Official "Exorcist: The Beginning" discussion

Will it be as good as the original Exorcist ? No, probably not.

Will it be as good as Exorcist III ? I doubt it.

Will it be a good looking, intriguing and scary step up from glossy, non-genre friendly "shockers" like Stigmata and Lost Souls ? Certainly looks like it.

I like the look, the colour palette, Skaarsgard always looks appropriately tormented. And contrary to popular opinion. I think Harlin is fantastic at picking up this kind of slack and giving a visceral jolt to potentially staid material. He's entirely dependent on script (Driven and Deep Blue Sea were as frenetic as each other but one had a turd of a script the other a pleasingly brutal and deceptively sly pulp screenplay) but I don't expect this to be a classic, I'm sure it's going to be a cut above the average religious horror.

I'm there with bells on...

Wow. Way to prop up the new movie with significant portions of the original. I suppose I'll give it a chance, and I hope to spend money on both versions at some point (in case someone at WB is reading this).

Well the first version WILL be released on DVD. Paul had that in his contract. I am looking forward to some good religious horror. The trailer makes me look forward to some satanic goodness

This must be the quickest remake EVER!

The trailer makes it look like a vaguely religious Indiana Jones. Weird.

Man, i cannot wait till we get to see Schrader's version and we can vomit peasoup all over WB's decision.

I don't know about you guys, but after watching this trailer I think it looks pretty cool. I'm def. going to get see this one.

I'm excited about this movie.....I thought it looked pretty good in the trailer.

Looks like it may be a good time in the theaters, but a forgettable experience in the long run. Harlin, like that Ron Howard guy, is a good showman; they're films never have much resonating value for me though.

Slightly off topic, I just watched Exorcist III for the first time in, like, a decade. Bought it for four bucks on disc. Let me just say that I really, really enjoyed the hell out of it. My curiosity over this supposed "director's cut" Blatty is pulling together for a future DVD release is high now.

That film is fantastic. The spider-walking patient sequence and the part where George C. Scott's daughter was about to get her head hedge-clipped were aces.

Regarding the new one: the jury is out. Good to hear Tubular Bells again, though.

-DD

This is how I feel too. I liked the trailer I guess, but it looks more like stigmata meets the mummy returns or some such shit. I really enjoyed the article on the schrader version in Fango this month. I like the pyschological approach. That said, I'll still see this. It looks descent, it could still be good. So I'm really wanting to like it, but I don't want to go to see an Exorcist movie and instead get something as mind numbingly awful as End of Days. Not some special effects blown, cgi circle-jerk shit either.

OK, I'm probably way out of the loop on this one, so forgive me if this is a stupid question- there's going to be a director's cut of Exorcist III? Like, for real? Man, that would be cool. I think that is such an awsome flick. Brad Dourif just sends shivers down your spine. You can really see why Peter Jackson wanted him for Wormtonge in LOTR.

It better not turn into movies like Bless the Child, End of Days, Lost Souls, total piece of crap.
I need some fuckin' Satan Love

There's a few horror films based on Christian mysthology that I like, for example the original EXORCIST, ROSEMARY'S BABY, THE PROPHECY and THE OMEN but most of them, especially those made in recent years, are really just laughably bad. Why is that? What do you guys think? I don't think it's just bad storytellers telling bad stories. I think the problem has to be more profound than that. Part of it may be that many people have lost their faith. When I watched the EXORCIST rerelease a couple years ago people were giggling instead of being scared. Satan, the Devil just doesn't seem to frighten people the same way it did 30 years ago.

It's just a question of context and interpretation. Though only 30 years ago, 1974 was a less culturally sophisticated time, audiences were less used to seeing such overtly in your face expressions of fairly hard hitting imagery. Of course, as times change, attitudes become desensitized to the shock of the new.

Something like The Rapture for instance, has less bluntly horrific elements, but is still as disturbing as anything in The Exorcist because it's the ideology that is at the forefront, not any special effects or shock tactics.

Looking beyond those cinematic tactics, The Exorcist is still a deeply troubling picture, for me, ideologically speaking. Whether those ideas are enough for an audience, I don't know. That seems to be what Schrader wnated. Maybe he was way off the mark. Maybe we should trust Morgan Creek and Caleb Carr.(I don't think this was tested a la thwe Gabriel Yared/James Horner Troy score debalce). Maybe we shouldn't.

All I know is, I'm glad we'll get to see both approaches to the material.

I don't know how The Prophecy got mentioned up there with the big three. Anyway, there are plenty of religious moviegoers to sustain a satanic flick. Just look at how they flocked to see The Passion. Surely they'll be enthralled by the exploits of Father "Indy" Merrin. Or maybe the faithful will treat The Exorcist like the Republicans are treating Fahrenheit - they'll ignore it, hoping it goes away.

