Exorcist: The Beginning (2004)
|
The Exorcist has quite a pedigree. The novel dominated the bestseller list for 55 weeks. The first movie version, The Exorcist (1973), was directed by Oscar winner William Friedkin and was itself nominated for Best Picture. Exorcist 2: The Heretic (1977) was helmed by Oscar nominee John Boorman. Exorcist 3 (1990) was directed by the author of the novel and an Oscar winner in his own right, William Peter Blatty. Now we have Exorcist: The Beginning, directed by 4-time Razzie nominee, Renny Harlin. What's wrong with this picture?
There's a lot wrong with this picture, but there are also a few things right with it. The cinematography, by the legendary Vittorio Storaro, is so atmospheric the dust motes practically float off the screen. The score, by former Yes member Trevor Rabin, alternates between subtle and stirring. The star, Stellan Skarsgard (who's one of my all-time faves) is an actor who was magnificent in movies like Insomnia and Good Will Hunting -- and he was the best thing in King Arthur earlier this year. Exorcist: The Beginning does have a thunderous, Satan-soaked climax, complete with a well-done homage to Regan (no pea soup, though).
The movie has been bedeviled with problems from the git-go. Renowned writer/director Paul Schrader was originally hired to direct, but he turned in a completed version that studio suits decided was too cerebral and not nearly scary enough. So popcorn-friendly Harlin was hired to do a completely new version, presumably to bring up the blood and boobs factor. Rumors have plagued the production, and it was even announced online and on television that Warner Bros. was so worried that they would not be showing it to critics in advance. (I saw the movie on the lot before it came out, so that's not true.)
Exorcist: The Beginning is -- you guessed it -- a prequel. It explores the younger life of Father Merrin (a role made famous by Max Von Sydow in 1973, played by Skarsgard now) and his very first encounter with true evil. We learn that it was a Nazi, Lieutenant Kessel (Antonie Kamerling), who broke Merrin's faith in God. Exorcist: The Beginning picks up where Merrin meets evil again several years later in Africa where he is employed to lead the excavation of a mysterious Byzantine church which was seemingly buried just days after its completion. Directly beneath the church, Merrin discovers a much more ancient temple of worship: One of unspeakable wickedness, now uncovered by the excavation and ready for some fresh air (and fresh souls!). So far, so good.
Merrin meets the local mercenary doctor (played by the beautiful Izabella Scorupco… sorry but in real life, these ladies look like Mother Theresa more often than not) and there's an instant attraction. OK, I'll go along; after all, Merrin has denounced the priesthood. Right around here we also meet Jeffries (Alan Ford), a crass digger with a boil-infected face, rotten teeth, and a penchant for gut-rot. When he makes some crude comments to the pretty doctor-lady, his leer is more laughable than threatening. So far, not so good.
About 1/3 through the movie, when the horribly-rendered CGI hyenas show up, ye can abandon all hope. In broad strokes Exorcist: The Beginning is a compelling story -- but the devil's in the details. Too many little things don't add up. Consequently, just as the movie is teetering on the brink of promise it plummets into a pit of cheese fondue, thanks to ridiculous dialogue, appallingly bad special effects, and characters you couldn't care less about. The story crumbles into what feels like an exercise in scriptwriting meets Mad Libs (the screenwriter, Alexi Hawley, wisely lined up his next job before this movie came out).
Since there is really no competition to cross it this weekend, Exorcist: The Beginning will probably do OK. In fact, I daresay some people will enjoy the movie -- for me, it was saved in the 'Old Nick' of time by its bang-up ending. If you're a big fan of unintended camp or/and movies that depict dramatic demonic possession then go ahead and give the devil his due. Otherwise, wait for the big "Satan taste test" when both the Schrader and Harlin versions hit DVD.
