Directed by:
Renny HarlinScreenplay:
Alexi HawleyCinematography:
Vittorio StoraroComposer:
Trevor RabinCast:
Stellan Skarsgård, Izabella Scorupco, James D'Arcy, Julian Wadham, Antonie Kamerling, David Bradley, Alan Ford, Ben Cross, Ralph Brown, Michel Leroy (more)VOD (2)
Plots(1)
Sent to Africa at the close of World War II to tend to the needs of the local community, Father Lankester Merrin gets more than he ever bargained for when he has his first brush with a devilish force known simply as Pazuzu. (Netflix)
Videos (2)
Reviews (5)
Exorcist: The Beginning is skillfully shot, with nice production design and detailed composition that takes into account the color palette of the picture. But it’s not clear what exactly is going on in the film. This is a catastrophic mishmash of hackneyed motifs, especially the trauma caused by the Nazis, and the most debased formulas for inducing disgust, reminiscent of old Eurotrash flicks. If not for Stellan Skarsgard, who can make anything believable, this wouldn’t deserve even the weak two stars that I’m giving it.
()
Exorcist: The Beginning is simply something that builds on a great movie and a not-so-great series, and it creates its own mythos, which, to be fair, isn't entirely bad and it works. Unfortunately, the connection to World War II in this case felt very gratuitous, and the plot could essentially do without it. Although, Stellan's character gains another dimension through it, and Father Merrin remains the most intriguing character.
()
I love the original The Exorcist and consider it the best horror film of all time. Its sequel... Um, how do I put this... I hate the sequel. Except for The Beginning, which has some distinct pluses (and it's a prequel). First of all, the setting - 99% of the plot (i.e., everything except the flashbacks) takes place in Africa, where you have the feeling that some mystical evil is lurking around every corner. Second, Stellan Skarsgård. Thirdly, Harlin's direction, which doesn't play at anything innovative and, where it can, copies Friedkin's tried-and-true and impressive style from the original film. Fourth, the rawness, the gore and the generally dense atmosphere that runs through the film. Bottom line: I'm satisfied. Although it's not like the original film (because nothing is).
()
It's already discouraging that the film is conceived to ride on the wave of popularity of the first and already legendary The Exorcist, but it only succeeds very sporadically. The huge amount of poorly done effects (terrible hyenas) was surprising and seemed quite strange for a big production. On the other hand, it's not surprising from good-old Harlin, who seems to have undergone a brain operation in the new century. He can't direct actors and doesn't know what to do. Several scenes are good, the lighting work deserves attention, but in terms of the screenplay, the new Exorcist is quite uneven and the ending is nonsense.
()
"God is not here today, priest!" Prompted by the production company, the bloody Renny Harlin replaced 90% of Schrader’s psychological material, resulting in a B-grade exorcism film where the scariest thing is the appearance of hyenas not far from those in The Lion King (the 1994 version). It includes familiar elements like flies, possessed gymnastics, and Pac-Man-colored contact lenses, aiming to make the stomach churn and induce vomiting. The final exorcism even drifts into other genre territories, but as a one-time entertainment piece on the theme of “Don’t turn Jesus into an antagonist,” it’s sufficient for the undemanding. It’s a pity that we don’t need to worry about Father Merrin. It’s clear from the start that he won’t die and will find faith, or else he wouldn’t be iconically standing in front of houses under the streetlamp.
()
Ads