If a zombie movie comes along though, all bets are off.........

Those underground shrine shots certainly got my attention. Expect a lot of jump-up frights, but probably not much of depth. Be interesting to compare the two version, though.

I think I read that Schrader's contract stipulated a theatrical showing, not necessarily a DVD release. Weren't they going to do just a couple screenings in L.A. or something?

The DVD release probably has more to do with money. They've spent so much, and they have 2 almost completely different movies. Why sit on one, when the horror crowd can and will buy both? With the bootleg problem growing out of control lately, it makes sense to have an official release of the alternate version bringing in money for the studio. Otherwise you know that every horror fan would be buying the Schrader version on Ebay DVD-Rs no matter which version is better.

I don't care what anyone says... Exorcist 2 is still my favorite.

Saw the trailer before "Harold & Kumar go to White Castle" on friday. It looks interesting, nothing to special, I'll see it when it comes out.


I was thinking the same thing

Now that I've read the Fango articles and have seen the trailer a few times I'm looking forward to seeing both versions as well. I hope they don't pull a fast one and decide to not release the first on DVD. I wonder what they'll do so that the average Joe doesn't get confused as to which version is which.

It looks like Indiana Jones because we get to see Father Merin as the archeologist.

The description of the sets has me intrigued. They sound awesome. I do think both directors are coming from the right place as far as the FX go. Neither one wanted a lot of CGI and that's good to hear. I'm hoping for some decent gore.

Even if they do suck it's still cool to drive down the tollway and see a giant billboard with The Exorcist written across it.

The horror genre needs this to be good.

Some news about about Renny Harlin's version.
http://www.nypost.com/entertainment/26781.htm
"Alien vs. Predator" opens today without advance critics' screenings, an anticipate-negative-reviews strategy also being followed by next Friday's "The Exorcist: In the Beginning."


Some news about Paul Schrader's version.
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/38/features-foundas.php
NOTE: After completing the interviews for this article, I received a message from William Peter Blatty saying that Schrader had sent him a copy of his version of Exorcist: The Beginning and that, in spite of his initial reservations, he found it to be “wonderfully acted and directed,” “elegant” and “a class act.” In fact, he liked it so much he watched it twice.

All reviews indicate that this flick is a steaming pile and has some of the worst CGI effects ever comitted to film.

So I was wondering if anybody here has seen it? Harry Knowles and Devin Faraci both say it's about as pleasant as crotch rot but I'd still like some Corner opinions ...

In further news the film made $7 million on Friday and looks likely to gross $20 million this weekend, securing the #1 spot.

I haven't made it to the theatre yet and likely won't for a while. I'm down and out at the moment. After going through what it has and the latest shitty trend in horror flicks I'd say it probably will suck. Too bad. I may just wait for DVD on this one and get both versions hopefully.

It had some very cool images in it. There is also a lot of gore and plenty of bad CGI on display. I thought Harlin said that he was keeping CGI at a minimum so that it would fit in with the original. I liked the idea of the old Christian church built upon the remains of a Pagan site. You'd think a creepy church would lead to some tension or atmosphere. There were a hell of a lot of jump scares but there wasn't a feeling of dread like there was in the original or in the third movie. The film is very slow paced and I was into it for the first hour. In the last act, there are just too many things going on. This movie should have been about Father Merrin getting his faith back and it's set up for that. He just suddenly gets his faith back towards the end of the movie and he goes off to battle the demon. The last thirty minutes are hilarious! It was like Father Merrin had been transformed into Ash and he was battling it out with a Deadite. The demon does some bad CGI twisting and wall walking while yelling things like 'Don't you want to fuck me!?' The theater I was in erupted into hooting and laughter for about the last half hour of it. The trend of bad horror at the theater continues. What in the hell is going to break this string? I'm still interested in seeing Schrader's version on DVD. I'm almost certain it won't have the same amount of CGI. I read a Fangoria article where Harlin said every sequence and plot point that happens in Africa was completely reinvented for this version.

I might get it when it is a 7 day rental at my video store out of curiosity or boredom, but this movie just looks bad. Not fun bad, 'Exorcist 2: The Heretic' bad.

First off, haven't seen the movie yet but I'm going later today, but I had to give my answer to Wetbones: I think it's because people don't believe anymore, especially the younger generation. Maybe Satan needs to give us a good genuine possession to make people believe again. Another reason, with the exception of the language, there's really nothing in the original that can't be see in a PG-13 movie these days. Today's PG-13 is yesterday's R.

