Exorzist: Der Anfang

I watched Schrader's "Dominion" in the morning and Harlin's "Beginning" in the afternoon, hoping that watching them back to back would make a comparison easier than for most people who waited a year until the deleted version by Schrader was finally released. Renny Harlin used only a few minutes from the already existing footage, so "Beginning" really became a new movie. But unfortunately, the whole effort of re-shooting didn't make the movie better.

In Harlin's "remake", we get a smart young priest, straight from the Vatican (James D'Arcy) who has received all the information about the buried church in advance. In "Dominion", Gabriel Mann played an innocent priest who does not expect anything terrible, he just wants to start a school in the middle of Africa. The latter was the better screenplay idea in my opinion, because D'Arcy is such a cool "professional" that we don't really care about him, whereas Mann was a character the audience loves for his human feelings. Also there is more mystery in "Domionion" whereas "Beginning" once explained the whole background, and that was it - too easy.

"Beginning" has a lot more gory effects, swarms of ugly insects and its demon uses obscenities in same way Linda Blair did in the original "Exorcist" movie. This will probably entertain people who just want a horror movie and nothing else. Mind you, "Beginning" also has good photography, a few unforgettable moments like the battlefield at the beginning and good actors! But the release of the original version "Dominion" proved that the story has had more potential, Schrader worked more careful with the characters and their relationships and gave more food for thought. I voted 6/10 for "Beginning" and 8/10 for "Dominion".

Here's a film which had a more interesting story behind the cameras rather than on the screen. This beleaguered production originally had Paul Schrader directing, but studio bosses were unhappy with his more intellectual interpretation of the events so they hired go-to guy Renny Harlin for extensive reshoots that amped up the gore content. What emerges is a troubled, visceral production with occasional flashes of greatness. Overall it's a let down, with a sense of what could have been rather than what is.

The film sets off on a poor footing with some extremely bad CGI work of a huge landscape. These kind of schlocky effects periodically turn up and are laughed off screen every time they appeared; a scene involving CGI-ed jackals is particularly bad. The ensuing story is choppy and disjointed, building up a series of portentous moments and religious iconography and then backing away from them. There's also a lot of bad taste stuff involving plague victims, a stillborn birth and colonial racism.

As the sort-of youthful Father Merrin, Stellan Skarsgard is a bit of a mixed bag. He's suitably tough, but his icy exterior never cracks for an instant, meaning it's difficult to feel any sympathy for him. He's supported by a bland James D'Arcy, a pretty-but-wasted Izabella Scorupco and two cameos from Ben Cross (a neat bit of casting, seeing as he himself played an exorcist in THE UNHOLY) and David Bradley. More fun is Alan Ford (SNATCH) as a delightfully scuzzy deadbeat.

Finally, after a lot of spectacle and not a great deal of sense, the film plays its true hand in the last twenty minutes. Here it becomes a full blown EXORCIST copy, complete with an extended and dramatic showdown between good and evil and not bad makeup effects. In actual fact I didn't mind the ending, it may be cheesy but at least there's stuff going on. I wish, thought, that it hadn't taken so long to get there – it's one of those films which is all build up and little actual climax. This isn't a particularly great film, but it isn't particularly bad either; just kind of so-so.

In this prequel to the classic horror 'The Exorcist' we meet Father Merrin during a phase of his life where he has lost his faith. Stellan Skarsgard plays this role excellently and is easy to relate to the character we know from the original film, when he joins a British excavation in Kenya where a Christian church has been unearthed. Beneath the church lies the dormant horror that Father Merrin seems destined to meet.

The direction is stylish, the cast are very strong, especially Skarguard, D'Arcy and Scorupco; and the film delivers background story and horror far more convincingly than i ever believed it would.

7/10

I have read many of the comments concerning this movie and find that I tend to feel that this movie should not be judged in relation to the first. This movie stands out on its own by reviewing Father Merrin's life long before his fateful encounter with Regan years later. My son Nathan and daughter Ryann both found this too scary for them and felt it was far more scarier than the first. I saw it to be more historical and would judge it on that content. Yes, people are right in their comments about all the gore and vileness, but I saw that in the first movie in 1973 when it came out. I'm going to venture to say that people are turned off by this movie simply because it in no way resembles the original. This is the part where a director steps back and quits trying to leech off the first success. Give him some credit about trying to diversify this movie for the audience. Don't go in with any type of preconceived notion about the original or you will be disappointed like the rest in these comments. It is a good movie and well worth seeing. Mark Lockwood, Lubbock Tx...

In 1949, the British army has stumbled onto a buried Byzantium church in Kenya. The church's date is too early and shouldn't exist. Merrin (Stellan Skarsgård) is a former priest who suffered a traumatic war experience. He's called in to help with the archaeological dig. Father Francis (James D'Arcy) is sent in by the Vatican, and Sarah (Izabella Scorupco) is also trying to escape the horrors of WWII.

This is simply not a scary movie. That's the biggest and really the only measuring stick for a horror movie. At almost 2 hours, it's way too long. The pace is way too slow. The look of the production seems smaller than what the budget would indicate.

The feel of the movie hearkens back to the 70s, and not in good way. Horror movies have moved on, but this one still believes that flies are scary. The CGI is not the best. The blood and guts are acceptable. The baby with maggots looks creepy. But other times, the movie holds back too much. The coyote attack should have been scary, but it's never given a chance. It's just not good enough for today's audience.