviewers in the newspapers and television because I've never seen such biased reviews. It seems like they went into this movie ONLY looking for the negative things to b*tch about rather than concentrate on what was really going on. First of all, the movie was NOT EVEN THAT GORY. Ok, the baby covered in maggots. GET OVER IT. Every single person who whined and complained about that scene has seen 10 times worse in movies and you know you have. Second of all, another big complaint about this movie by those so-called professional reviewers was some crap about having lifted other scenes from famous movies. Uhhh, wait a minute, this sounds familiar. Didn't we just give lavish praise borderlining fellatio to Quentin Tarantino for Kill Bill 1 and 2? Didn't he do the EXACT same thing. Not only did he steal scenes from old style kung fu flicks and spaghetti westerns (not that I watch that crap but I heard that's what happened), but there was also endless amounts of blood and gore in that crap, infinitly more than there was in the Exorcist: Beginning. A heaping pile of contradiction is what that is.

All ranting aside, this movie was a sitting duck and I know why it was so easy to bash. For one thing, it was the prequel to a timeless classic. But this movie is not, I repeat, is not trash. It kept me enthralled from beginning to end. Of course it was not exactly like the original, it was modernized a bit. They paid homage to the original in a few scenes which I thought was fantastic. After watching this and then watching the original again after, it made even more sense. This is a movie that can make you think. But then again, people don't want to think about anything. They just want to see moving pictures. Mindless action is good once in awhile, but when the market is saturated with it, it can become excruciatingly boring and retarded. Watch the movie for what it is and not look for all the negative aspects of it.

Chad had earlier given another great synopsis of this last entry into the world of Pazuzu. You might want to read any of his reviews just to get a good understanding of what went on in the movies he's reviewed.

I do not disagree with him on this one as far as the quality of the film. This film is a mess. I always wanted to know what the previous meeting between Father Merrin and Pazuzu was like based off of the hints given us in the original Exorcist film, but this shallow film did little for me. I think Kat's review is on the money with this flick. If it wasn't for the good performance Stellan Skarsgard, playing Father Merrin, I would give this film a zero. I wonder what the author of the original story thinks (or would think if he's dead) how this prequel was handled. Only in his mind would we really know how Father Merrin really battled Pazuzu.

I have to admit that I was pretty skeptical about watching this movie, and have to confess that I never liked the original Exorcist. I always have bad reviews about these movies because they look false or don't have a real storyline, but this movie really impressed me. Stellan Skarsgård gives a strong performance, in my opinion, as Father Merrin, with a good supporting cast to back him up. Though quite gory at times, the movie keeps you interested, and the end has a nice twist. Overall, I enjoyed the movie and would recommend it to anyone interested in The Exorcist movies series.

Stellan Skarsgard was awesome in the role of Father Merrin. Critics complaining about the film just don't get it - the film isn't about the devil, it's about the priest. The strength of this film is Skarsgard's battle with himself and his struggle with a faith that finds little of Heaven reflected in the ugly and brutish world, with special relevance to the priest's experiences in WWII. While those around him still call him "Father," and while an aged fellow clergyman counsels, "You will always be a priest," Merrin spends most of the film believing the devil's lies, like one told to him by a Nazi soldier, "God is not here today," that is echoed repeatedly throughout the film. It takes the horror of the devil to convince Merrin that God IS there and that it's his job as a priest to be God's voice and hand against the evil.

The story is character driven, yet it's frightful and disturbing in parts. The strength of the first Exorcist movie was Blatty who showed America that the devil could be next door inside an innocent little girl. This film that provides a backstory to the first film avoids trying to perform an epic feat - though the opening scene would suggest otherwise. This movie instead remains a personal struggle between a man of God and an unspeakable evil that whimsically manipulates and desecrates for no apparent reason except because it can. Perhaps that is the motivation that is lacking, according to some critics. It's also an ageless mystery; why is there evil?

If the film were to answer that question, it is through the journey of faith of Father Merrin, and it is answered in the closing scene.