I don't generally like to post other people's shit but I found this on AICN and found it to be simply hilarious!
I had to share it w/ my fellow CHUDites.

Seriously, the studios are only hiring the hacks these days in an effort to kill off all our beloved franchises. I still blame Renny Harlin for shoving a stake through the heart of the Nightmare on Elm Street series. Dream Master was the first of the campy, comical, shitty Freddy movies culminating in Freddy's Dead. It took the series creator Wes Craven and then the awesome Ronnie Yu to bring that franchise back! All of Renny's movies are pure shite! He deserves to be in the hack hall of fame along w/ the likes of Uwe(the new Ed Wood) Boll, Paul (Writes Shit) Anderson, and Stephen (king CGI hack) Sommers!

I'm not a religious person, but have studied up on Catholicism. Granted just because something steeps itself in metaphor and symbolism doesn't necessarily mean it speaks to me. And after going back and watching THE EXCORCIST when it was rereleased to the theatres a couple of years ago, I honestly think it's overated. Not that it's a bad film. It had some good scares, but I thought III was just as good and definitely better than the wretched 2. So, I'm approaching this one with an open mind.

I'd say the NIGHTMARE franchise started going downhill with FREDDY'S REVENGE. DREAM WARRIORS wasn't bad, but none of the films in the series have come anywhere near matching the genius of the first movie.

The crucifix in the vagina does nothing for you then?

The thing that's awesome about THE EXORCIST is the way it uses atmosphere to infuse the film with fear. Overtly, yeah some of the imagery seems tame, but as a whole there is no way that movie would ever get a PG-13, even if they did take the language out. It's just something unspoken that is part of what a brilliant director Friedkin was at the time, and it really is a horrifically creepy movie.

And as Trinity said, yeah the crucifix, and the whole 'lick me' thing and some of that stuff... even in today's world, that's surely R material.

Barring the aformentioned crucifix masturbation, a movie can be rated R that is fairly tame by gore standards if it's disturbing enough. Exorcist, being the most disturbing movie of all time for me, would definetly get an R.

Anyway, didn't the rerelease retain the R rating?

Dreamwarriors is an awesome movie that was at least fun and definitely entertaining to watch.

"Welcome to prime time bitch!!"
"Sorry kid-- I don't believe in fairy-tales!"

At least Freddy's Revenge attempted to be scary-- and I still dig watching the pool scene:

Kid:"Hey man-- calm down, I'm here to help you"
Krueger:"Help yourself Fucker!"

No Harlin screwed the pooch on the Elm Street series. It was all downhill from there. At least FvJ was good campy and entertaining summer popcorn fare. Bring FvJvA!

Sorry to derail the thread.

DREAM WARRIORS was fun, but it wasn't scary in the least. REVENGE may have tried to be scary, but it failed miserably, and thus the original NIGHTMARE is the only flick in the series that's anywhere near scary. Like THE EVIL DEAD it's a dirty little nasty piece of work with a sick sense of humour and some great ideas. But I think taking into account your opinion of FREDDY VS JASON versus mine (I think it's a piece of shit and a disgrace to both franchises, which is saying a lot with films like FREDDY'S DEAD and JASON X in your ouvre), we're never going to be on the same wavelength, so it's best to just agree to disagree and get back to THE EXORCIST.

Exorcist: The Beginning grossed $18,175,000 this weekend. Not bad but also hardly spectacular considering both films together cost over $100 million to make.

In further box office news AvsP dropped almost 70% from last weekend. I guess the general public didn't like it that much after all ...

By that i hope you mean they cost $100 million combined. I thought they cost about $40 million each, which, although cheaper than you suggest, still puts the studio in a financial hole.
Good.

(edit) actually i think that's what you did mean. never mind me.

Yes, that's what I meant. Scharder's version cost about $40 million, Harlin's version about $60 million. Add marketing costs and (hopefully) a disastrous plunge by next weekend and this should turn out to be a failure on every imaginable level.

Good indeed.

My question too is what is going to break this trend? Why has God forsaken us? Too much crap all in a row disrheartens me greatly. What is on the horizon that is going to turn things around this year? Last year was great. What the hell happened.

Despite the negative reviews I think I will definitely buy both versions on DVD when they get released and seeing how little they have made back so far lends me to believe that they will both be released and soon after it leaves theatres.

Well, supposedly SHAUN OF THE DEAD is as close to the Second Coming as you can get ...

I am looking forward to that.

Believe the hype. SHAUN is awesome. Unless you don't like humour in your horror, in which case you'd be advised to seek something else.

I saw the trailer. I believe and I like humour in horror.

Oh my God... I just spent $8.00 and two hours of my life that I will never ever get back... I should have read the messages in this forum.