Exorcist: The Beginning (2004)

Too much of everything

A lot more amusing than I thought it would be.

The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

In the same way that Columbus discovered "America"--a giant place that was there for millions of years; Marrin discovered churches in east Africa. The problem is that Christianity factually entered that area during the 3-4th centuries. The first church in that region--Debre Damo--was built in the late 500's A.C.E. It is worth noting that Christianity actually started in the east and then spread to Rome.. not the other way around. Aside from that, as an atheist, I don't take much of the movie seriously. I do like the horror genre so I try my best to appreciate a good story line either way.I was drawn to the side-story that "bad things" were happening during the filming of this movie back in 2003. I am not certain as to whether they were trying to use the same "supernatural appeal" that Blair Witch had a few years earlier.

Making a prequel to "The Exorcist" is an interesting idea. Though briefly touched upon in "Exorcist II: The Heretic," a movie most would ignore anyway, the full details of Father Merrin's first encounter with the demon all that time ago in African had never been elaborated upon. Prequels were still hot business in 2005, as well, before that cycle turned to the current reboot cycle where in now. Of course now, we all know what a massive mess the production of "Exorcist: The Beginning" was. The original director died before production started, the version shot by Paul Schrader was discarded by Morgan Creek for being too noncommercial and too bloodless, and Renny Harlin was brought in to shoot an entirely different movie. Neither version was critically or financially successful, making the whole ordeal look like a totally wasted endeavor. Of the two, "The Beginning" has always been considered the worst, which is why I've avoided it until now.After witnessing Nazi atrocities in World War II, Father Merrin lost his faith and abandoned the cloth. Instead, he turns to archeology as a career. He is sent to Africa to find further information about a casting of a Sumerian demon. There, he discovers an ancient Christian church, buried underground and left in perfect condition. The church is full of blasphemous desecration. Soon, strange events begin to happen in the village around the church. A boy acts strangely, seemingly under the sway of something. Tension rises between the African natives and the British army, leading to war. Merrin soon realizes the devil is responsible and must regain his faith to fight back the demon.There's many things I dislike about "Exoricst: The Beginning" but I'll start with the nonsensical plot. The movie breaks continuity with "Exoricst II: The Heretic" wildly, which is not surprising. However, that the movie dispenses entirely with established lore is frustrating. Kokumo is not mentioned and Merrin does not perform an exorcism on a little boy. The plot revolving around the abandoned church goes wildly awry. It is revealed that a massacre occurred in this spot years ago and that the Catholic Church believes this to be the spot where Satan fell from heaven. As a result of this, everyone around the church goes violently insane. Eventually, the English soldiers and the native Africans get into a bloody battle together as a result of this, with plenty of suicides. None of this has much to do with the mythology of "The Exorcist." The plot is mostly a collection of unrelated gory sequence, the faithless Father Merrin and the boy he believes to be possessed wandering around the edges of the story."Exorcist: The Beginning" is also an awful horror movie. The movie indulges in all the worst excesses of modern studio horror. The film is packed full of obnoxious jump scares, loud noises or musical stings or sudden appearances screaming at the audience all the time. Morgan Creek reportedly refilmed the movie because they wanted more gore in it. Director Renny Harlin, he of "Die Hard 2" fame, gave them just that. The movie is loaded with sickening violence. A psychic force breaks men's fingers and arms, the bone stabbing through the flesh. A body is found with a huge chunk of meat taken out of the middle. Another dangles from his entrails. The movie is loaded with CGI head shots. I can't even enjoy this stuff from the perspective of a gorehound, partially because of the crappy CGI but mostly because the violence so nihilistic and thoughtless in its use. Speaking of crappy special effects, what about those CGI hyenas? Who thought that was a good idea? In its last half-hour, "Exorcist: The Beginning" remembers that it's a prequel to "The Exorcist." In a cheap plot twist, the character we've been led to believe is possessed is not. Instead, a character that has shown no previous symptoms is revealed to be possessed. Set inside the abandoned church, what follows is a melodramatic battle between Merrin and the demon. The possessed person gains the same sickly skin, scars, and voice as Linda Blair did back in 1973. Using modern special effects, the possessed bends their body at painful angles, screams limp profanity, and slithers around on the wall. Merrin regains his faith spontaneously, his character arc coming to a blunt resolution. Because this movie was made by idiots, Merrin exerting the power of God over the demon is shown literally by waves of "power" blasting and twisting the demon's body.Despite being an otherwise terrible movie, "Exorcist: The Beginning" does have a pretty good cast. One of the few reoccurring faces between both versions is Stellen Skarsgaard as Merrin. The flashbacks to the war, the event that made the priest loose his faith, are melodramatically presented and cut into the present story in inelegant ways. Skarsgaard does his best though, doing professional work with the material he's given. I also like Izabella Scorupco, who has chemistry with Skarsgaard. The conversations between the two actors, and the slow way her history is revealed, are the only times the movie begins to feel like a real film."The Exorcist" was a horror film for adults, struggling with serious and complex issues. "Exorcist: The Beginning" is a horror film for stupid teenagers, full of senseless gore and a thoughtless story. It's so dumb that it actually ends with a sequel hook, Merrin now dressed as a priest and walking off like a superhero. That one of the best horror films of all time is associated with this massive piece of tripe is an insult to every living creature on the planet.

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.

This exorcism story lacks any originality, particularly in the stereotypical treatment of characters. It goes beyond predictable.The hero is the usual cynic we get in 99.9999% of action films, and this one is over the top. The director tries to get us to buy into this character with the usual trite devices, and we just don't care.This would've been overused even 40 years ago.We get the usual and predictable gore and violence, and are not impressed.We never can really buy into the plot, the characters, or the logistics of what happens. We know the good priest will fail, and the cynic will succeed, because that is Hollywood. But the writing never even comes close to giving any credibility to this. It probably could have been done, but it wasn't done. Poor writing, and of course, since the director has the last say, poor directing.