Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
Exorcist: The Beginning (2004)
This film was was entertaining, but had holes and flaws.
--SPOILERS!!-- A former Priest denounces his faith and becomes an archeologist after being forced to choose people to be executed in 1940's Nazi Germany. In 1949 he is then asked to help with an archaeological dig in Egypt to help find an idol which is believed to be in a church buried underground. The church, at the request of a Priest surviving a massive war, is placed over specific place where it is believed that Lucifer fell to Earth, and then immediately buried. The idol is a small carving of the devils head (see the first five minutes of "The Exorcist" to see what it looks like.
There were character developments that had nothing to do with advancing the story lines. What was the point of the old guy with the continuing health problems who then ends up mutilated at the church? His whole part in the story was either useless, or it was the biggest clue in revealing that the doctor was possessed. He kept bother the doctor, and therefor paid for it, because the doctor was possessed and the devil didn't like it? I don't know. Did all the trouble start happening because the idol was taken from the statue that was in the caves under the church? Why was the boy behaving so unusual? Was he possessed too? And finally (after skipping more questions I have), when the doctor was finally exorcised, why did the back of her head start gushing blood all of a sudden?
In conclusion, this movie was entertaining, but don't expect it to explain it's own storyline. It had a few good jumps, but a lot were predictable. Just because you see this movie, that doesn't mean you will understand the beginning of the original movie any better. Oh, and don't expect it to tie into the original, except for the Priest character.
Return to Cabin by the Lake (2001)
It was decent in theory.
I saw this on the Sci-Fi channel. It came on right after the first one. For some reason this movie kept me interested. I don't know why, stop asking.
---SPOILERS--- Okay... It was cheesy how this guy got involved with the making of the movie. In the first movie, he had a "reason" to kill people, but in this sequal, half of the killings/attempted killings were basicly for no reason. Stanley killed the director due to creative differences, he captured the co-writer due to creative differences, but what was the deal with trying to kill off the cast? No cast, no movie. He wanted it to "look real when they died"? If this was supposed to be such a high budget movie, use the special effects, MAN. Of course like the first one, the captured girl gets away, and Stanley ends up getting messed up, and dissapears. Woooooow (sarcasm). This movie HAD potential. And the saddest thing of all... the really sad part... I would watch a "Cabin by the Lake 3". Only because I like Judd Nelson, and he's the only good part about this sequal.