Best movie ever!

Watch something else. There are very few redeeming qualities to this film.

While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

The movie runs out of plot and jokes well before the end of a two-hour running time, long for a light comedy.

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.

I have tired to watch this movie a few times, only well, i fell a sleep in the first 2 times, I did put a bit late, so i decided to give it another today, when day was light. Now that I have seen the whole movie, I don't think it was all that bad, there were some creepy moment in this movie that worked really.There were really cool bloody scenes that really liked in this all though I don't think It really fitted in this movie. There was really calm moment in this movie, which do feel little boring at times.The acting wasn't great in some part of the movie, I felt some of actor Could not be bother that near the end of the movie as the acting didn't look as lazy at the start. 5/10 But I not sure if, i Should see Dominion: Prequel to the Exorcist (2005) - I Heard it kinda of the same! (I Will give it watch maybe next week)

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.

I watched this movie right after I saw "Dominion" (I realize this one was made first), and I must say I thought this was so much better. Don't get me wrong, "Dominion" was good, but "The Beginning" was so much more in-depth, answering some of my questions that lingered from the other. Among the notable differences that I appreciated seeing were Merrin digging up the empty graves of the natives, his flashbacks being segmented instead of just a "hey -- this happened" at the start of the movie, more of the characters dying for the sake of the ambiance (these aren't exactly supposed to be feel good movies are they?), and the woman being possessed instead of adding this random "Che Che" character (she was so much creepier!) This version had me staring at the screen with my jaw hanging open several times, which is a pretty difficult reaction to get out of me these days. After seeing this, I was even a little disappointed to watch the original Exorcist again. I recommend this to anyone who has a strong stomach (compared to the others in the series) and wants to see a good "scary" movie.