Let's face it, critics are going to malign any film daring enough to take on the cinematic mythos surrounding what is called by many the "scariest" and "most disturbing" horror film of all time. Horror fans may be a bit more forgiving, especially in this age when cheap scares and superficial spooks populate the majority of modern horror film landscapes.

This one digs deeper and revisits several of the issues confronted by the first film. Skarsgard is perfect as Merrin and the story is sufficiently complicated to keep the viewer's interest beyond the scary moments.

While I hold the original film to be in my top 5 of the best horror films of all time, I'll not watch it again. The first time was enough, but then I watched the newer cut extra scenes, and that is it. It's just too disturbing.

This one, I'll watch again. While it's about the same subject matter, it's more a classic Good vs evil story than an "evil in your neighbor's house" type of film. The cinematography is fantastic. While some of the cgi (the hyenas and some of the later scenes with the possessed person) is a bit dodgy, this is a stylish thriller that'll keep the viewer at the edge of the seat.

Give it a shot! (and sit up close)

I'm not psychic...but I do know a thing or two. Like throwing off the User Rating of a film before it even premieres with the combined results of over a dozen "movie critics" who rate them before seeing them. Rating a movie based on your personal feelings of whether or not it was a good idea to even make it in the first place? Oh, please, dear Amazon, either toss these reviews out or put them in a seperate voting category labeled "Unseen Movie User Ratings".
Ooopsies! I gave it 5 stars! Oh well...I didn't see it. Maybe it'll be good and my review will count.

I don't see why people didn't like this movie. It's good. It has a good story and interesting characters. Stellan Skarsgård is great as the younger version of Father Merrin, the exorcist from the first film. The sets are beautifully constructed. Renny Harlin's direction is spectacular even under certain difficulties (learn about them with his commentary track). This film has some disturbing images. The acting and story are really good and there's a big surprise near the end. The only problem I had was a scene with CGI animals but it ends pretty quickly. My second favorite out of the Exorcist films, the original being my first. Highly Recommended.

I really, honestly have no idea why this movie was bashed. From the very beginning I was curled up in my theater seat, knees to my head. I was petrified. Just when i thought it was safe to put my feet down, I put them back up in horror. Also, the film was downright disturbing. The scene with the butterflies on the wall and the supposed "exorcism" scene with the bent back fingers had me cringing and my cousin, who was sitting right next to me, screaming her head off. She's scared very easily, but my other cousin and I were both petrified and we find it extremely hard to be scared. Why the critics and audiences bashed this, I'll never know. I personally thought it was a lot more straight-forward scary than the original 'Exorcist' film. Definititely not as disturbing, but it delivers a lot more thrills that are needed now-a-days to scare the desensitized modern audience. It certainly worked, and I don't think critics realize that.

Enough already! THE EXORCIST is one of the greatest horror flicks ever made and all of these sequels, prequels... they will always come up short in comparison.

I don't know what to make of EXORCIST: THE BEGINNING. I didn't hate it but I didn't particularly like it either.
Is it a mystery-thriller? Is it a "sand & desert" action-adventure flick, with British troops pitted against African natives? Or perhaps it's an old fashioned story of love from a distance? I don't know. But it's certainly not a horror flick.

On the plus side, Stellan Skarsgard gives a great performance.