Review by Staci Layne Wilson for Horror.com
Also take a look at Horror.com's premiere coverage and 60 Second Review of "Exorcist: The Beginning."
| I saw this movie at the drive-in and basically laughed through the entire film...and how can you justify an ending so cheesy! It was like watching a possessed spiderman fighting my grandpa if he thought he was a super hero...complete cheese. The hyenas took the cake though. Did they lift those suckers from the Lion King? | |
| 01-09-2005 by MetalHeadDave | discuss |
| Exorcist 4 | |
| I totally agree with the long-ish post/review of this dire prequel. Why doesn't Hollywood just leave a classic film like The Exorcist alone. This film was not even 'so bad it was good' - it was just sooooooooo bad. | |
| 09-17-2004 by brianjohn | discuss |
| i didnt read that long second post horror can i at least mod tv shows | |
| 08-25-2004 by massacre man | discuss |
| wow | |
| 08-23-2004 by KRUGERKID13 | discuss |
| THE DEVIL MAKES THEM DO IT | |
| On Christmas Eve 1973, director William Friedkin, fresh off his Oscar win for “The French Connection”, brought his considerable talent and street-tough filmic approach to unveil the screen adaptation of William Peter Blatty’s 1971 bestselling book “The Exorcist”. The results—a pitch-perfect fit of filmmaker and subject—shook the foundations of cinematic fright. Of course, the money-makers in Hollywood knew a cash cow when they saw one, and they were determined to milk it for every last dollar. And early on, after the flop of its initial sequel, 1976’s “Exorcist II: The Heretic” directed by John Boorman, the Powers-That-Be realized that any money to be made from this venture had to be done independent of any film “artist”. Granted, Boorman’s sequel was a mess, but a glorious one nonetheless. Full of spectacularly lurid scenes of flying locusts, sexy demons lurking in an abandoned Georgetown house, ESP mind-synching and a truly ludicrous performance by Richard Burton, “The Heretic” had guts, even if it failed miserably (actually, the film does have its share of fans; none other than Martin Scorsese has gone on record saying that “Exorcist II” is one of his favorite works of the Seventies). Stung by the appalling failure of the Boorman film, the studios were determined never again to let vision get in the way of product. In 1989, author William Peter Blatty resurrected the tale for the screen. Based on his bestselling novel “Legion”, the story followed Lt. Kinderman, a character from the original story, as he struggles to solve a series of grisly murders patterned after a dead serial killer. His trail leads to the exorcism that occurred in Georgetown, and a direct confrontation with the demon that possessed Regan McNeil. Looking for lightning to strike twice, the brass had high hopes. After all, Blatty was the one who started it all, and if anyone could bring the flocks in, it was the man who cultivated the story of “The Exorcist” into two bestselling books and a box-office champ. However, when they saw his initial cut, their reaction was one of bewilderment. Why are there no exorcisms? No spinning heads or projectile vomiting? What is this existentialist horror crap? Blatty argued that he was faithful to his novel, right down to bringing in Jason Miller as the not-quite-dead Father Karras. In the end, Blatty was forced to add a pointless sub-story involving a Father Morning, who has nothing to do with anything but has to somehow come in and save the day with a fire-and-brimstone exorcism. So in the end you have two thirds of a very good and genuinely creepy spiritual horror film with a ridiculously over-the-top ending that means nothing, does nothing to advance the well-crafted story, but by golly sports one hell of an exorcism, complete with slithering snakes and a dancing chorus of demons. Which brings us to the forth installment, “Exorcist: The Beginning”. Written in part by Caleb Carr, author of the novel “The Alienist”, “Exorcist: The Beginning” involves the early years of Father Merrin, the elderly exorcist of the 1973 original. In this prequel, Merrin is a disillusioned Cleric who has abandoned Christ after his first-hand witnessing of the horrors of evil, here in the form of the advancing Nazi Regime who used him as a pawn in their sadistic games. Now a layman, he is hired by a mysterious faction of the Church to explore the recently uncovered ruins of a Catholic cathedral, inexplicitly built thousands of years before Christ. This leads to his first encounter with the demon Pizuzu, the bugger who went on to possess poor little Regan years later. Originally, the film was to be directed by the great John Frankenheimer, the master behind such classic films as the original “Manchurian Candidate” and the creepy Rock Hudson vehicle “Seconds”. Frankenheimer had success following Friedkin’s lead with his rambunctious sequel to “The French Connection”, so hopes were high. However, this pairing of director and project was not to be. Shortly before filming, Frankenheimer had to be admitted into the hospital, which led to his unfortunate death. Undeterred, the studio brass (in this case Morgan Creek, which bought the Exorcist franchise from Warner Bros. and William Peter Blatty) actually had a rare creative idea: let’s bring in Paul Schrader to helm it. Schrader