Watch Exorcist: The Beginning For Free

Touches You

I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

This prequel to "The Exorcist" seeks to follow the first confrontation between a young Father Merrin and Pazuzu, countering the opening scenes of the first film. The environment of the film is roughly in British Kenya, where a Byzantine chapel has just been discovered, in perfect condition because it was deliberately buried soon after construction. Here begins the problems of this film, with the script gluing Byzantine art to a chapel whose interior has nothing to do with it, besides being outside the geographical area where the Byzantines were. Okay, the movie is fiction, but does it need to invent something so unrealistic? Father Merrin is the most dense and complete character. Interpreted by Stellan Skarsgård in a relatively satisfactory manner, he is a priest in doubt due to the remorse and traumas of World War II. All this has been well used and intelligently developed. Another thing I liked was the romantic subplot between the priest and Sarah, the attractive nurse of the field, played by Izabella Scorupco. Possessions are slow to occur although demonic signs are evident, and the ending may even be surprising, but only partially. The film attempts to compensate for obvious screenplay flaws with special effects, but most attempts are so rudimentary that it does not have the desired impact. Renny Harlin may not be the worst director ever but he is definitely not one of the best. Throughout the film, there are very obvious exaggerations, likely fruit of a bad script and an indolent director. One of them is the characterization of Scorupco at the end of the film, in a clear and unnecessary allusion to "The Exorcist". This film was an effort, but an effort without glory or merit for any of those involved.

the basic temptation - to compare it with the original. and , off course, to define it at not the most inspired sequel. but, more important is the status of different story. sure, it explains the mission of Father Merrin 's roots. but this is only a part of picture. because the film propose a fascinating drawing of the evil. the church, the memories/experience of war, the origins of the fight against Pazuzu, the subtle references to colonialism, the doubts who represent ingredient of great Romano-Catholic biographies, few spectacular scenes, the decent acting - Stellan Skarsgard as real inspired option for his role -, the atmosphere, faces, the sketch of love story, the truth, the slow rhythm of a story- one of the most important parts of its seduction are motifs to not blame to hard a real good film . because its purpose is not exactly to be competitor against a classic but to explore another side of a well known story. and it does this mission in beautiful manner.

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 wasn't really expecting that much, but this movie really surprised me. Going into it i was unsure if it was going to stack up to its earlier counterpart, but i was pleasantly surprised. The writer of this movie must have been seriously disturbed as a child. The script is fantastic and the movie all together is flawless(the cgi was a bit spotty, but was forgivable). The conflicts in the movie add even more suspense to this already suspenseful movie. Father Merine has lost his faith in God and anything supernatural and throughout the entire movie is looking for a logical answer for everything that is happening around him. This film also had one of the most disturbing scenes i have ever seen, with a young child being mauled by a pack of hyenas. It was brutal. But this movie is a great compliment to its cult classic sequel. A must see.