Father Lankester Merrin (Stellan Skarsgård) is summoned by a collector of rare antiquities and asked to find a mysterious statue of the demon Pazuzu in a poverty-stricken African village. Once there, Merrin participates in an archaeological excavation which unearths a Byzantine church. This mysterious temple dates back to a time before Christianity arrived to the region. But what's even more mysterious is the evidence which suggests that the perfectly preserved church was buried as soon as it was completed. Panic among the townspeople soon follow and evidence of a demonic force gives reason to suspect that something else was unearthed. Something powerful and evil.
The original "Exorcist" was greeted with mixed reviews when it was first released during the Christmas season of 1973. However, that did not stop it from becoming an almost instant classic garnering several Oscar nods and praise from film buffs everywhere.
The fate of its sequels on the other hand suffered the exact opposite. The first sequel "The Heretic" has been branded by many as the worst sequel in film history. An exaggerated claim but there is no denying that the film is inferior to the original. The second sequel "Exorcist III" received poor reviews and lousy box-office returns but has since developed a rather loyal following. "The Beginning" critically suffered the same fate. We'll just have to wait and see if time is as kind to this instalment as it was to Blatty's "Exorcist III".
"The Beginning" is not that bad as a horror film. If you view this with your expectations set low, you may be surprised by it. I also think the film's main problem is having "Exorcist" in its title. I think people would have accepted this film and would have been kinder to it had it not been a prequel to one of the greatest horror movies of all times. If judged on its own terms, "Exorcist: The Beginning" has a lot to offer the horror film fan; Decent visual effects (less CGI would have been nice though), a good cast, decent make-up effects, some good cinematography, good production values and an interesting storyline. But I guess you can say the same about the first sequel - "The Heretic" and we all know how that one turned out. I guess execution is key and it is in the execution where both films lose it and collapse. I did find the demon (or demons) in this film frightening in certain scenes. We see it's grisly work throughout the village but it never really materializes. It also appears to be far more potent than in the previous films. In the original, the malevolent entity almost destroys the spirit of a little girl. Here we see it consume an entire town as well as its people.
The film's biggest disappointment is in its weak and extremely cheesy exorcism scene. Without giving spoilers, the entire climax seemed rushed, broke no new grounds and it seemed like a pathetic attempt to copy the originals style. If shock value was what the film-makers were aiming for, they failed and the end result is a laughable imitation of the original film and the lame, sexual dialogue had no real purpose other than to try to achieve what Friedkin achieved back in 1973. Also disappointing is the unnecessary twist. It has become obvious that none of these movies, from the "Heretic" all the way up to "The Beginning", bothered in keeping continuity since the characters and time lines do not match up at all making this a very disjointed franchise.
With that said, I found this much maligned prequel to be a somewhat enjoyable night at the theatre. It's better than many of its detractors would have you to believe but it is miles away from being great. It is on par with the equally panned "The Heretic" but inferior to Part III which is far more effective in its psychological terror, and this film would have been much better had they not fumbled the all too important climax.
I recommend "Exorcist: The Beginning" to the casual horror film fan but it needs to be viewed with an open mind especially if you're a fan of the original film. If not, you will most definitely, religiously hate it.
NOTE: There are 2 prequels to "The Exorcist". Renny Harlin's "The Beginning" and Paul Schrader's "Dominion: Prequel To The Exorcist" which fared a bit better critically. I recommend both films but rent before you buy because they are very different.
The original "Exorcist" was greeted with mixed reviews when it was first released during the Christmas season of 1973. However, that did not stop it from becoming an almost instant classic garnering several Oscar nods and praise from film buffs everywhere.
The fate of its sequels on the other hand suffered the exact opposite. The first sequel "The Heretic" has been branded by many as the worst sequel in film history. An exaggerated claim but there is no denying that the film is inferior to the original. The second sequel "Exorcist III" received poor reviews and lousy box-office returns but has since developed a rather loyal following. "The Beginning" critically suffered the same fate. We'll just have to wait and see if time is as kind to this instalment as it was to Blatty's "Exorcist III".
"The Beginning" is not that bad as a horror film. If you view this with your expectations set low, you may be surprised by it. I also think the film's main problem is having "Exorcist" in its title. I think people would have accepted this film and would have been kinder to it had it not been a prequel to one of the greatest horror movies of all times. If judged on its own terms, "Exorcist: The Beginning" has a lot to offer the horror film fan; Decent visual effects (less CGI would have been nice though), a good cast, decent make-up effects, some good cinematography, good production values and an interesting storyline. But I guess you can say the same about the first sequel - "The Heretic" and we all know how that one turned out. I guess execution is key and it is in the execution where both films lose it and collapse. I did find the demon (or demons) in this film frightening in certain scenes. We see it's grisly work throughout the village but it never really materializes. It also appears to be far more potent than in the previous films. In the original, the malevolent entity almost destroys the spirit of a little girl. Here we see it consume an entire town as well as its people.
The film's biggest disappointment is in its weak and extremely cheesy exorcism scene. Without giving spoilers, the entire climax seemed rushed, broke no new grounds and it seemed like a pathetic attempt to copy the originals style. If shock value was what the film-makers were aiming for, they failed and the end result is a laughable imitation of the original film and the lame, sexual dialogue had no real purpose other than to try to achieve what Friedkin achieved back in 1973. Also disappointing is the unnecessary twist. It has become obvious that none of these movies, from the "Heretic" all the way up to "The Beginning", bothered in keeping continuity since the characters and time lines do not match up at all making this a very disjointed franchise.
With that said, I found this much maligned prequel to be a somewhat enjoyable night at the theatre. It's better than many of its detractors would have you to believe but it is miles away from being great. It is on par with the equally panned "The Heretic" but inferior to Part III which is far more effective in its psychological terror, and this film would have been much better had they not fumbled the all too important climax.
I recommend "Exorcist: The Beginning" to the casual horror film fan but it needs to be viewed with an open mind especially if you're a fan of the original film. If not, you will most definitely, religiously hate it.
NOTE: There are 2 prequels to "The Exorcist". Renny Harlin's "The Beginning" and Paul Schrader's "Dominion: Prequel To The Exorcist" which fared a bit better critically. I recommend both films but rent before you buy because they are very different.