has an interesting religious background: the product of a strict Dutch Calvinist upbringing, he was forbidden to see any films, and didn’t actually witness his first movie until his 18th birthday. Escaping the confines of his Grand Rapids, Michigan homestead, Schrader relocated in Hollywood, where he became the successful screenwriter of such gems as “Taxi Driver” and “The Last Temptation of Christ”. As a filmmaker, his works of passion included “Hardcore”, the story of a strict religious man whose daughter has disappeared into the world of pornography, and “Mishima”, a spiritual look at the haunted life of Japanese writer Yukio Mishima. In a marriage of filmmaker and material, Schrader’s religion-scorched past and the spiritually challenged world of “The Exorcist” seemed like an ideal match. Of course, this doesn’t take into account the concerns of actual profit-motives. When Schrader screened his nearly-finished cut of the film, the bigwigs of Morgan Creek shuttered. It was the Blatty incident all over again: another film “artist” ruining any chance of box-office returns by giving a passionate, soul-searching account of the nature of Evil. Not taking any chances, Morgan Creek promptly fired Paul Schrader and sought out a filmmaker without the inconvenience of a personal vision to jazz up the final product. They uncovered Renny Harlin, the Finnish director-for-hire responsible for such mainstream romps as “Die Hard II” and “Deep Blue Sea” (itself a rip-off of “Jaws”). Harlin proved to be an amiable replacement, discarding the philosophical aspects of the tale for a more commercially-viable “homage” to the original shocks and grunts. Suddenly “Exorcist: The Beginning” is a film filled with menacing computer-generated jackals, blood dripping in all the wrong places, desert sandstorms a la the recent update of “The Mummy”, corpses dropped from above on cue to make the audience jump, and more-than-enough references to Friedkin’s original for moviegoers to checklist. Clocks suddenly stopping for no reason? Check. Menacing-looking Arabs in a foreign land banging on metal in unison? Check. A repugnant British drunkard getting his comeuppance? Check. A possessed person resembling Linda Blair with a ghastly face saying unspeakably lewd things in a coarse voice? Check. A horrific serpentine tongue from said possessed person? Check. You get the picture. Gone are truly tortured souls like Father Karras and Lieutenant Kinderman struggling with the concept of Evil. In these days of the “With Us Or Against Us” philosophy-ethic, struggling with one’s soul is being a sissy. Thus Merrin, while still tormented by his conscious from his past dealings, has been relegated to the role of super hero, a Super-Priest-In-Waiting. His black-and-white antics—a surly disposition, his refusal to call himself “Father” Merrin, a reluctance to speak of his tortured dealings with the Nazis—set us up for his inevitable return to Faith. This is Hollywood Storytelling at its most basic. “Exorcist: The Beginning” is chop-filled with disposable characters, grandstanding special effects (artificially generated by obvious CGI computer graphics), menacing music cues telling us when to be scared, and strategically timed jolts that inevitably mean nothing. Now, to be sure, there are ways of playing with clichés and still making a work exciting. A case in point could be the television series “Rescue Me”, starring Denis Leary as a tortured fire fighter. This show uses every cliché under the sun and still manages to be innovative and even moving at times. Why? Because it has love for its characters and faith in its storytelling. An audience is willing to go with a tired cliché if it is a means of expressing a person’s inner life, and if the character on the screen is someone we can identify. Then the chestnut, tired and worn as it may be, becomes an extension of the character, not the reverse. Look at “Training Day” with Denzel Washington, or Brian De Palma’s “Blow Out”, or any of Quentin Tarantino’s works. But all that requires intelligence, a cinematic conscious, if you will. Renny Harlin, though certainly an able and workmanlike filmmaker, does not possess such skills. He is a showman, no more, no less. And this is exactly why he was hired. Perhaps one day he will get his calling from the cinematic gods and make his masterpiece, but for now hokum such as “Exorcist: The Beginning” will be his forte. Now there is talk that all is not lost and Paul Schrader’s vision may yet reach the light of day: Morgan Creek has recently stated that they are planning on a DVD release for next year of both the Schrader version and the Harlin version, perhaps as a double disc set. They even hinted at a brief theatrical release of the Schrader film, which would be nice. But this is all speculative right now, and it really depends on the kind of box-office the Harlin-conceived forth installment generates. If the money men sense that they have a dying franchise on their hands, Schrader’s film could be buried forever. Which would be a shame. Blatty’s passion-play tale of demons and lost faith and the revelation of evil in a modern world deserves a better finale than computer-generated jackals and frights handpicked from the accountant’s office. | |
| 08-23-2004 by michael_meade | discuss |