I was involved in the making of this film back in 2003/2004. I was hired as a wardrobe supplier. In fact, I still own the famous violet dress Izabella Scorupco(Dr.Sarah)wore in the final showdown with Lankaster. So, I feel the need to explain some things to the public. It's been two years now and I'm very upset with all the bashing this film has taken since it's release on home video/cable. Most of these reviews I've been reading on the internet are not only harsh but very cruel and also very ignorant. One even said they could not believe Izabella as a demon because she is "too prettty." Another one wrote they couldn't believe Stellan Skarsgard as the younger Father Merrin beause he is "too fat" to have lived long enough to be the old priest in 1973. People like this have no business writting reviews for anyone. I will remind them and all of you that don't already know. This was the only "Exorcist" film since the original to go to #1 at the box office. The second film couldn't do it even with Linda Blair. The third film couldn't do it with George C. Scott and Jason Miller. This should tell you something. It was not a great film but it is not that bad. There were many problems for sure, that is why the making of "Prequel" came about. Directors, writers and studio heads will not always agree on things. The original director, John Frankenheiemer died and Paul Schrader was brought in to make the film. The studio executives at Morgan Creek (the studio)liked the insightful story-line but felt a "Exorcist" film should be more intense and exciting. Renny Harlin was then brought in to give them just that. In the end, I don't blame them. The Exorcist films are horror and shock, not a story of a man and his personal demons for two hours with a bald devil that is more shrink than devil. The fans of the series want to see the priest facing the evil, violent demon and winning. So, with this film we did a bit of both. In the end, you can never re-create and top a great movie no matter what you try. Yet, Exorcist: The Beginning is a good film with some very cleaver idea's here and there. I feel it has taken a lot of bad press and very narrow minded reviews. So always, Judge for yourself! Don't let other people tell you to hate a film before you even see it. God bless and thank all of you!

It has been over three decades since the controversial adaptation of William Peter Blatty's "The Exorcist" frightened movie audiences worldwide and became a historical film phenomenon to be reckoned with. Now, almost fifteen years after the second sequel to the original film,"The Exorcist III", was released, a different new direction has been chosen for the fourth installment of the demonic series, instead of making a sequel, they opted to create a prequel explaining the origins of the character of Father Merrin, who decades later would exorcise Satan out of teenager Reagan. He went through some very interesting and traumatic experiences before encountering his first meeting with the Devil in Afica in the early 20th century. The film was originally to be helmed by legendary classic-movie director John Frankenheimer , but he died mysteriously shortly before principal photography commenced. Liam Neeson, who was at the time cast in the leading role as Father Merrin, dropped out of the part due to the tragic death of Mr. Frankenheimer. A new director and leading star, Paul Schrader(Director of 2002's Auto Focus) and Swedish actor Stellan Skarsgard(King Arthur),respectively, were hired. After filming wrapped, everything seemed to be in perfect harmony until Warner Brothers Pictures fired Paul Schrader because they thought his version of the picture was dull, boring, and lacked scares. So they shelved his cut of the movie(still hoping to release it into the public eventually) and hired yet another new director, Renny Harlin(Deep Blue Sea) to envision and create a more action-packed, gorier, and more intensely graphic motion picture as opposed to Schrader's more psychological and eerie take on the story. Almost the entire film was reshot with some different actors and the results are apparently astoundingly unlike each other. On August 20th, 2004, Harlin's cut creeped its way into theaters and was welcomed to negative critical feedback, but that did not stop the powerful force from earning the #1 box-office spot for that weekend. It is by no means the terryfing and powerfully shocking fright-machine the original was, mainly because it was mostly concerned with briefly scaring the audience with cheap scares and ludicrous gore effects, mostly showcased by uneffective-looking CGI imagery. The acting and performances are also a little stiff at times, including a romantic angle between Father Merrin and a local doctor who is baffled by the strange happenings surrounding the excavation site were ancient ruins were recently discovered. The romance was not very well deveoped, and it happened too quickly under the circumstances to be believable. But the film also has some strengths going for it, like the grim and morbid atmosphere that creeps full circle during the movie. The cinematography is also well-coordinated, and the opening sequence was memorable and impressive. Add to that some depressive and dark flashbacks, a tight and snappy pace that will assuredly never bore you, and you've got yourself a serviciable althought not entirely memorable entry in the demonic possession horror genre. Recommended for fans of the Exorcist series, loyal viewers of horror and occult movies, and adults looking for an entertaining fright flick to watch on a rainy day. Rated R for strong violence and gore, disturbing images and rituals, and for language including some sexual dialogue.