"A new chapter of evil."

Exorcist: The Beginning (2004): 7/10

Poster (c) Warner Bros.

Nobody wastes money like Warner Bros. Not only do they make a lot of movies that probably just barely get their money back (Taking Lives, Chasing Liberty, et al), but they made two versions of Exorcist: The Beginning. Paul Schrader created a version that WB didn't like because it wasn't gory enough, so instead of just releasing it, they hired Renny Harlin to direct a completely new version of it, one with more gore and in-your-face imagery. Thankfully, both versions will be released onto DVD, but Harlin's version made it into theaters. No one can tell which is the better version yet, but a lot of people have jumped onto the bandwagon of hating this movie simply because it's a prequel, when, in reality, it just barely pales in comparison to the original Exorcist.

Lankester Merrin (Stellan Skarsgård), a fallen preist, goes to Kenya for an archaeological dig, where he finds the devil lives. Supposedly taking place ten to twelve years before the original (but taking place 30), Merrin has to battle the demon he would exorcise out of Regan MacNeil later. Of course, somewhere along the line, he rediscovers his faith, as he helps out the people in Kenya.

I didn't think that the first Exorcist was the ultimate in horror, but I wasn't unfond of it. Beginning gives us the backstory that we didn't really need about Merrin (incidentally, Skarsgard is 10 years older than von Sydow was in the first one), but that doesn't make it uninteresting. The story, which takes its time getting going, is very interesting and exciting. I don't remember one boring part, although the Nazi flashbacks (you heard right) seemed to get a little old after a while. Besides the disturbing images (which there are a good number of), Beginning has its share of spooky scenes and terrifying scenes. Nothing really lasting, but very surprising. It's more than the ghastly images, its the mood that's created that spooks you, and once again, I'll say that I was very surprised by the result of Exorcist: The Beginning.

Then why didn't I give it a higher rating? All because of Renny Harlin. His directing was so muddled it was occasionally hard to take. About every single shot is an extreme close up for absolutely no purpose at all, a lot of symbolism is obvious and wasted (wow-crows are bad-quite original), and, worst of all, Harlin drags out the story to make himself think that the audience thinks that they don't know if the people are possessed or not. We know that they are (the title and the obvious fact that they are), yet Harlin drags this out for about half of the movie unnecessarily. Also, every time CGI is used, it's extremely fake, especially for the wolves. Harlin is probably the worst choice WB could have picked.

The always reliable Skarsgard does a great job here. The role is a challenging role, yet he does very well with it. Former Bond girl Izabella Scorupco does okay as the only other main character, but is nothing memorable. But Exorcist: The Beginning is memorable simply because it defies expectations. It's not this awful film everyone makes it out to be. It's a surprisingly scary film, probably the scariest of the year.

Rated R for strong violence and gore, disturbing images and rituals, and for language including some sexual dialogue.

Review Date: August 31, 2004